Metiria says she’ll pay it back
Stuff reports:
Metiria Turei says she will pay back the money she owes to Work and Income after admitting she lied while she was a beneficiary.
I hope that includes 25 years or so of interest.
Last night I went and saw the Christopher Nolan movie Dunkirk. I was always planning on seeing it but it helps that the average rating of the 170+ movie critics aggregated on Rotten Tomatoes was a staggering 98%.
It was a stunning movie at every level. Perhaps the quickest way to describe it was that it had the intensity of the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan but without the gore but sustaining that intensity for the entire 1 hour 45-minute long movie! The movie, and a movie covering a similar time frame called Darkest Hour to be released in November, explores one of the defining moments of World War 2. The movie had a special poignancy for our family because my grandfather was a British Army Chaplain and was captured at Dunkirk and spent 5 years incarcerated in German POW camps. A local newspaper from his home town at the time said that he had turned down a place on the last destroyer to lift troops from the Dunkirk beach to stay and tend to wounded troops who had valiantly held the perimeter from the German Army.
Whilst on paper the Dunkirk evacuation (Operation Dynamo) was the culmination of a spectacular failure of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in France to prevent a German breakthrough to the northern French coastline and thus creating the eventual encirclement of the BEF at Dunkirk, in reality, the German failure to finish off the British Army, when they had them entirely surrounded and trapped in such a small pocket, was a military blunder that was to have major repercussions for the outcome of the war. Had the majority of Britain’s professional army been killed or captured in France, Britain would’ve sued for peace and stayed out of the war. Germany could’ve immediately attacked Russia when it was even less prepared for war and with a vastly stronger Luftwaffe. By the time Hitler abandoned his plans to invade England in favour of Russian in the summer of 1941, Stalin had worked through the worst of his Army purges and had begun ramping up production of tanks and planes and the Luftwaffe’s strength had been halved by the losses it incurred in the Battle of Britain. An invasion a year earlier would’ve seen Russian less prepared and Hitler would’ve been able to inflict more bombing damage on their industrial infrastructure and it is conceivable that the Soviet Union too would’ve had to surrender. Would America have chosen to be the only army of any size to take on Germany in Europe with a seriously depleted British Army and a defeated Russia? Even after Pearl Harbour it is doubtful. Such unthinkable outcomes were what was at stake if the British had failed in their evacuation of most of the BEF in late May and early June of 1940.
There has been much speculation as to why Hitler issued his infamous halt order to the Wehrmacht thus pausing its advance on the Port of Dunkirk on May 24th, 1940. Whilst it is true that the Wehrmacht’s supply lines were stretched after the unexpected speed of its advance through France and its troops were exhausted, it did not explain why the halt order was not lifted after a day of rest and resupply. The key to the Germans’ tactical blunder lies with the political machinations at the top of the German High Command. The Army Commander General von Rundstedt was certain that his tanks and troops could quickly neutralize the mostly French and some British troops who were holding the perimeter around the town of Dunkirk. It was true that the French troops holding the perimeter put up what most military experts consider to be one of the finest displays of ferocious fighting ever seen by any army. Goering however prevailed upon Hitler to allow his Luftwaffe to finish off the trapped Allied troops by bombing and strafing as a dramatic illustration of air power. Hitler bought the argument and gave Goering a clean run at this task causing the Wehrmacht to cool their heels only 20km from the beaches of Dunkirk for a vital three days. Whilst the Luftwaffe were able to sink 243 ships and kill some 3,500 troops during the evacuation, cloudy even foggy weather over the immediate township of Dunkirk and environs robbed the Luftwaffe of the ability to strafe and bomb the amassed troop formations when they were more concentrated on the beaches leaving them to try and horizontal and dive bomb individual ships in the English Channel – a much more difficult and diffuse target. Also, the RAF, whilst prevented by Fighter Command Air Vice Marshall Dowding from sending too many fighters to the French theatre, nonetheless a good number of Spitfire and Hurricane patrols over the Channel did provide some cover to ships ferrying troops by shooting down some of the Luftwaffe fighters and bombers tasked by Goering to prevent the evacuation.
