Peter Dornauf: Rich or poor, there is no excuse for theft

Monday, 7 August 2017

OPINION: Let's not mince our words here. Member of Parliament and co-leader of the Green Party Metiria Turei is a thief. She has stolen from the state which, in reality, means stealing from you and me.

There are thieves and thieves, of course. Is this a case of stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving child? I think that even on the most generous of interpretations, one would have to say, no. This is not Biafra.

One could forgive such an action if the admission of guilt, in Metiria Turei's case, was followed by an apology and an immediate resolve to return the money defrauded by someone continuing to enjoy the largesse of the state. But no. What did follow, when pressed, was a pledge to return the money 'if investigated'. It was at that point she lost my vote. No money was going to be returned unless there was an investigation, costing the taxpayer even more coinage. These people live in a different world from you and me.

The timing of this whole sorry saga suggests that the admission was simply an election stunt, a ploy to garner votes a few months out from polling day. She will have won some from the dodgy end of the spectrum, all those defrauders out there, whose numbers are legion. The message sent from a member of parliament is that dishonesty is an acceptable practice if you are poor. It excuses all deceit and duplicity – just cry needy, deprived or hard-up.

Like Ms Turei, I too, while studying at university, was poor and had a child to support. I slept on a mattress on the floor and worked nights and early mornings commercial cleaning to help pay my way. No DPB. Did the woman work to help pay her bills during her study period at university when the theft occurred? Apparently she didn't.

This whole thing has thrown up a raft of questions that have not been satisfactorily answered. There's been more dodging and weaving going on here than one would find in works of a crafty theologian.

When asked about her absent partner and any payment received from him, the answer was equivocal. She in fact refused to name the father of her child when she was on the DPB in the 1990s. That meant that we all footed the bill for her refusal. It meant that the man got off scot-free. He sowed his oats and then absconded and we all picked up the tab. What message does that send to all the dodgy males out there? Where is the feminist quotient in all of this? The male doesn't have to pay his way, gets an easy ride because women let them.

But the piece that takes the cake must be the lame rationale Turei puts up for her refusal to name the father. It was to make things easier between herself and the man. My goodness me! So if she'd named the father, then he'd become shirty, which would have made things uncomfortable for her. Where I come from we call that pandering to emotional blackmail.

Again the message to males is, come the sour puss, get a little ill-tempered and weak women will buckle at your bullying so you won't be named and have to pay your share.

She tries again to palm off her refusal to name the father by describing it as an act of financial independence and a woman's 'right to make decisions for themselves'. Oh please. This is just too rich for words, not to mention self-indulgent. My precious 'independence' which comes at a price to the taxpayer.

All of this, she claims, was to highlight the plight of the poor in this country. These politicians need to spend a little time observing the behaviour of the poor (at least some of them) by checking their bank statements alongside budget advisers in their offices, that's when the poor can be bothered enough to turn up to these free sessions. These poor often present with more money from Work and Income than the actual workers at Waikato budgeting services get in their own pay packets each week. One can imagine how that rankles.

I don't like the poor stealing off the state in the same way I don't like the poor stealing off dairy owners for cigarettes. And just to be fair, I don't like the rich stealing off the state.

I was gobsmacked when I read in the Waikato Times about Tainui who announced a $137.8 million profit and paid only $12,000 income tax in 2016. I was equally troubled about Waikato DHB boss Nigel Murray who has 'gone on leave' (don't they all) following allegations of unauthorised spending. And I didn't like it when I read that this had to be 'leaked' to the media in a free, open and accountable society. Nor did I like the very late disclosure of questionable spending of the same DHB boss two years back which has only now come to light.

Rich and poor – don't take what you're not entitled to, and pay your fair share. And save us your excuses that don't wash.