By Alex Tarrant
It's almost not news. But National has 'announced' its desire to work again with current partners ACT, UnitedFuture and the Maori Party after the 23 September election.
Prime Minister Bill English said this would likely provide for a more stable government than if National had to turn to New Zealand First and its "colourful" leader, Winston Peters, to form a government. However, he kept the door open for working with Peters.
The National election wishlist includes 'accommodation deals' for electorate seats for ACT leader David Seymour in Epsom and UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne in Ohariu, where National Party supporters are encouraged to give National their party vote, but the two other party leaders their electorate vote.
That's done in the hope that ACT and/or UnitedFuture receive above roughly 1.2% of the general party vote, which would allow them to bring in another MP or two on their leaders' coat-tails. ACT looks the more likely of the two at doing that at the moment, with the latest Curia poll of public polls showing them on 1% versus UnitedFuture on 0.1%.
That poll of polls shows National on a 47% party vote, which would mean 57 seats in a 121-seat Parliament. Add ACT and UnitedFuture's one electorate seat each, and the Maori Party's projected two seats currently, that gives a majority of 61 seats. The Maori Party's currently polling at 1.7%, which would allow that second MP in on the list if Te Ururoa Flavell wins his seat (ie the status quo).
It wasn't in the initial National Party press release, but Prime Minister Bill English later told reporters that he would encourage people on the Maori electorate role to vote for their Maori Party candidate, and also went a step further by saying encouraging them to give their party vote to the Maori Party as well.
Other polls of polls show it isn't that easy for National to get back in. Veteran political journalist Colin James runs one for Radio NZ which also includes several private polls that National and Labour have run for them. That shows National down on 45.9% - a result that would see them likely requiring New Zealand First in order to form a government.
NZ First's position also means Labour and the Greens would require it to be able to form a government as well. It could be done - just - based on James' results.
NZ First leader Winston Peters has been sending mixed messages in recent weeks. He has called on Bill English to resign, and he also engaged in a public spat with Greens co-leader Metiria Turei over who had the more racist policies. Peters warned of "consequences" for the Greens but did not rule out working with them.
This seems to have encouraged the Greens back onto a bit of a charm offensive. Turei was last night speaking at a gender equality event alongside Labour's Jacinda Ardern and New Zealand First's Tracy Martin. When she took to the podium, Turei said the Greens were excited about being able to form a government with their "friends."
"That's us," Ardern piped up.
"And Tracy," Turei quickly added. Later, after Martin had backed comments made by Turei, the Greens co-leader let the audience know: "See, we can work together."
Winston Peters has a "colourful" history
Asked by media in Parliament whether he was announcing the electorate accommodation deals because he did not want to work with Winston Peters, English said National had indicated since the start of the year that its preference was to keep working with its current partners.
“The arrangements we’ve had in place have provided stable, consistent government for nine years. And it works well. There are some tensions around it, which I think we’ve done a good job of managing. We haven’t ruled out Winston Peters, or even the Greens – they’ve ruled themselves out. But this is our preference,” English said.
On whether Peters provide the same stable government as the current support partners: “I think that’s…certainly our view is, this arrangement of parties is more likely to provide stable government. And it’s got a track record of doing that," he said.
“Mr Peters has got a bit of history. Our history with these parties is positive.”
Does he trust Winston Peters? “It’s up to the voters. They will decide essentially who we need to work with, or any party needs to work with. And of course we would follow the will of the electorate. Mr Peters does have history in government, which is colourful, and we’d prefer to work with these [current] parties.”
99 Comments
Is Turei that Fraudster who has been in the media a lot recently for not just openly admiring to fraud but also declaring her intention to become an assesory after the fact / be complicit in on going fraud, by refusing to disclose the identities of fraudsters who make themselves known to her? Do we have IRD style penalties and compounding use of money interest? Why do we allow fraudsters to run for public office?
