Reading this article I had a flashback to the Auckland 2016 campaign. It sounded like John Palino’s campaign running for major so I did a search and found this article – almost exactly the same policy.
The strange thing is that not only did Labour not campaign to do this but prior to Labour getting in but we were told it was up to the mayor to come up with a plan for Auckland. National said it had funds to help Auckland with its plans but Auckland was procrastinating, no clear plans, no clear vision. I find Auckland’s failings frustrating as I liked John Palino’s plans and I didn’t mind having higher rates for John’s plans. The frustrating thing is Phil campaigned that he would raise rates by no more than 2.5% yet is now saying he’ll have to break that promise despite regional petrol tax and less services of council when they soon implement their pay per pick up for rubbish so what we are paying does increase even if it wasn’t under the heading of rates rise http://i.stuff.co.nz/auckland/85112966/Phil-Goffs-promises-to-Auckland.
Reading through Geoff’s promises was surprisingly creepy because it now seems Labour are coming through letting him have regional petrol tax and other things that just match Labour perfectly. My issue with petrol tax paying for this is it attacks people who have to use their cars to go to work. We shouldn’t be taxing people for going to work. Some people are lucky enough to work from home or find a job close to home but some people spend a long time in their congested cars traveling to and from work each day and that sucks. I have a family member who’s jobs moved locations, branch at South Auckland and one at North Shore so as manager he has to go between the two sites – and as it moved from central Auckland that’s where his child’s daycare is and no point changing as that is near family for emergencies – like traffic – it wasn’t his choice for his work to move yet he spends piles of time in traffic so why should his petrol costs increase for him to do his job? Trucks will just pass added costs to the consumer. Like Phil says, Auckland has the most people so Auckland pays the most GST so why are we taxing people for going to work?
Anyway, I’m glad we’re going down the path of satellite cities but it must be a real kick to Palino to have no one buy into his plan while he was running for mayor and now the government are stealing his policy and now Phil Geoff will be implementing it plus one of his other rivals, Chloe in the Green Party – neither of whom stood up and said it was a great idea when John was printing it.
John Palino, you should be leading our city. You had a great vision and I believe that you would have done a better job of implementing it than the current lot. Thank you John Palino for your vision and ideas which seem like they will be the driving force behind Auckland’s future.
Turei, co-leader of the Green Party, will no doubt blame racism when she is charged with benefit fraud, it is her answer to everything. She clearly doesn’t know what racism is because no one has been racist, if anything, things she has done have been racist, but she has a history of using racism accusations to make her look like the victim. The fact that she broke the law is beyond her comprehension, she will no doubt blame being Maori as the reason for any charges against her.
Let’s look at her history. Anne Tolley said that Turei lived in a castle and wore designer clothes. Turei called racism. Nothing of the sort. It really irks me when politicians claim to be working for the poor whilst living the high life. If you were working for the poor you would not be spending all your money on a fancy house and designer clothes but would be supporting various charities. Put your money where your mouth is Turei. She is wearing a $2,000 jacket. How many raincoats could that provide to the ‘poor’ kids she claims are going to school with no raincoats? I can’t afford a $2,000 jacket. The most expensive dress I ever brought, my wedding dress, didn’t even cost as much as her everyday jacket. A woman for the poor – I don’t think so. She is living the lifestyle of the rich and is an absolute hypocrite. She claims that Maori can’t get good jobs yet she is a MP, proving Maori can get any job they aim for. National party can wear designer they stand for work hard, achieve and enjoy. You can’t ask to take more from hardworking families and give to the lazy whilst wearing a $2,000 jacket – step up woman and be an example of giving, not an example of hypocrisy. Tolley is absolutely correct in her comments that Turei is welcome to come to work in $2,000 jackets but in doing so she has no rights to lecture on poverty and understanding the plight of others. If she really understood their plight she would not be so extravagant.
When Judith Collins backed Tolley in saying that Turei was a hypocrite for wearing designer clothing and lecturing on poverty she too was called racist.
Her clothing choice also upset the Act Party when she went against parliamentary dress code standards to wear a t-shirt with words on it. Clearly she doesn’t think rules apply to her.
Most recently Turei has been calling NZ First Party racist http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11888053, the leader of the NZ First Party is Maori. Between Turei co-leader of Greens, Winston leader of NZ First, Flavell and Fox – both Maori – co-leaders of The Maori Party, we have a high per capital quota of Maori leaders, so I think we need to quit with the using Maori as an excuse to not achieving. Clearly it can be done and racism is not a barrier in NZ. She called NZ First racist because of their policy on immigration yet they have a close working relationship with Labour and they have a similar immigration policy. Winston Peters is right in his comment that it is the Greens who have racial separatism policies. Andrew Little is stuck in the middle as if he wants to be in government he is likely to need both the Greens and NZ First support http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11888165.
Turei has also called TVNZ racist http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/298945/pm-defends-%27racist%27-tvnz-survey.
I think the real racist here is Turei pulling the race card every time someone has a difference of opinion with her. Whenever she encounters conflict she pulls the race card instead of debating the issue like a mature adult.