The French contribution to the success of the Dunkirk evacuation is largely overlooked by not only the British Press who at the time who mythologised the evacuation but also by many historians who tended to praise more the British forces who also helped hold the perimeter. My grandfather spoke a few times of the heroism of the French who had no guarantee that they would be evacuated after their stand. Indeed another often overlooked part of the Dunkirk evacuation was the role of the French navy in the movement of Allied troops off the beaches but also the numbers of private French vessels that joined the flotilla of small boats from England, action that was the key to the success of the evacuation as these small craft were instrumental in allowing a much larger number of larger Royal and French navy destroyers, frigates, minesweepers, cargo and supply ships to be brought into the evacuation because the smaller craft could travel to within 100m of the shallow beaches allowing troops to wade straight from the beach to these small boat and then to be ferried to the larger craft which had to remain offshore due to their size. Fully one third of these crucial pleasure craft used so effectively were French.
Over the 8 days of the evacuation, almost 340,000 troops were ferried to safety in England including 130,000 French troops and over 200,000 members of the BEF. 3,500 British troops were killed and some 50,000 were captured. Whilst the numbers who made it to safety were vastly in excess of the Royal Navy’s initial estimate of 30-40,000 enabling many to call the operation the Miracle of Dunkirk, the loss of equipment on the beaches was huge and included huge supplies of ammunition, 880 field guns, 310 guns of large calibre, some 500 anti-aircraft guns, about 850 anti-tank guns, 11,000 machine guns, nearly 700 tanks, 20,000 motorcycles, and 45,000 cars and trucks and over 140,000 gallons of fuel. The British media were ecstatic that so many of the BEF made it to safety and a wave of grateful euphoria swept the nation with tens of thousands volunteering at arrival locations and train stations across the south to provide food, tea, blankets, clothing and cheering on the returning troops. Churchill, while relieved given the dire predictions of the likely loss of troops, nonetheless wisely cautioned the British people at the beginning of his famous “We will fight on beaches” speech to Parliament on June 4th, 1940 that “we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations”.
On final personal note, it took some 2 months for the Swedish Red Cross (the neutral organisation designated as the formal conduit for information regarding Allied prisoners of the Germans and vice versa) to formally confirm to the War Office that my grandfather was indeed a German POW. However, one of his cousins was on secondment to a very senior adviser in the US State Department and had gotten word of my grandfather’s capture via US Army Intelligence sources. I have seen the famous telegram to my grandmother from the US Assistant Secretary of State (ranked I believe No. 3) advising of the capture. In those days, the War Office would not release the partial pay of the captured soldier to a spouse until the formal status of the Missing in Action soldier was confirmed. My grandmother took a train to London with the high-ranking S of S telegram in hand but this was insufficient proof for the War Office to release my grandpa’s pay. That did not occur until the Swedish Red Cross confirmed his status through official German channels! My grandfather was to spend a few days short of 5 years in a variety of German POW camps because of his decision at Dunkirk.
Stuff reports:
Metiria Turei says she will pay back the money she owes to Work and Income after admitting she lied while she was a beneficiary.
I hope that includes 25 years or so of interest.
Steven Cowan blogs:
Tiso, it would be fair to say, is exasperated with the state of left wing politics in this country. Perhaps “exasperation” is too mild a description but I can well imagine him often thinking why on earth “we still have to fight this bullshit”.He was recently fighting this bullshit on Twitter.Tiso made a reasonable request of Green Party co-Metiria Turei. He tweeted to her: “Could we kindly stop emotionally blackmailing left wing critics of Labour by pleading that people are hurting and need a change of government?’The response from Turei was appalling. She wrote: “I’m going to ask all of us to band together to fight the real enemy – National. And its because of the 15 kids who will die this winter.”The implication of this comment, displaying both arrogance and insensitivity in equal measure, is that if you are not part of Turei’s gang to put her and her parliamentary chums into government, then you are condemning children to death. It is little wonder that Tiso described this comment as “obscene”.He also tweeted: “Our politics simply cannot reduce itself to “Vote for us, we promise to kill 15 fewer children than our opponents.” It just can’t.”