Including the PM;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2910957/Bill-English-buckles-o…
That was completely legal. It was designed to be so by accountants and lawyers from inception. Had it not been legal it would have been structured differently. You'll also note that Bill declared interests that he wasn't obliged to allowing the administration to determine what he was eligible for based on all relevant data. Bill fully intended to comply with the law and isn't today being complicit in any wrongdoing. Turei fully intended to commit fraud and is to this day openly declaring her intention to be complicit in other people's fraud.
I'm not quite credulous myself to accept that NZ's MPs have not been knowingly fleecing Kiwi taxpayers by working around the law, ignoring the spirit of the law and finding loopholes to exploit the letter of the law.
You're not allowed to claim a rental allowance to rent a house you own. Oh, great...so what next? Oh, put it in a trust under the wife's name, for example, then you can grab that extra money from the taxpayer. Or - even up to today - put it in a private superannuation scheme once those other loopholes are closed.
Let's be realistic and stop being gullible. MPs have surely known exactly that they're working around the intent of the law in order to extract money from taxpayers that the law intended NOT to entitle them to.
So while they rail against beneficiaries for receiving extra dollars they weren't entitled to, MPs have been using loopholes to do exactly the same. Legally different? Sure...Ethically different? I'm not quite so credulous as to accept that.
But, Turei lied to receive that extra money. Okay, Bill English lied to the public about Todd Barclay to maintain political power and stability in a job worth hundreds of thousands per annum.
If honesty is the most important thing, lets see them both resign. I'm on board with that.
The plain fact is, we already chase and prosecute benefit fraud - which is a much smaller issue - much more than tax evasion. See here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/306926/welfare-fraud-targeted-mo…
That is the inherant problem with the law not treating everyone as equals. If the law treated everyone as equals there wouldn't be any need for complicated ownership / taxation structures. The far left always create complicated rules that hammer the middle for the benefit of both the high and low end of the wealth spectrum.
Just give both Bill and Turei the penalty for their respective crimes. Turei (obtaining by deception, 3 years per instance) + (accessory after the fact) 1.5 years per instance). Lying isn't specifically a crime when not under oath before an officer of the court, which crime specifically are you accusing him of?
If the law treated everyone as equals there wouldn't be any need for complicated ownership / taxation structures. The far left always create complicated rules that hammer the middle...
Sounds suspiciously like "If we put laws in place people will work around them, so it's better to get rid of the laws so there's no crime".
It's a sad state when people start to judge every behaviour by whether it's successfully worked around laws and exploited loopholes etc. (English fleecing taxpayers to rent his own house out) rather than having any consideration for ethics and holding folk accountable for their ethics.
Working through the law is legal, if you want to avoid complex structures, simplify the law.
Ignoring the law entirely is anarchy and defeats the purpose of the law. Why even have the law of you are simply going to ignore it? If Turei is ignoring existing laws can we just ignore any law she proposes that we dislike / don't agree with?
The law exists as the consensus of the people with regard to minimum acceptable standards as defined by their elected representatives. The law is therefore more fundamentally just in the opinion of society as a whole than any individual's subjective morality. Publicly flaunting the law and being complicit in helping others to do so should preclude one from being a lawmaker.
Fair points, but in the end the stance of some that "but the way our guys are doing it is technically legal" (re filching extra accommodation allowances) is a poor ethical stance when throwing stones at beneficiaries.
Up there with our disproportionate approach to benefit fraud vs tax evasion.
It's really not credible to think they didn't know it was against the spirit of the law, but sounds more like it was a workaround many were happy to use ("I can get more money if I put my house in my wife's trust! Yay!")...
As you say,
Why even have the law of you are simply going to ignore it?
... exploiting loopholes to avoid the intent of the law most would also put in this bucket. Why have a law that MPs cannot get the taxpayer to pay their rent if they own the house if we let them ignore this through nifty ownership structures, and excuse it with an "Ah well, but it was legal. LOL"
We used to have the concept of honour that also played a role in these things. Conduct that was technically legal but still dishonourable (e.g. fleecing the taxpayers by getting them to pay your rent in a house you own through a trust) would have been a loss of honour and status causing one's resignation.