Co-leader of the Greens Party has admitted to committing benefit fraud. She lied to WINZ about her income, an income she received whilst subletting her flat and studying law. She freely admitted to committing benefit fraud, so why isn’t she being charged? This woman is an absolute disgrace. If she gets away with fraud it sets a dangerous precedent, she basically just said committing fraud against the government is fine and her party wants to support people in doing so. As a hard working, tax paying New Zealander her attitude makes me sick. Turei could of worked when she had a young child but instead she was doing a law degree. No mention of where the baby’s father was, they were living off the taxpayers dime, getting subsidized education, benefits, probably funded childcare whilst earning an income subletting. The fact is, it’s hard being a student. I was a student. Any moment I wasn’t studying I was working. During school holidays it was common for me to do a 12 hour day, I had fees to pay. I lived with my parents so I was lucky I didn’t have rent to pay, but living at home meant I wasn’t entitled to a student benefit. I fail to understand how an 18 year old can live at home and be on the dole, yet an 18 year old who is studying is still the responsibility of their parents if they lived at home. My parents were just above the threshold so I couldn’t get any financial assistance. It did not take into consideration that I was the oldest of four, so my parents had three other dependents to provide for yet someone making just under the threshold and had one kid could get help and my family got none when our expenses were clearly more with four kids. So nothing for me and Turei is getting a benefit which would have been more than a student benefit because she had a child and was earning income on the side subletting – unlikely the landlord knew so exploiting someone else’s asset illegally – whilst studying to be a lawyer? What other dodgy stuff has she done? She came out as a lawyer, I assume, which lead to her being a politician. She earns far more than I do but because my husband earns enough to support us she wants to take more tax off him to pay for others. Again, they ignore that paying for 6 dependent (me and 5 kids) means my husband’s income already has a lot of demands placed on it. He would be taxed the same as someone with no kids, I don’t have an issue with that, we made our choice to pay for our family, what I am complaining about it that we have to pay more despite his income supporting 7 (himself, me and the kids) whereas other who earn less get tax benefits. When we divide his income by 7 we end up worse off than a family with one child on $50k. We are a large family but we can afford our large family – but it will be a struggle if the government keep stealing from us. Happy to pay our way as we get the benefit of free healthcare and free education up to university, but these things both also have payback for society when our children become adults and everyone else gets this too. Our family work hard for our money. We already pay more because there is no income splitting. Income splitting is a fair policy. A family where one parent is earning $150k pays more in tax because of the threshold levels than a family where both parents earn $75k. Seems grossly unfair when if one parent is working and earning a good income then the other parent normally gets stuck doing all the housework and all the child minding, a job you don’t get paid for but a job that means you are contributing as it makes it easier for your partner to do their job. So I see it as very unfair that our family pays more in tax already and this fraudster wants to take even more from us and give to those who could also be commiting benefit fraud as it is clear that the Green Party are happy to turn a blind eye to this crime.
A politician who basically says benefit fraud is okay should not be allowed to be a politician. A politician who has commuted benefit fraud should, like any other fraudster, be charged and if she completed that law degree and is registered as a lawyer would a conviction of fraud mean the she is struck off as a lawyer? The Act party has it right when they say that people should have children when they can afford children. Get your qualification before kids so you can work or study every moment of the day because that’s when you can do this, before kids. Hard – yes, but a right of passage. It’s where most of us started and we made it through the other side. Then once having a qualification work hard, pay down some of the mortgage so you are bringing kids into a stable environment where they have a roof over their heads and food on the table. Poverty breds poverty. If you can’t afford to support yourself, you can’t afford to support a dependent. The solution to poverty is to stop having kids you can’t afford, having kids you can’t afford is child abuse, another crime this country is ignoring. I’m not talking about people who fell on hard times after baby is born, that’s what the safety net is for, but those who are not providing for themselves bringing another person into the world that they do not have the ability to provide for.
Turei needs to be charged. It sends a message that fraud, or crime of any sort, is illegal and will not be tolerated. Don’t let her be an example of how easy it is to get away with fraud but a lesson on what can happen to you when you defraud your country.
9 kids and no home and the mum says not to judge as she didn’t choose to be a solo mum. Being a solo mum isn’t the issue, money is. Even with a partner you’d need to be millionaires to give a decent life to 9 kids. People need to wait to have kids until they can live off one income because when kids come along life gets dearer.
I’m also frustrated that there is no mention of the dad. If mum is going to be homeless surely the kids should go live with dad. If dad died then can none of either parents extended family help out?
We see more and more stories like this where people seem to be using emotional blackmail to just the government to get them a home. The system is supposed to be a safety net not a lifestyle choice and when you have nine kids with no means to support them it is a lifestyle choice. There are so many more deserving out there who find themselves in a bad situation through no fault of their own – poor health, needing to stop work to care for sick kids or sick parents – not people who just keep having kids and not providing. The dad or dads need to step up, why is it always the government called to help? The parents both need to play their part.
I don’t have an issue with someone advertising that a job wouldn’t suit someone taking time out for parenting. It is upfront and honest and doesn’t waste applicants time if they simply aren’t suited.
