Comparing Metiria Turei with David Garrett is really stupid, and here's why...
The difference couldn't be greater. Turei came clean and is actively working to establish how much she should repay. This is a significant factor in how such situations are resolved. WINZ will only look to initiate a legal proceeding if there's a refusal to repay and clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Unless there’s significant political interference, WINZ won’t be looking to prosecute anybody for such an overpayment where recompense is going to be made.
In contrast, stealing the identity of a dead baby and using it to procure a false passport are significant offences. A clear difference also exists with Garrett trying to hide his crimes with further misleading statements and manipulations of the legal system. The fact that Garrett was discharged without conviction for this crime is still in my opinion a travesty of justice.
There also seems to be some confusion in that somebody can still be guilty of an offence even when a discharged without conviction ruling is determined. Garrett was found to have stolen the identity of a dead baby, which he used to acquire a false passport. But the judge decided this shouldn’t be held against Garrett so that he could continue practicing law.
The fact that Garrett omitted crucial evidence from that trial while Turei is providing relevant information to the public, media and WINZ is a significant difference as well. Turie is speaking out to highlight the predicament of struggling beneficiaries, while Garrett tried his best to keep his offending completely secret. He still hasn’t owned up about the exact reason he procured a false passport in the name of a dead baby either.
There are further contrasting circumstances, like swearing a false affidavit to the court. Garrett committed the serious offence of perjury when he swore under oath a statement he knew to be false, which can carry a sentence of imprisonment for 7 years.
However instead of a jail sentence, Garrett was fined $8,430 and suspended from practicing as a lawyer for one year. In my opinion he got off very lightly. A member of parliament is automatically prohibited from the House of Representatives on conviction of a crime where the maximum sentence is 2 years or more. However by the time this crime was ruled upon the former Act party MP had already slithered his way out of parliament.
Those facts don't seem to matter to the disgraced David Garret though, who yesterday wrote:
Who the hell would hire this moron to represent them?
It's worth mentioning that some of Garrett’s serious offending in New Zealand occurred when he was 48, only three years before he became a member of parliament where he initiated the ineffective three strikes legislation. There really is no comparison... Turei’s misdemeanours occurred 25 years ago when she was only 23.
Turei has also clarified that she registered in an electorate she wasn’t actually living in so she could vote for a friend. However the maximum sentence for that is only 3 months or a fine of up to $2000. There is also a time limit of ten years for when proceedings can be undertaken, meaning no charges will be laid.
Consider also the response concerning John Key and Bill English being registered in an electorate they didn't actually reside in so they could vote for themselves. None of the right wing propagandists requested Key or English to resign, so why are they requesting the Greens' co-leader do so now?
The hypocritical right wing lackeys screaming until they’re blue in the face about Turei having to resign is simply ridiculous! It makes them look like the biased fools they truly are. There is no moral or legal reason for the reputable Metiria Turei to resign from the Green party or parliament… in fact quite the opposite. Turei is being honest and up front about what she had to do to ensure her family survived... and for that she should be commended.
The difference couldn't be greater. Turei came clean and is actively working to establish how much she should repay. This is a significant factor in how such situations are resolved. WINZ will only look to initiate a legal proceeding if there's a refusal to repay and clear evidence of wrongdoing.Unless there’s significant political interference, WINZ won’t be looking to prosecute anybody for such an overpayment where recompense is going to be made.
In contrast, stealing the identity of a dead baby and using it to procure a false passport are significant offences. A clear difference also exists with Garrett trying to hide his crimes with further misleading statements and manipulations of the legal system. The fact that Garrett was discharged without conviction for this crime is still in my opinion a travesty of justice.
There also seems to be some confusion in that somebody can still be guilty of an offence even when a discharged without conviction ruling is determined. Garrett was found to have stolen the identity of a dead baby, which he used to acquire a false passport. But the judge decided this shouldn’t be held against Garrett so that he could continue practicing law.
The fact that Garrett omitted crucial evidence from that trial while Turei is providing relevant information to the public, media and WINZ is a significant difference as well. Turie is speaking out to highlight the predicament of struggling beneficiaries, while Garrett tried his best to keep his offending completely secret. He still hasn’t owned up about the exact reason he procured a false passport in the name of a dead baby either.
There are further contrasting circumstances, like swearing a false affidavit to the court. Garrett committed the serious offence of perjury when he swore under oath a statement he knew to be false, which can carry a sentence of imprisonment for 7 years.
However instead of a jail sentence, Garrett was fined $8,430 and suspended from practicing as a lawyer for one year. In my opinion he got off very lightly. A member of parliament is automatically prohibited from the House of Representatives on conviction of a crime where the maximum sentence is 2 years or more. However by the time this crime was ruled upon the former Act party MP had already slithered his way out of parliament.
Those facts don't seem to matter to the disgraced David Garret though, who yesterday wrote:
In other words absolutely everything she says about what she was doing in 1993 is complete and utter bullshit.
Who the hell would hire this moron to represent them?
It's worth mentioning that some of Garrett’s serious offending in New Zealand occurred when he was 48, only three years before he became a member of parliament where he initiated the ineffective three strikes legislation. There really is no comparison... Turei’s misdemeanours occurred 25 years ago when she was only 23.
Turei has also clarified that she registered in an electorate she wasn’t actually living in so she could vote for a friend. However the maximum sentence for that is only 3 months or a fine of up to $2000. There is also a time limit of ten years for when proceedings can be undertaken, meaning no charges will be laid.
Consider also the response concerning John Key and Bill English being registered in an electorate they didn't actually reside in so they could vote for themselves. None of the right wing propagandists requested Key or English to resign, so why are they requesting the Greens' co-leader do so now?
The hypocritical right wing lackeys screaming until they’re blue in the face about Turei having to resign is simply ridiculous! It makes them look like the biased fools they truly are. There is no moral or legal reason for the reputable Metiria Turei to resign from the Green party or parliament… in fact quite the opposite. Turei is being honest and up front about what she had to do to ensure her family survived... and for that she should be commended.