Now it's all "Nah, it's okay mate, I just exploited a loophole to get this free money", while we vilify the poor who resort to breaking the law. Jean Valjean excepting, obviously.
I would like to see equally strong approaches to tax evasion and white collar crime as to benefit fraud, not a relatively weak approach to either. And some measure of honourable behaviour from our politicians of all stripes.
Law aside, my values judgement on it is that Bill's behaviour was more morally repugnant than Metiria's. I teach ethics and 75% of all my students are of the teleological school of ethical thought - where the determination of what is right and wrong from an ethical/moral perspective is based on the consequences of an action (as opposed to the action itself, which is a deontological view, or one's intentions in taking the action, which is a virtue ethics perspective).
So, when taking this little self-test - asking which one is most you?
1. I never lie because lying is always wrong
2. I would lie if it was the best thing to do in the circumstances, or
3. I find it very difficult to tell a lie
75% upwards of any one class will pick 2. Been running the exercise for enough years to know that the vast majority of the folks who are so indignant about Metiria's offending, lie themselves whenever the circumstances dictate.
Teleological ethics are also referred to as "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" principle - it is the ethics of compromise under which the end justifies the means.
This would seem to explain why some can be so indignant about Turei yet thought the conduct of English, Judith Collins, Todd Barclay was nothing much to get worked up about and should get a free pass. A mixture of "ends justify the means" and "it's not so bad when my side does it".
Which will of course, obviously apply to folk on all "sides".
Doesn't that reasoning imply that if the money spent imprisoning criminals could save the lives of multiple starving African children then we should apply capital punishment to free up more money to save the lives of those starving African children? Yet we still have long term prisoners.
Point 2 should be
2a I would lie if it was the best thing to do in the circumstances without any advantage to myself
2b I would lie if it was the best thing to do in the circumstances where the best thing means me.
When runaway slaves were hidden by Quakers the posse would arrive and say 'you are a Quaker, you never tell a lie; have you seen a runaway slave?' and the Quaker would immediately lie and say NO. On the other hand several Quakers and their families lost farms they had spent a lifetime building because if a low-life took them to court they would not swear on the Bible so could not defend themselves. That seems right to me. A rational compromise and the ends in this example do justify the means. BTW put me down as 3 so the other two options never come into play.
But do you really find it difficult to lie - or relatively easy if you can legitimate it given the circumstances? The point about schools of moral philosophy - there is not one right way or one wrong way - just a number of ways we all interact and make moral decisions.
I did the exercise at a dinner party recently - one guy was a deontologist (I never tell a lie because lying is always wrong) - and a teleologist spent the next half hour telling him he was lying, because everyone lies. It is funny how some folks can't accept that we all don't think and act the same.
Oh the outrage, the outcry, the bloodlust
One thing bothers me about all this.
The extent of the public frenzy over Turei and now Bennet. Every person and their dog are having a lash and 98% is against them
Personally I dont really care one way or another BECAUSE I have greater concern about the cost to the NZ Taxpayer of the tax avoidance by Multi-Nationals and BECAUSE there has been no similar outcry, no outrage, no frenzy, no cacophony - why were they so silent
Virtue ethics considers the moral rightness or wrongness of the intentions of any course of action, as opposed to the moral rightness or wrongness of the act itself (i.e., deontology), or of the consequences of any action (i.e., teleology).
Aristotle speaks of a 'golden mean' - that being, the morally right path in life is to aim for the midpoint between excess and deficiency - and in achieving that midpoint, one makes the most virtuous, or morally good, choices with respect to what action to take.
The virtue at question here is what Aristotle refers to as 'sustenance' (in today's lingo we might refer to it as well-being or lifestyle) - the excess being gluttony, and the deficiency being starvation (although of course all of ones lower hierarchy of needs are at play, but he uses the need for food to illustrate the virtue/concept of 'sustenance').
