Turei faces more DPB questions
More questions have been raised about whether Green Party coleader Metiria Turei was eligible for the domestic purposes benefit she already admits to lying about.
Turei says she was on the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) – set up for single parents – at various times from 1993 to 1998.
But Newshub reports that the habitation index, built from the electoral roll, shows her listed at the same address as her daughter’s father in both 1993 and 1994.
It is not clear if she was receiving the benefit at those times, or if her electoral roll address was accurate.
If she was living with him, she would have been ineligible for the benefit. Previously, Turei admitted lying about how many flatmates she had – allowing her to claim more money, but not the entire benefit, fraudulently.
Turei told Newshub she would not talk about personal relationships, and she could not recall the exact dates being discussed.
Meanwhile, she had her first meeting with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) yesterday, and afterwards said it was a good session, and she would cooperate fully with its inquiry.
‘‘I’m very clear that I will certainly be repaying any overpayment. It was a good meeting, but I can certainly see how people that don’t have the resources that I do would find that quite traumatic,’’ she said.
Turei walked into the meeting, ‘‘nervous’’ but said MSD ‘‘had a job to do’’ and she respected that.
‘‘They have set out clearly the information they need from me and the process that they’re going to undertake, so I’ll provide that information and the process will roll out.’’
But she would not be publicly releasing the details of her situation.
She was given no indication of the likelihood of charges, and no timeframe was set.
‘‘They said that they will be assessing my entitlements over the period and using the information I provide to make that clear.’’
There was a danger Turei had opened herself up to prosecution.
‘‘That is a potential consequence – I knew that when I first talked about my case in attempting to open up the discussion about what welfare is really like.’’
The MSD investigators were ‘‘good’’ to Turei, but it was a daunting process that would be ‘‘traumatic’’ for many, she said. Despite that, Turei said she did not think she was treated any differently to most members of the public.
‘‘I think with any investigation like this, for people that don’t have the kind of resources and the experience I have, I think it could be quite overwhelming.
‘‘That’s part of what we’re trying to show people, that actually it’s very hard for people to deal with the agency. They were very good to me, but I don’t think that’s the experience of most people who’ve had to deal with MSD.’’
Turei was equipped with a law degree and years of experience as an advocate, which few beneficiaries would have.