Apologies for the delay…
Stuff reports:
Former Prime Minister John Key will be receiving Australia’s highest honour at a ceremony in Canberra on Tuesday.
Sir John – who was knighted in the 2017 Queen’s Birthday honours – has been appointed an Honorary Companion in the Order of Australia, and will be invested with the insignia by Australia’s Governor General.
“I was shocked and stunned when I got the phone call from PM Turnbull,” Sir John said on Monday evening.
“In my mind it’s a recognition of the closeness of our bi-lateral relationship. This honour should be viewed far more as a recognition of the bond between our two countries more than a personal award.
“I had always viewed Australia as our most important relationship and worked to ensure my actions reflected that.”
A fair dinkum honour!
Winston has said he wants a binding referendum on reducing Parliament to 100 MPs.
Of interest if Parliament had only 100 MPs (20 fewer List MPs), then Labour would get no List MPs and Andrew Little would not be in Parliament.
Could this be Winston’s strategy? he has already talked about howLittle is at risk of losing his seat even with 120 MPs. Make it 100 MPs and Little is definite goneburger unless he can find a winnable electorate seat.
John Armstrong writes:
Turei has made little secret of her ambition to be in charge of the Social Development portfolio in a Labour-Greens coalition government.
Were she to become Social Development minister following September’s election and had she not disclosed her misleading of Work and Income, the Social Development ministry’s operational arm, the prime minister (whoever that might yet turn out to be) would have no choice but to sack her were those indiscretions to have become public.
Can you imagine it – a welfare fraudster in charge of welfare. It would be like putting a tax evader in charge of the IRD.
She has said she and her child lived in five different flats with various people while she completed her law degree. In three of those flats, she had extra flatmates who paid rent. She did not inform Work and Income for fear of her benefit being cut.
Her obvious reluctance to provide more detail is nothing short of a disgrace. It is also very telling.
In the absence of more detail — most crucially how much money she received to which she was not entitled — it is incumbent on her as an MP to put things right — at least as much as can be done so.
She should have fessed up a lot earlier, apologised and paid back her best estimate of how much she owed to Work and Income.
If upon being made a candidate for Parliament she had gone to WINZ and paid back what she stole, and disclosed then when first standing, then there would be little fuss. Few people have led a blameless life.
But what grates is she has never paid the money back, and uses her own fraud as a political weapon to support their policy to make welfare a lifetime entitlement.
Blaming the system for her cheating of the system enables her to absolve herself of all responsibility for her misleading the system.
One can only conclude she doesn’t think she did anything wrong.
Saying that she will only pay the money back if Work and Income demands it hardly fulfils that obligation.
She is in line to become Welfare Minister if Labour-Greens for a Government. It is awfully unfair on WINZ to say they have to investigate her before she pays any money back. Which civil servant wants to start an investigation into their potential future Minister?
She endeavoured to turn her breach of the law into a launching pad for her party’s welfare policy. That is audacious. It is also the height of arrogance. It is also to enter very dangerous territory. It implies you are above the law. It says it is okay to break the law in order to try and change it.
In that light, the politics almost fade into insignificance. But not quite.
First, the exposure of Turei’s flouting of the law will further alienate low-income families in which both parents work long hours and who consequently cannot abide welfare cheats.
Those voters are already deserting the centre-left. Turei’s holier-than-thou disposition is hardly going to attract them back.
Well paid urban liberals on Twitter form an echo chamber for Turei and some (not all) in the media. If they get outside their bubble they would be staggered by how much anager is out there about what Turei has done – from low income working parents.