Bill's intentions were to move his and his dependents already adequate (if not leaning toward gluttonous) sustenance/lifestyle further toward excess. Metiria's intentions were to move her and her dependents more toward the midpoint between excess and deficiency. Hence her intention was more morally virtuous; whereas Bill's was more morally repugnant.
Bill English was complicit in allowing Todd Barclay to lie repeatedly to the media for months. He new Todd's statements were untrue but he took no action. Also his party was involved in organising a payout in order to silence the victim of the illegal actions by Todd.
Has Paula Bennet been asked if she was 100% transparent with WINZ when she was on the benefit?
Indeed Paula Bennett was asked and replied that she "was never deliberately in a position to lie to WINZ" - lol - take from that what you will.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/94789628/new-zealands-welfare-system-i…
And in an RNZ interview, she said “I never lied to them as such.”...
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201851…
The media are onto it - and I suspect soon we'll know the full story, or at least enough for the Deputy PM to head off on garden leave. But, as I understand it, the Nat legal minders are fighting back, so what was initially published in greater detail by Fairfax, had some redacting (I assume for legal reasons?) but it's clear where this is heading;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/94627131
Perhaps, bigger than Barclay :-)? Get your popcorn now.
That's what I wonder about too...will it get to the point where National's votaries are absolutely frothing over Turei, only for similar to come out about Paula Bennett and for the National voters to have to quickly backtrack to the usual "storm in a teacup, nothing to see here" rhetoric?
If Turei ends up having to go, and something comes out on Bennett that backs up accusations from people who knew her when she was younger, well...it's gonna be all Game of Thrones in here.
Yes, I would, absolutely. If Bennett resigned, Turei should.
I'd also like to see Bill English resign for reasons of honour over lying to the public about Todd Barclay (or heck, at least apologise to the NZ public), but I think after eight and a half years of John Key notions of honour have fallen by the wayside well and truly.
I'm actually for following of the law by all sides - and the spirit of the law, not just the letter. When we excuse it for any side we basically condone it for all sides.
For this reason I'd also like to see Simon Bridges et al stop using a private superannuation scheme to work around the law that says taxpayers do not pay for you to rent your own house from yourself.
What do you prefer?
The letter of the law is objective the spirit is subjective. You'll find that the left tend to make the laws with the most give in them when they try to add exceptions to the law (ie. try to make unfair laws). How many people use structures to avoid gst (simple, fair) vs the number who use structures to reduce income & corporate tax (complex, biased)?
Interest free student loans allow those who could afford uni anyway to get government money, put it in savings and have house deposit as soon as they graduate (out competing the middle).
Paying for housing for those parliamentarians who don't own their own home allows for the wealthier parliamentarians to use trusts to get the benefit by having the (appropriately setup) trust own the home.
Working for families allows the wealthier who shift all income over $70,000 (or 48,000 depending on how agressive you want to be) into a trust ( which pays the same tax rate, less any acc levy ) to get WFF payments that middle class kiwis who don't use accountants can't get or get less of.
Kiwibuild allows the children of wealthy kiwi families to buy a house for less than market value by having only just less than the maximum income allowable ( the rest being trust income ) while middle class kiwis who make $1 over the cap but can't afford accountants end up excluded.
The list is virtually endless. Every instance of a cap below which a benefit exists where the cap is over the minimum threshold at which the 30% tax rate begins is an opportunity for income diverted through a trust to enable individuals to qualify for the benefit. (Technically it should be over the threshold at which the 33% tax rate begins but paying 3% additional tax - 1.35% acc levy is a small enough difference that in most cases the benefit outweighs the cost)
When real government does things like remove depreciation on buildings it actually hurts, when the left / commies / socialists do things they just increase the complexity of tax planning moving it further out of reach for average kiwis.
She had a few boarders...which I understand is allowed..so any actual fraud is likley to be mimimal if non existant.
Think about the overaction to this matter when compared to tax fraud, trust fraud, corporate fraud, immigration fraud, academic fraud .....and on it goes.