People are calling it discrimination – it isn’t. It may be illegal to hire based on someone’s family status but this isn’t the case. I know many people who don’t have to ‘take time off for parenting’. Look at Asian/Indian culture. So many of them have their mum and dad looking after the kids and doing the school run, in their situation they don’t need time off, there is so much support. Many people hire au pairs so even if they have sick kids they don’t need to stop working – as opposed to daycare where you would need to take time off. Many parents only have one parent working or have a parent that does evening/weekend work so are at home during the day so the other parent can work during the day. Even if parents do both work during the day, the parent who is a vet might have a partner who earns much less or is a more flexible job and can take the time off especially if they earn enough to use school holiday programs so it is just leave for sickness – the list goes on. Everyone has different family situations. This job would suit some but not others – you know, like every single other job.
I used to work as a PA and I knew after I had my first child I couldn’t be the top guys PA anymore because at that level when things come up you’re expected to stay and fix them. You are also expected to attend work events. My husband had a job working away often. Daycare shut at 5:30. There was barely enough time between opening and closing to get my 8 hours in and that is with my child being first there and last to leave. Without family support doing my job to the standard I held myself to would have been impossible. So I chose to do a lower level position. Whilst they probably couldn’t have fired me for saying no when something came up at 5 or for not attending evening functions I wouldn’t have been doing my job to the standard it should have been done so I stepped aside for someone who had no kids so was free to work the hours demanded. Why are people so selfish these days? Why do they cling on to a job that no longer suits their lifestyle, at the expense of others careers and the wellbeing of the company they work for? Work should benefit you and the employer. It should be a mutual agreement that works for both parties. In this vet case, if it’s a small clinic then they can’t give everyone the school holidays off – that’s just the reality of business. Pets get sick school holidays too. How would you feel if you pet got sick during the school holidays and no vets would see you as they’d cut back or shut down for school holidays? Some jobs keep going and there needs to be people to do them. Life is a cycle. Kids grow up. Eventually you can be the person who works school holidays but if you are the person who has to care for the kids in the holidays or when the kids get sick then maybe this isn’t the job for you RIGHT NOW, things will change. This could be your perfect future job and it will come up again but right now if it’s not for you, don’t be offended. It is ridiculous to be offended. It isn’t you but you can’t fulfill what the job demands.
Personally, I like businesses who are honest about this sort of thing. My time is precious. I don’t want to waste my time if the job is just not right for me. So honest job ads work for me. Keep it up!
Being poor does not impact on someone’s ability to get treated for a concussion, lazy parenting does. Medical care at GPs for under 13s is free, then there are subsides for those on a low income. Hospitals are free. People can observe the signs of concussion at home and get help if necessary. Let’s be honest, this does not come down to how much money someone has but how much they care about their kids. A rich person cares and gets them treated, it would seem poor parents are lazy. If they have the ability and funds to get their child to sport then they have the ability to get the child medical help when necessary. It’s nothing short of child abuse.
Headlines this week were about a MP breastfeeding in chamber. I’m not anti breastfeeding, I’ve breastfeed 5 kids, I’m breastfeeding the youngest whilst I write this but breastfeeding whilst working is selfish and disrespectful.
When I went back to work my oldest child was still breastfeeding a lot so I worked on cutting him down to one during a working day in preparation for my return to work. So I’d get to daycare early, feed him in the car and drop him, then race their on my lunch break and feed him and then feed him in the car when I picked him up. My breastfeeding did not impact on anyone. Unless someone asked where I went for lunch no one knew how I’d rush about my organising breastfeeding around my working day because work was work and I kept it separate. When I’m being paid to do a job I need to be focused on doing that job. Sometimes babies start fusing mid feed, they need to be burped, they need to be changed, they are sleepy but want to be held, this is distracting and annoying to those who want to get on with getting their job done – the job they are paid for. Anyone bringing their baby into work is a distraction to others, not much work will be getting done and you are paid to work, not care for your baby. I work from home now and only get paid for the work that I get done which works perfectly around a baby because babies are time consuming and maybe fussy, working in a job like parliament when you have a baby is crazy. The job should go to someone that can focus on the job so someone who either has their child in daycare, school or has no kids or grown kids. Why do people think their right to be with their baby trumps everyone else’s rights to get their job done? This isn’t about breastfeeding. You can work and breastfeed your baby but unless your job doesn’t involve others like reading or research online and is paid when the project is completed so breaking to burp the baby is a break you are not getting paid for, then it is unacceptable. Having a baby should not impact on your employer. Manage your baby around work or change jobs that will work around your baby but don’t let baby distract or disturb those who are working.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with me, how would you feel if you hired someone to do 5 hours of gardening and then at the end of the day it only looks like 2 hours of work was done and the excuse was – had to stop to feed baby three times, didn’t want that impacting on my lunch – I have to eat too, changed baby 3 times, burped baby twice, spent an hour holding baby as she got upset when I put her down but still pay me for 5 hours? Yeah, their baby cost you money. People are employed to do a job and need to do that job, not play with baby.