Secondly, the huge emphasis Turei is giving to the Greens’ social justice priorities is not only pitting her party in direct competition with Labour. It is also pushing her party’s essential point of difference — its promotion of environmental matters — into the shadows.
It is hard to imagine how someone with Turei’s political experience could be employing an election strategy as flawed as the one she is running.
It is becoming even harder to understand why her colleagues are still giving her such free rein to keep doing so.
Great news for TOP. The Greens are now running primarily on making welfare a lifetime entitlement, rather than environmental issues.
BBC reports:
An eight-month old Canadian baby has been issued a health card without a gender marker, in what could be the first case in the world.
Parent Kori Doty – a non-binary transgender person who identifies as neither male nor female – aims to allow the child to discover their own gender.
The health card has been issued with a “U” in the space for “sex”, which could be for “undetermined” or “unassigned”.
Kori Doty is fighting to omit the gender from the birth certificate.
The parent gave birth to Searyl Atli in November at a friend’s home in British Columbia. Kori Doty, who prefers to use the pronoun they, argues that a visual inspection at birth is unable to determine what gender that person will have or identify with later in life.
They want to keep Searyl’s sex off all official records.
“I’m raising Searyl in in such a way that until they have the sense of self and command of vocabulary to tell me who they are, I’m recognising them as a baby and trying to give them all the love and support to be the most whole person that they can be outside of the restrictions that come with the boy box and the girl box,” the parent was quoted by CBC as saying.
Seems rather silly. Absolutely some peopel do have a gender identity different to their physical gender but to refuse to recognise what the physical gender is seems over the top.
The Herald editorial:
Metiria Turei must have known she was taking a risk when she confessed to benefit fraud at the Green Party conference last weekend. She appears to have underestimated just how great that risk was.
In releasing the Greens’ family policy, Turei told a sympathetic audience of party members that she lied to Work and Income about her living circumstances in the early 1990s, when she was a solo mother doing her law degree and raising her young daughter while on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. She had flatmates to help her pay the rent in three of the five flats she lived in over a three-year period but did not tell Winz officials because they would have cut her benefit.
So this was not a one off decision. She did it three times. She lied about how much rent she was paying in order to get more money from the taxpayer.
This may make her a hero to her party members, but to most taxpayers it makes her a criminal.
Supporters have argued that this is relatively minor offending, comparable to paying a tradesperson for a cash job or being economical with the truth on an insurance claim.
Many of us have done it, which doesn’t make it right but as – Deputy Prime Minister and former beneficiary Paula Bennett surprisingly suggested – perhaps we should pause before casting the first stone.
Spread over three years however, Turei’s lie of omission starts to look less like a one-off act of dishonesty and more like a systematic attempt to rort the system. Letter writers and talkback callers have voiced their anger over what they see as her sense of entitlement to public money – not helped by the fact that taxpayers are providing her with a huge salary today.
It does indeed look systematic. I don’t think it is the same as paying a tradeperson for a cash job (under law the onus is on the tradesperson to report the income).
There is also considerable public anger over her selective and self-serving morality. Turei has effectively argued that she had a moral right to rip off the system because she had to feed her baby. She is wrong because hardship doesn’t give anyone the right to break the law. Her example encourages others to do the same and is unfair on those who struggle through legally. It is a particularly bad look coming from a party leader on a base salary of $173,000 a year.
Actually her salary is more that that. It is around $178,500 plus $32,000 super contribution, $4,600 of perks and $17,000 of expenses for a total remuneration of over $230,000.
She can afford to pay it back now, and she should.
Stuff reports:
A police officer waged a harassment campaign on a Dunedin businessman for more than two years.
Jeremy Fraser Buis, 39, was convicted on a raft of charges relating to the harassment of Daniel Pryde after a June 2012 parking dispute escalated.
Suppression of his occupation was lifted in the High Court at Dunedin on Monday.
His occupation should never have been supressed after he was found guilty. The public had a right to know that the person who harrassed a member of the public for two years was a police officer.
Good to see the suppression lifted finally.