Lets not mention all the boomers claimiing benefit welfare, residential care or the kids student allowances whilst running their income through trusts and companies...shhhhhhhhhhhh
The establishment encourages the absolute hammering of the underclass, whilst paying little or no attention to themsleves.
Thats why this whole overaction bugs me.
Lets not mention all the boomers claiming benefit welfare, residential care or the kids student allowances whilst running their income through trusts and companies...shhhhhhhhhhhh
We bought a rental property for a son to live in while he was studying out of our home town some years ago. The conveyancing lawyer who handled the transaction, then tried to up-sell us into forming a family trust. "Why?", I asked. And these were exactly the three reasons he gave me. What a rort, and I told him straight out that I had an obligation to pay my own way if I had the ability. He said I was being foolish - that everyone in my position (a highly paid government servant at the time) would be doing it. It was that moment in my life that I realised NZ society had changed - and not for the better.
Kate:Those trust advantages are more perceived than real these days; the main aim is for the lawyer to extract fees for setting up and maintaining trusts; to encourage this they make people feel that they are missing out on something if they don't have a trust; like everybody has a trust, right??
Avoid such lawyers.
They are on to that now.
"There are limits on allowable gifting per application for a residential care subsidy prior to any application being made.
In the five years prior to the application being made, each applicant or his or her spouse may only gift $6,000.00 per year. Any gifting above that amount is deemed to be excess gifting and will be counted back in the assessment.
Beyond five years prior to the application being made, the allowable annual gifting limit is $27,000.00.
If you make a one-off gift of $500,000.00 ten years before applying for a rest home subsidy, for example, the first $27,000.00 of that gift will be allowed, but the balance ($473,000.00) will be treated as your personal asset. Under the current rules, you would not be eligible for a rest home subsidy in these circumstances because you will be deemed to have a personal asset of $473,000.00."
And the moral of the story - just be charitable, forget all the rorts - become part of the real world. As Aristolte (virtue ethics) stated;
When a person acts in accordance with his nature and realises his full potential - he will do good and be content.
Those who exploit loopholes and take advantage of rorts are not content - far from it.
Being able to effectively transfer all rental income as well as secondary income (from the consultation services that are sold by a company that belongs to the trust as opposed to myself) to my wife for tax purposes is a very real benefit. Just because she has no income she gets to use the 10.5%, 17.5% & 30% tax brackets for her marginal income while my marginal income is taxed at a higher rate. Considering the marginal tax rate of each discretionary beneficiary when deciding how to allocate trust income is apparently allowed according to my local tax expert.
I want Labour to win and give us a much needed recession so that we can have a stable government in 3 years from now (the following election) and hopefully keep them for another 9 years after that. Problem is that Labour want to work with the greens. I may want a recession but I still want a functional country! How does straight up ignoring the law and committing what is undisputably fraud, pale in comparison to anything short of murder? ( How about we also prohibit anyone currently complicit in any of the illegal activities that you have listed above from being in parliament?)
Interesting.... so any one who doesn't share your opinion is a vested interest or a National party member? Is there a chance that there are people in the world that don't share your opinions?
I could quite easily follow all your comments and say "your just a Greens party supporter". See how that works.
Yes, it's almost not news. But I just don't think things will stay the same. Another electorate in for a major contest;
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/07/25/39863/the-sure-things-shane-jones
And then there is the likely return of Hone Harawera with one seat as well.
So many combinations/permutations unexplored by these 'if things stay the same' forecasts.
The Christchurch electorates are also getting little attention - I can only think Cantabrians must by now be seeking change?
Turei has gone beyond just ripping off the taxpayer. She is advocating that if you decide you need it, then it's all ok. That's truly subversive to civil society.
After listening to Turei this morning, I think I will just whip across the road and get a pie from the shop. But pay for it. Bugger that.
On that logic all National ministers should resign for stealing the futures of young New Zealanders, lying about there being 'no housing crisis', and for bad-mouthing anyone who had an issue about foreign buyers because they were being xenophobic...And if anything, this goverment will have created far more people who are now probably lying like Turei to get subsidies simply just to get by - and the cause is.....Nationals policies!
You need to take a look at this to support your argument. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=118…
This article is headlined "struggling for a decent job, decent wage, decent life" and describes the experience of a New Zealander who is.
Does the Herald think that a decent job, a decent wage and a decent life is or should be something that should be easily obtainable without much effort?
I agree she's done wrong. Consquences to be determined, obviously.
What people have been doing is expressing disgust at the way some of this present government's followers forth at the mouth over this wrong but have been willing to excuse other wrongs by their own objects of admiration.
After three terms of John Key's "At the end of the day it is what it is and I'm pretty relaxed about it" engending nods and expressions of "hmm, yes" from his votaries, the disgust at jarring hypocrisy is understandable.
It is both the jarring hypocrisy AND the blatant lying and lawbreaking of candidates from most of the major political parties that is disgusting. What I can't believe is how many people who are disgusted still vote for these parties. How are minor parties polling at 0.1-1% not receiving more votes? Perhaps as Kate mentioned in her ethics anecdotes, most NZers are quite happy for truth, justice, honor and other qualities to be sacrificed on the altar of convenience, personal comfort and a growing economy. Perhaps 75%.
Turei needs to make a list of all the laws that she thinks are optional, then if she gets in power I'll know what laws I do and do not need to follow.
Where does it end... Is it OK for me to commit murder if the victim has money in their pocket and I was a bit scint that day?
What I've learned under National is that as long as you say "I didn't mean to break the law" when you break the law then it's excusable. E.g. with illegal surveillance of NZ residents etc.
So, just say "whoopsie" and you should be fine.
Turei's mistake is clearly in not saying "whoopsie".
If any NZ citizen has broken the law then they should face the penalty, MP or otherwise, intentional or otherwise.
I don't understand the left's response to Turie's fraud, no one on the left seems willing or able to say "she did wrong, she should face justice". They just keep making allegations about National MPs.
There are burglaries, assaults and a whole host of other crimes going on as we speak, that doesn't mean the Turie shouldn't face justice with the rest of the criminals.
This is not about your political affiliation or mine, it's about the rule of law.
I agree people who break the law should face consequences.
Per my post above,
What people have been doing is expressing disgust at the way some of this present government's followers forth at the mouth over this wrong but have been willing to excuse other wrongs by their own objects of admiration.
After three terms of John Key's "At the end of the day it is what it is and I'm pretty relaxed about it" engending nods and expressions of "hmm, yes" from his votaries, the disgust at jarring hypocrisy is understandable.
E.g. the posts on Interest.co.nz where people were excusing Todd Barclay's lawbreaking, National's use of taxpayer funds to try to cover it up, and Bill English lying to the public. Also, the attitude of "if they've worked around the law fair and square then ethics don't matter" vis-a-vis fleecing the taxpayer by getting them to pay their rent in properties they actually own.
I'm never voted Labour, so not sure the point of making this about your political affiliation and mine. In fact, I've voted National most of my life save the last election - I'm just sick of their lack of integrity, and the excusing of their conduct by many of their voters.
My disgust is at the double-standard many seem to have, where it's okay if it's their side who does things.
Let's now cite a few examples of why people are calling out National voters' hypocrisy here. Re Todd Barclay and the National Party attempt to cover up the crime (is covering up a crime a criminal act too...complicity, as some are talking about Turei's suggestions to beneficiaries?):
I'm with Bill English on this one. It's an ordinary employment dispute which went beyond ordinary. And if you have ever been close to an employment dispute, they do get out of hand, unreasonable and sometimes bizarre. After that Todd Barclay seems to have really messed up the story, and I am sure he has confused Bill as much as he has confused the rest of us.
And
Oh come on Kakapo, it's hardly the crime of the century...The ones I feel sorry for are the cops. Because of the politics they are compelled the investigate and all the legal nonsense. Probably they would just prefer to tell all parties to grow up - maybe give Todd an ear tweak then close the file. But poor cops are stuck with it.
