See No Evil

Easy Passes and Double Standards

Here is the latest mini-scandal in New Zealand.

Labour leader Andrew Little has stood down his welfare spokeswoman Carmel Sepuloni after her mother was accused of benefit fraud.  Little said there was an obvious conflict of interest.  TVNZ said it had broken the news to the Labour MP about the charges her mother faces.

Little said he was temporarily standing her aside from the social development portfolio, but she had done nothing wrong.  "Carmel is an adult and her mother is an adult. Carmel is not responsible for the actions of her mother," he said.  "We have agreed she will step aside ... on a temporary basis while these matters are dealt with. There is a conflict of interest at the present time."

Everyone has rushed to extend sympathy to Sepuloni.  Liberal blogger, David Farrar's contribution is representative of the whole:

One can only have sympathy for Sepuloni. Having a parent charged with an offence would be embarrassing for anyone, let alone when you are an MP. But no one will reasonably think it reflects on her at all.

Not so fast.
Benefit fraud has been endemic in this country.  It has been a national sport.  But, it is illegal.  Hence, Sepuloni's mother is now before the courts.  If one's mother has been engaged in benefit fraud, it is a serious matter.  The critical issue here is, When did Sepuloni, Labour's welfare spokesperson,  find out about her mother's skulduggery?  Did she find out only when her mother was put before the courts?  Media reports and public-framing suggest that is the case.

It turns out that Sepuloni's mother has been charged with benefit fraud going back years.  She has been charged with systematically stealing.  Was Sepuloni so estranged from her mother ten years ago to the point where she knew nothing about how she managed to live from day to day?  Did she not know where her mother's groceries were coming from?  Did she ask no questions, so she would be told no lies? 

Her mother faces nineteen charges.

TVNZ reported her mother Beverley Anne Sepuloni faced 19 benefit fraud charges and would appear in the New Plymouth District Court tomorrow.  It said she was accused of claiming the sickness benefit in 2006 when she shouldn't have and applying for a disability allowance when she shouldn't. "It's alleged she claimed rent subsidies between 2003 and 2010 which she wasn't entitled to.

And here is the kicker.

And she's also accused of failing to tell welfare officials - for 10-and-a-half years - that she was living with a partner," TVNZ reported.

If Sepuloni had not abandoned her mother entirely back then, one could reasonably expect that she knew she was living with a "partner"--that is, in the ancient tongue, a de facto husband.  Did she not challenge her mother on whether she was being upfront and honest with the welfare authorities?  Either her mother was financially supporting the male, or they were pooling their income.  Pooling income without declaring it to the welfare authorities (so both can claim a solo living-alone (higher) benefit is a crime.  Did Sepuloni never have the conversation with her mother that ran, "Mother, have you let the 'Work and Income' know that xxx is living here?" 

Maybe she did.  Maybe mother answered, "Of course, dear".  But if that conversation was never had, then Sepuloni is guilty of aiding and abetting her mother's fraud.  She would have been an accessory to the extent that she did not pursue the matter further, nor inform the welfare authorities of her live-in partner.

Sepuloni is claiming indirectly that she knew nothing of these things. 

Little said Sepuloni would be reinstated regardless of the outcome of any charges against her mother. "She is not responsible for her mother's actions," he said. . . .  As far as he was aware she would not be going to New Plymouth to support her mother.  It is understood they are not close.  "There's a reality about the relationship between her and her mother. That's a matter for her, but knowing what I know I fully understand the situation," Little said.

Was Sepuloni estranged from her mother ten years ago?  Or, is the estrangement more recent?  

Will the chattering classes and the Commentariat pursue it?  Of course not.  Sepuloni is a Labour politician.  Herein lies sufficient justification to deploy Nelson's notorious blind eye. Nothing to see here.  Move along.

We are sufficiently cynical to think that had similar circumstances attended a senior government Member of Parliament the media and Commentariat response would have been very, very different.  The flecks of spittle would be splattered in every direction.  Not unreasonably so.  But in this case . . . .?  Well, it's different, don't you see.  And if you don't see, it all goes to show you, dear reader, are a white, middle class, reactionary, troglodyte, homophobic racist--and a male to boot.