Turei willing to pay back extra benefit
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei has indicated she would be willing to pay back the extra taxpayer funding she gained through lying about her living situation while collecting the Domestic Purposes Benefit.
Turei made a risky admission at the party’s annual conference, while launching a policy to dismantle the Government’s welfare reforms, hike the benefit and remove nearly all sanctions and obligations to collect it.
Speaking to Radio NZ, Turei said it was her responsibility as an MP to be honest: ‘‘If Winz does an investigation, of course I will pay the money back. And I expect that I will hear from them in time.
‘‘What’s happening now, is beneficiaries who are in the same position I was, are being investigated but these people are still on poverty incomes.’’
As the leader of a political party, Turei was on a base salary of $175,398 plus an additional $1395 for every member of the 14-strong party – although that was likely split in half with co-leader James Shaw.
The Ministry of Social Development would not comment on an individual case. ‘‘What we can say is, that when we are told that someone has taken advantage of the support available, we will look into it, through our normal processes,’’ a spokesperson said.
Turei used her own circumstances to build the case that the state ‘‘punishing people for being poor’’ was only keeping them down for longer.
Under the Greens’ policy, there would be almost no obligation for beneficiaries to prove they were looking for work, not taking drugs, and showing up for appointments and courses. Core benefits would see a 20 per cent increase and tax changes would lower the bottom tax rate to 9 per cent while all those earning more than $150,000 would pay 40 per cent tax.
Turei’s admission has been met with both a backlash and praise from political quarters.
Greens co-leader Metiria Turei did not have to admit to benefit fraud at her party’s conference last weekend. Had she kept quiet, no-one would have been any the wiser. It was unlikely to win over voters in the coming election. So, what is she up to?
Turei told the conference that, while studying law as a single mother in the 1990s, she lied about the number of flatmates she was sub-letting to, so that her benefit would not be cut.
She said that being on a benefit ‘‘made me poor and it made me lie’’, and she found it terrifying that she might be charged with fraud at any time.
Turei admits that her confession could reopen that risk of prosecution, but has obviously calculated that the chances are slight. Even Deputy Prime Minister Paula Bennett, another former beneficiary, says that Turei should not be investigated but ‘‘she can just be judged on her own merits’’.
That judgment was not long in coming, and some of it was harsh. The backlash on social media and elsewhere said that Turei had been ‘‘stealing’’ money from other hard-working taxpayers and should now pay it all back.
But Turei’s admission also got people talking about the Greens policy she was announcing when she made it.
That policy is bold, and essentially would dismantle the National Government’s welfare reforms. In addition to cutting taxes for the poor and raising them for the rich, the Greens would increase Working For Families entitlements, and put up benefits by 20 per cent while making the welfare system easier for its customers.
The policy will never gain traction. Even if the Greens were to find themselves supporting a Labour-led government after the September election, the large increases in benefits and the changes in tax rates are unlikely to happen.
Rather, Turei’s comments can be seen as part of a broader long-term positioning. As Green ideas become mainstream, the Greens are attracting younger, savvy candidates while working towards what marketing consultants call a ‘‘value proposition’’ – a point of difference to separate them from other parties.
There is mileage therefore in tapping into discontent over inequality, child poverty and the cost of housing. Turei talks of ‘‘mending the safety net’’ of welfare and declares that ‘‘poverty should never be used as a weapon’’ against the needy.
This could explain why Turei admitted her transgression. Amid all the vitriol directed at her, there have been multiple messages of support from current and former beneficiaries who have been in a similar situation to hers.
Turei was trying to look authentic. Time will tell if she was sincere enough to pull it off.
Metiria Turei’s comments can be seen as part of a broader longterm positioning.