And
Police have more important things to do than worry about than this case., they make decisions all the time on whether to pursue things
And
Forget about the Barclay affair and see it for what it is , an inconsequential workplace dispute and a sideshow of no significance to anyone in the greater scheme of things.
And
infantile scandal and shallow agenda driven nonsense.
So, do you think Barclay should resign immediately, as some here have suggested Turei do? And what of others in the National Party who used taxpayer funds to try to cover up the crime?
I would never vote for the Greens but I used to think they were at least honest and genuine in their beliefs. But Ms. Turei has shown that she will lie and steal in order to have a better lifestyle. Let's be very clear her choice to steal was made by her and by no one else - no one nor circumstances forced her to do anything. Her choice wasn't stealing or starve to death but was actually lie and steal in order to have a better lifestyle than what her income afforded. No different than any other thief.
Some here seem to imply that because the PM or other National MPs committed fraud then it is ok for her. That's incorrect. If the PM stole money then that would be equally wrong. Ms. Turei wants to paint herself as a Robin Hood character - I am not buying it. She stole from the taxpayer; many who are struggling too. There is nothing noble there.
Ms Turei was not an MP when she committed benefit fraud. You can define that as stealing, but then you would have to define not declaring taxable income, receiving or paying cash for jobs knowing it would not be declared, not declaring duty free at the airport , and the list goes on . You'd have to have a pretty tough glasshouse before you go throwing stones.
Because if I asked you had you ever not declared any income , or any other "stealing", your answer would be ,"but I'm not an MP".
She was a young solo mum, trying to better herself by going to Law school. If we are going to look at what MPs got up to as youngsters, and hold them to account for it , we might be looking at a pretty empty parliament.
I never said a person has to be perfect to be a MP. However, there is a difference between making a mistake and Ms. Turei's stance - she thinks she did nothing wrong and won't condemn others (tacit approval) if others do the same. In addition, I was using stealing in a colloquial sense and not in the technical legal sense. I think she is guilty, by her own admission, of "Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception" section 240 Crimes Act 1961.
Was she a lawyer at the time? Is benefit fraud a dis-barable offence? When she took the bar did she lie?
All of the offences you have mentioned above are wrong, should not be done and if you do you should face the penalty. The left seem to be approaching this with "there are criminal acts going on in the country so its OK to do a bit yourself?
I received a letter from David Seymour today. I agree with him that by voting for him, the Epsom electorate may well elect even more MP's. Should ACT get more than 1.2% of the party vote nationwide, as they did in 2005 and 2008, they would bring further list MPs to support centre-right government (this is the so-called 'coat-tail' rule).
I'm not sure there is a coat tail rule. Its simply the way MMP works. To get into parliament, you need an electoral MP, or 5% of the vote. Your total number of Mps then equals your total % of the party vote. Roughly one MP for every 1.2% of the vote. So he would have to get close to 2.4% to guarantee a second MP, depending how the rounding works. Corrections welcomed, as after reading that , I'm not sure it is correct , given there are 61 list mps not 122 ???
Maori Party last election got one electorate and 1.32% of the party vote - qualifying them for that second MP (one list seat).
http://www.elections.org.nz/news-media/new-zealand-2014-general-electio…
You mean the coat tail rule that the Electoral Commission recommended be ditched after the review of MMP where we, the public were able to have a say. It was totally and arrogantly ignored by one Ms Collins and the National government, what a bloody joke!!!!
Again, I say, all left voters need to get out and vote for, who is it, Paul Goldsmith I think, and make sure that such coat tailing can't happen there.
If goldsmith won, and Act still got 1 % of the vote, Act's 1 % would be divided up between parties. So National would get just under 1/2 , left bloc just under 1/2. So while National considers it gets an extra seat by having Seymour win , it is actually 1/2 a seat.
The way the polls are going, Winston Peters will decide ACTs fate;
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/95185771/winston-pete…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.