Stuff reports:
The Greens have lost their second co-deputy leader, after Larissa Waters was caught in the same constitutional dual-citizenship muddle as Aus-NZ citizen Scott Ludlam.
The Queensland senator, who was first elected in 2011, said she recently discovered she is a Canadian dual citizen, and, under section 44 of the constitution, is therefore ineligible to stand for the Australian parliament and has been forced to resign from the senate.
To lose one Senator is careless, to lose two is ….
Karl du Fresne writes:
The Left has a problem here. Political violence in the past has often been associated with the far Right, but these days it’s the self-righteous rage of the Left that presents by far the greater threat to democracy.
It manifests itself not just in outright violence, but also in the howling down of any opinions that challenge Leftist orthodoxy. Alarmingly, this intolerance of dissent has taken hold in universities, once regarded as bastions of free speech and critical thought.
This process has been hastened by the rise of identity politics, which aggrieved minority groups use as a platform for demanding special treatment, and by the fashionable dogma of post-modernism, which dismisses reason and truth as artificial constructs that serve the interests of ruling elites.
And of course if you are a guy and try to discuss or debate something, someone accuses you of mansplaining.
Being a generally moderate society, New Zealand has yet to be exposed to the worst excesses of Leftist fundamentalism, such as the incidents in Hamburg or Caracas. But that’s not to say it can’t happen here. …
We see it too in the use of language designed to demonise opponents and de-legitimise dissent. On a recent Facebook post, Maori activist Joe Trinder described the lobby group Hobson’s Pledge as a “hate group” – the far Left’s standard term of denunciation for any group that threatens to stand in the way of the identity politics agenda.
Hobson’s Pledge is the group founded by Brash to promote the concept of equality before the law, regardless of ethnicity. This is hardly a novel or dangerous idea; on the contrary, it’s in line with basic democratic principles.
But it makes Brash the enemy of people like Trinder, who advocates special treatment for Maori. So he calls Hobson’s Pledge a “hate group”, thereby putting it on the same level as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party.
This is a gross and offensive distortion of what Hobson’s Pledge stands for, but that’s unlikely to worry Trinder. It also implies that Brash is some sort of reincarnated Joseph Goebbels, although there’s no evidence to indicate there’s a racist bone in his body.
Trinder’s Facebook post gave his followers licence to unleash a torrent of abusive obscenities against Brash. Some threatened violence; others called for Hobson’s Pledge billboards to be torn down. So much for free speech and diversity.
There’s room in the political system for both Trinder and Brash. The difference is that Brash doesn’t try to bully his opponents into silence, threaten them or subject them to vile personal abuse. So why do Trinder and his followers think it’s acceptable?
A good question.
The Herald reports:
NZ First leader Winston Peters has dismissed suggestions of a revolt in his ranks over the Maori seats, but said he will reveal soon whether his proposed referendum on the future of the seats would be for all voters or for Maori.
Peters announced plans to hold a binding referendum on the future of the seats at his party’s annual conference – a shift from the 2014 position which favoured abolishing the seats but leaving it to Maori themselves to decide when.
That was assumed to be a referendum of all voters – but Peters is now hinting that may not be the case.
Asked about recent comments by both candidate Shane Jones and NZ First MP Pita Paraone about leaving the fate of the seats to Maori voters, Peters said he believed it should be up to Maori.
However, as well as Maori on the Maori roll, there were also Maori on the general roll and those who were not enrolled at all to consider.
So Winston conned everyone into thinking it would be a referendum in which all adult New Zealanders could vote on, but actually there may be fine print that it would be a referendum of Maori New Zealanders only.
Peters said Maori voters were leaving the Maori seats in their droves and the majority of Maori were on the general roll rather than Maori roll.
However, Electoral Commission statistics show 55 per cent are on the Maori roll and 45 per cent on the general roll.
They also show that in each Maori electoral option far more Maori have switched from the general to the Maori roll than vice versa – and new enrolments also favour the Maori roll by a significant margin.
How shocking – Winston as usual made up a fact and got it wrong.
Stuff reports:
The dollar in your pocket is worth just as much as it was three months ago, even if it may not seem like it because of rising prices for basics such as food and rent.
Statistics NZ reported the consumer price index didn’t increase at all in the three months to June, bringing the annual inflation rate down from 2.2 per cent to 1.7 per cent.
Good. Low inflation helps families and also means interest rates should stay low for longer, which is huge for those with mortgages.
The Reserve Bank had forecast in May that today’s annual rate would come in at 2.1 per cent.
Even though the official range for targeting is 1% to 3%, I regard inflation of over 2% as too high so good to see it under 2%.

The Labour candidate for New Lynn retweeted this self professed rant. Sadly for them both they ignored those little things called facts.
Let’s even ignore where the other parent is and why they are not contributing to their children’s upbringing. Maybe they died. So we’ll leave that to one side.
A sole parent with two children on $40,000 get $137 a week family tax credit and $72 a week in-work tax credit. They would also get $103 a week accomodation supplement so that is $312 a week in taxpayer support so their $177 a week for expenses is actually $489 a week!
But it gets even better with the changes made in the Budget. That person will benefit by the following from 1 April 2018:
So that is $150 a week more in the hand for that family after 1 April. Their $489 a week after rent will be $639 a week or around four times as much as the ranter said.
Oh the family is also eligible for childcare subsidies of $5.06.
So thanks to the Labour candidate for highlighting the rant so I could explain all this.
Note I am not saying that life will be easy for a sole parent on $40,000 a year. But their $677 net wages gets topped up by taxpayers with another $450 a week, which is I suspect more generous than most OECD countries. And childcare subsidies could be as much as another $200 a week.
Angela Cumming at The Spinoff has a very good piece on Hamilton City Councillor Siggy Henry. Here’s a summary of her beliefs and statements:
The Greens policy on welfare is truly terrible. It reverses policies which have sucessfully dropped the numbers on welfare to record lows. We have a abundance of data that shows kids growing up in a household where no parents work do far far worse in terms of life outcomes. And this is taking into accoung relative income levels.
So how bad is the Greens policy. It would mean:
Basically the Greens want to abolish welfare fraud by gettind rid of all the requirements around honesty and looking for work! This is like abolishing crime by getting rid of the Crimes Act!
We have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. But it is based on there being both rights and responsibilities. The Greens want to abolish all responsibilies such as looking for a job and make welfare a lifetime entitlement.

Am here for a week with family. Blogging will be at a reduced rate.
Stuff reports:
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will visit New Zealand this month.
Sources have confirmed the trip, although there an official announcement is yet to be made.
Johnson is one of Britain’s most flamboyant politicians and is emerging as one of the main contenders to roll Theresa May as prime minister after she nearly cost the Conservative Party an unlosable election.
The former London mayor, was appointed Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs after being one of the leading champions of the so-called Brexit vote withdrawing Britain from the European Union.
Boris is one of my favourite politicians. Imagine if he does become Prime Minister – Trump and Boris in charge!
National Review reports:
The study, commissioned by the city government of Seattle and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that Seattle’s law incrementally raising its minimum wage — to $13 an hour last year, en route to $15 — resulted in low-wage workers’ earning less money rather than more.
Yep they ended up poorer. How?
The short version is: You can pass a law saying you have to pay low-wage workers more, but you cannot pass a law that says you have to hire them in the first place, or that you cannot cut back on hours when the price of hourly labor goes up.
Modest increases in the minimum wage have been shown to avoid these effects but large increases get this response.
As businesses responded to the new higher labor costs by reorganizing their processes in less labor-intensive ways (the classic examples here are the replacement of wait staff with computer screens in restaurants and the replacement of bank clerks with more sophisticated ATMs), the law that was supposed to increase low-wage workers’ incomes actually reduced them — substantially, by an average of $125 a month.
That’s a big drop in income. The key findings are: