National threatens Government critics with loss of Government contracts

Written By: - Date published: 9:31 am, May 14th, 2017 - 78 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, democracy under attack, national, same old national, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , , , ,

After nine long years of National rule you can tell that this government is running out of gas.  The Crosby Textor polish is no longer there and hubris and attacks on critics is becoming the norm.  And what is particularly worrying is that it is now making threats against its critics and people who publicly express concern and the current state of New Zealand that their contracts may be interfered with.

From Tim Murphy at Newsroom:

Don’t expect any apologies or contrition from the National Party on housing – a new, muscularly aggressive defence of its most vulnerable policy area has emerged at its Auckland conference.

The associate housing minister Alfred Ngaro led the charge in a presentation laced with political menace against those who question National’s performance on housing.

He even suggested Labour list candidate Willie Jackson could expect to lose Government support for his Manukau Urban Māori Authority interest in a second charter school, and its Whānau Ora contract should he “bag us” on the campaign trail.

“We are not happy about people taking with one hand and throwing with the other,” Ngaro said.

“Do not play politics with us. If you get up on the campaign trail and start bagging us, then all the things you are doing are off the table. They will not happen.”

The article details claims by Ngaro that he had met with Willie Jackson to tell him of this new muscular approach to critics of the Government.  Jackson was contacted and said it was a deputy with a slightly more restrained message and not Ngaro who met him but the threat is clear.

The Salvation Army is also in the Government’s sites.

He told the conference there were issues within the Salvation Army. “With the Sallies, you have the Church, the social programmes and the policy part.  The policy part is running riot and sayings all sorts of things and there’s some tension in the Church because they are not sure about that.”

The media are also in the Government’s sights, particularly Radio New Zealand.

Ngaro also targeted media coverage of housing.  “We have to push back against some of the media,” he said, detailing an exchange he says he had with RNZ’s Checkpoint presenter John Campbell, challenging him over questioning, or the lack of it, over a person housed in a motel.

“I told him: ‘You are not in pursuit of the truth. You want to manufacture a crisis. You cannot ask people to help themselves unless you are willing to journey with them and ask them the right questions’.

Get that?  The housing crisis is manufactured, not a terrible reality that is a blight on our society.

And Ngaro even appears to question whether there is a housing crisis at all and maybe it is all Labour’s fault.

Ngaro claimed the controversy last year over people having to live “in cars and park benches” was prompted by “an opposition that chooses to use their constituents for political fodder.”

And a novel solution to the housing crisis was offered, state support to further incentivise landlords.

An Auckland Councillor, Linda Cooper, backed the call to challenge the media and opponents. “We have got to squash that tired old, lazy notion of the media and Labour Party that we don’t care.”

She, and Ngaro, emphasised National needed to start talking about security of tenure for renters, as well as its historic emphasis on people being able to own their own homes.

Cooper said: “The reality is, there will be people who will not be owning houses.  How do we incentivise private landlords to keep these good tenants, keep these people in the same community.?”

Social welfare for landlords, not tenants.

Clearly as far as National is concerned there is no real housing crisis and critics should be silenced.

Also clearly for the sake of our country’s future there has to be a change of government.  This year.

78 comments on “National threatens Government critics with loss of Government contracts ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Marco 1
    14 May 2017 at 10:26 am

    If the critics of Govt policy continue to fill the airwaves, fish & chip paper and cyberspace with manufactured crises, factually incorrect sob stories and ideologically driven nasty personal attacks they are fair game for a bit of a rark up IMO. Down the page we have a post about “what we aren’t being told.” Where is the outrage about about a Campbell half-story?

    • Rosemary McDonald 1.1
      14 May 2017 at 10:36 am

      Are you referring to this…?

      “Citing the Te Puea Marae in South Auckland, which helped temporarily house and feed people with nowhere to live, he said it was important not to rely solely on media reports. “Go out the back to the kitchens and ask the kuia who were watching the families. They’ll say: ‘There were two-thirds who were genuine and we wanted to hug them and help them. And one-third who were just ratbags and we told them to get off their backsides and do something for their families’.””

      So…In Ngaro’s book, the two out of three ‘genuine’ homeless families should be ignored because of the one in three who are, according to the kuias, ratbags?

      He has heard of democracy, right?

      • Marco 1.1.1
        14 May 2017 at 10:39 am

        Is he proposing that anyone should be ignored?

        • mickysavage 1.1.1.1
          14 May 2017 at 10:50 am

          I am intrigued. Want to detail exactly what the half story is?

          • Marco 1.1.1.1.1
            14 May 2017 at 10:59 am

            The half stories about the poor families living in cars, neglecting to mention that they have destroyed or damaged countless private or State houses is a good start. Don’t pretend you are unaware of the circumstances and back stories of thousands of apparently “vulnerable” unfortunates. When the big pictures are inevitably exposed, it creates a backlash against the genuinely innocent. Collateral damage always seems so acceptable to the Left when it suits.

            [read the Policy. If you want to make statements of fact you have to be able to back them up – weka]

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1.1
              14 May 2017 at 11:08 am

              Working parents holding down multiple jobs can’t afford to rent let alone buy,

              [RL: Deleted. Way over the top as happens far too often. Take the day off.]

            • Hanswurst 1.1.1.1.1.2
              14 May 2017 at 11:14 am

              So which specific family did you have in mind that had trashed countless state houses? When did that family get interviewed by Campbell?

              • michelle …
                15 May 2017 at 8:57 am

                what about the damage the HNZ homes has done to the people I know I was a tenant of hnz for 20 years if you were Maori you got put in the bronxs in a high rise flat or block of flats in an unsavoury area and they were not very nice places many had no carpet, no wash house, no insulation but that was how they treated us racist swines. Now this is not a half truth story a genuine hnz tenant in a flea ridden dumb.

            • Rosemary McDonald 1.1.1.1.1.3
              14 May 2017 at 11:19 am

              “When the big pictures are inevitably exposed, it creates a backlash against the genuinely innocent. ”

              Your concern for the “genuinely innocent” is touching…but I reiterate…they are in the majority (according to the kuias whose word Ngaro relies so much upon) so why are you focusing on the minority?

              Obfuscation.

            • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.1.4
              14 May 2017 at 11:36 am

              The half stories about the poor families living in cars, neglecting to mention that they have destroyed or damaged countless private or State houses is a good start.

              Man you need to get out more and meet homeless people who are suffering because of the housing crisis and not because of anything they have done.

              If you are the typical cheerleader for the Government it has big problems.

            • millsy 1.1.1.1.1.5
              14 May 2017 at 12:27 pm

              I would say that the very small amount (less than 2%) of people who go round trashing houses are being given disporportionate news coverage so as to reduce political appetite for increreases in housing support and gather supports for ‘at-will’ evictions.

              • RedLogix …
                14 May 2017 at 1:04 pm

                Of the 40 or so tenants who we have encountered over the past 15 years, 4 have caused us significant problems. And in each case our support and generosity for them was abused.

                One young man who we went out of our way to offer a second chance, finished up stealing from us (two cars and everything that wasn’t bolted down, including stripping out the plumbing, kitchen and bathroom.)

                Another was ok himself, but his mates were not. In the end we had to evict them for illegal activity and damage.

                Another was a lady with a sad back story; she was fine for years until her paranoia became too anti-social for the other tenants to tolerate.

                And another young woman with a baby, and a violent partner. He smashed thousands of dollars worth of doors and windows to get in one night and we never recovered those costs. Then her baby was ill and we covered the rent for months while they were in hospital. And so on. Up and down, but always some new shit would come along and we got slugged with the costs. Finally she utterly wrecked the bathroom (its a very new unit) and that was that.

                In each case we took far too long to end the tenancy. And other landlords and property managers tell us that our experience is not unusual. So for us about 10% of tenants turn out to be a problem. One anecdote does not data make, but honestly I’d be surprised if the number was as low as 2% as millsy suggests.

                In each instance we wished there was a better solution than just booting them out, because we know instability and homelessness absolutely will not make their lives better. And of course this minority of tenants will form a majority of the really vulnerable people, the ones most often homeless or transient. And their whole backstory is often ugly and unappealing to an unsympathetic public.

                • Ad …
                  14 May 2017 at 2:43 pm

                  Is your portfolio primarily in New Zealand or Australia?

                  • RedLogix …
                    14 May 2017 at 3:03 pm

                    All in NZ

                    • Ad …
                      14 May 2017 at 4:00 pm

                      Excellent ground-truthing there.

                      If Little got in and implemented his tax write-off changes, would it be bough to make you think it was too hard and consider reallocating your capital elsewhere?

                      I’m suspecting that would only be the case if the long term capital increase of the housing market really started flattening out.

                      The policy changes are a start. Maybe a good start for one term.

                    • RedLogix …
                      14 May 2017 at 5:11 pm

                      As I’ve often said, we got into this game for cash flow not capital gain. And because I’m close to retiring I won’t have personal income to discount against so tax changes are becoming less of an issue for us. Our main priority at the moment is getting the debt to zero and cash flow positive.

                      Yes there are challenges, but I also cannot emphasise enough that the other 90% of tenants have been wonderful. They make up for it.

                      The other element worth considering is just how much more mature and regulated the rental market is here in Australia. Almost ALL property is managed, and they typically have much stronger processes in place to protect both landlord and tenant.

    • Incognito 1.2
      14 May 2017 at 10:46 am

      Where is the outrage about about a Campbell half-story? [sic]

      Wrong and misleading comparison; Campbell is not the major political party in NZ and, for all intents and purposes, the Government of NZ that apparently has embarked on a ‘Trumpian’ election campaign.

      In other words, Campbell or anybody else for that matter (e.g. Hosking) can scream his head off all he likes but with one push of a button he’s gone, literally; you cannot do this to/with a ‘screaming’ Government, can you?

      • mpledger 1.2.1
        14 May 2017 at 11:10 am

        The other point is that politicians never come on the Campbell show to talk about the other side of the story.

        Or if they do they talk what’s been fed into their mouths by their media trainers so we never hear anything honest or useful anyway.

        • Incognito 1.2.1.1
          14 May 2017 at 11:24 am

          A good interrogator interviewer/journalist should be able to get past any (most) media training. This begs the question as to where these good professionals are and what the hell they are doing if they are not holding the politicians to account.

          The level of debating is awful and public debate is virtually absent here in NZ; silly slagging and point scoring that resembles bickering boys in a sandpit.

      • Rosemary McDonald 1.2.2
        14 May 2017 at 11:14 am

        “…with one push of a button he’s gone, literally; you cannot do this to/with a ‘screaming’ Government, can you?”

        But one can dream….right?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3
      14 May 2017 at 11:06 am

      Which factually incorrect sob stories and manufactured crises has the Salvation Army filled the airwaves with?

      The only sob story here is yours, filling the airwaves with your whinging whining wailing about the National Party being held responsible for the effects of its personal incompetence and dishonesty.

      Cry baby Nats.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.4
      14 May 2017 at 11:35 am

      There’s a reason why we got rid of Lèse-majesté.

      Can’t say that I’m surprised to see National and their supporters bringing it back as their policies crash our society.

  2. RedBaronCV 2
    14 May 2017 at 10:31 am

    Sheesh surely this possibly coercive behaviour from a government minister is some what illegal?

    • mickysavage 2.1
      14 May 2017 at 10:51 am

      Perfect evidence in a Judicial Review case. But you have to have lots of money and a strong will to take the Government on. And who knows when and if something terrible may then happen to your funding.

      The Problem Gambling Foundation provide a perfect example of what may happen.

      • Marco 2.1.1
        14 May 2017 at 4:22 pm

        The PGF is an excellent example to use , thanks. Pretty transparently an organisation either set up or hijacked to be a Taxpayer-funded left wing anti National Govt (& pro Green Party) propaganda mouthpiece. You will be of course aware of the familial connections there.

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1
          14 May 2017 at 4:33 pm

          Proof please.

          For your benefit the PGF was set up during the term of the last Labour Government.

  3. Incognito 3
    14 May 2017 at 10:36 am

    I do honestly think that members of the National Party do care, at an individual level, but they dogmatically stick to the same flawed script with the same outcomes, obviously. It is not clear to me whether the majority of those members can’t see this or don’t want to – perhaps a clear example of cognitive as well as congruence bias.

    National’s campaign manager(s) have obviously decided that to go ‘Trumpian’ is a sure way (bet) to winning the election; a passive-aggressive campaign is being played out in the UK too (not to mention France).

    It is not really anything new (in election campaigns), just more blatant and extreme, and the consequent polarisation and division may do a lot of harm.

    • JanM 3.1
      14 May 2017 at 11:27 am

      Do you really think that if they cared they would belong to the National Party in its present form?

      • Incognito 3.1.1
        14 May 2017 at 11:41 am

        Yes, I do.

        I believe (!) that many people enter politics with good intentions and they want to make a difference, among other reasons, but that once they are caught up in the reality of party politics, for example, it becomes progressively [pun] harder to see those intentions & changes through and adhere to personal ideals (dreams & aspirations). It takes an awful lot of awareness and guts (soul-searching) to cut your existing ties and cross over, literally.

        People seem to think we are agents in a real and absolute way; we are heavily influenced (determined almost) by and products of our immediate environment much more than we think we are.

        I would go as far as to suggest that real independent thinkers and critical agents (e.g. radicals, rebels, etc.) are unlikely to join an existing party; they are more likely to found their own if they enter politics at all. There is quite some irony in this …

        An intermediate position might be those of “tempered radicals” as per my most recent Guest Post https://thestandard.org.nz/prefigurative-politics-being-the-change-you-want-to-see/

        • JanM 3.1.1.1
          14 May 2017 at 11:53 am

          Surely some reflection by anyone who can speak in whole sentences would reveal the cynical disregard that this government has for it’s citizens? Getting caught up in the process, IMO, shows a mental attitude that speaks more of ego stroking than care and concern for anyone else. It does take a bit of courage to swim against the tide, so are they just spineless or dim?

          • Incognito 3.1.1.1.1
            14 May 2017 at 12:18 pm

            No, they are neither spineless nor dim IMO. It takes guts to enter politics; it would be way too far out of my comfort zone, for example. I also rate the intelligence of politicians quite highly although they may not score so highly on emotional intelligence or empathy, for example.

            Yes, they are people with a (personal) drive.

            I think the issue is that like so many of us politicians have made a large personal investment and they have formed strong attachments to these ‘investments’, so strong in fact that they cannot let go of those even if they were to momentarily contemplate such thing. A lot of personal stuff gets hidden behind a professional mask; this also lowers vulnerability to external ‘attacks’.

            People who worry much and leave much room for (self-) doubt will not survive long in politics; as always, it is the survival of the fittest and politics is an ‘ecosystem’ just as much. In fact, politics is not separated from society at large yet it often is perceived and treated as such, which is why a lot of people, young in particular, are almost completely disengaged from politics while paradoxically they feel strongly about our/their world.

            I guess I could say this much more concisely: they are human(s) just like you and I.

        • Johan 3.1.1.2
          14 May 2017 at 12:01 pm

          “It takes an awful lot of awareness and guts (soul-searching) to cut your existing ties and cross over, literally.”
          What a lot of bullshit Incognito!!! When a politician has his/her snout firmly in the trough, there is never any moral rethink. The huge pay packet and perks is enough incentive to keep going with the flow.

          • Incognito 3.1.1.2.1
            14 May 2017 at 12:29 pm

            Sure, self-interest and self-preservation are often decisive factors but there are other factors that often are equally or more important. Not many people are at either extreme IMHO.

            I don’t think that politicians are one-dimensional creatures incapable of reflection and introspection.

            If you work your arse off there’s not so much time for listening to your inner moral voice and conscience, is there?

            BTW, the pay package is not “huge”, it is adequate and the perks for sitting MPs are not that impressive, are they?

            Very shallow assessment IMO.

            • garibaldi 3.1.1.2.1.1
              14 May 2017 at 12:56 pm

              These right wingers that care so much. Are they willing to pay a lot more tax to address the social problems that open-market Capitalism produces? Going by their cries for tax cuts the answer is obviously ‘no’.
              We waste countless millions on knee jerk “law’n order” responses and do nothing to fix the problems. Things will only get worse if we carry on as is.
              It will take a huge commitment and colossal funding, both of which our ‘wonderful’ Democracy will not face up to because it is a vote loser amongst all the “what’sinitforme” voters (who are the vast majority in our oneperson/onevote system). Consequently no Political Party will face up to the problem and we will carry on with dumbing down, just as the Natz have done so successfully.

              • Incognito …
                14 May 2017 at 1:14 pm

                Indeed, there are major systemic and institutionalised problems that are now well and truly engrained in our ‘social and cultural psyche’, one way or other. My point is that a partisan approach will and only can deliver these “knee jerk [ … ] responses and do nothing to fix the problems”. The first step to overcome this hurdle is to perceive the ‘others’ on the other side of the political divide – an entirely self-created and thus self-imposed construct BTW – as equals in every imaginable way. Maybe this is a good time to again re-think what Max Harris wrote on “love”.

  4. Wainwright 4
    14 May 2017 at 10:37 am

    LMAO at Linda Cooper, ‘we have to show people we care, by talking about incentivising landlords to retain ‘good’ tenants’ always about money with them.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      14 May 2017 at 11:40 am

      That’s National – always looking for reasons to hand taxpayers money over to their donors.

    • Wensleydale 4.2
      14 May 2017 at 3:57 pm

      If you have a ‘good’ tenant (someone who looks after the place, consistently pays the rent on time, etc.), shouldn’t that be sufficient incentive to retain them? I mean, what do these people want? Your firstborn child? Your kidneys? Vultures.

  5. Rosemary McDonald 5
    14 May 2017 at 10:51 am

    From the Grey/Sedgewick paper “Fears Constraints and Contracts” 2013.

    “Role of NGOs as service provider is different from role of NGOs as voice of civil society
    (often gets muddled). NGOs in NZ are not well skilled in this area. They do not
    generally (there are expectations of course) understand political process or the
    mechanism of our parliamentary system or how things could be influenced to change
    related to this, and question 21. There is a difference between government pressuring
    NGOs to bring their messages into line with government policy (which is unacceptable)
    and governments saying that NGOs cannot use government contract money to lobby for policy change. If contracts were to allow or encourage the government would be open to
    criticism by the opposition parties. the only solution to this would be for government to
    provide ‘grants’ to NGOs to foster community voice – the government (last one and this
    one) hasn’t really figured out the role of NGOs in strengthening community and are
    therefore inclined to be risk adverse and squash NGO voice.”

    http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sacs/pdf-files/Fears-constraints-and-contracts-Grey-and-Sedgwick-2014.pdf

    I think this may have been accurate at the time of writing, but I suspect that continued voter support, in the absence of an acceptable alternative party, has given National the confidence to be more overt in it’s bullying tactics.

    Easy solution to this is an opposition that is different enough in its policies and philosophies to offer a viable alternative.

  6. Gabby 6
    14 May 2017 at 10:55 am

    ‘muscularly aggressive ‘ is an interesting choice of words made by/for Timbo.

  7. Sacha 7
    14 May 2017 at 10:56 am

    Surely this would breach the cabinet manual, to say nothing of the tenets of Ngaro’s personal faith?

    • weka 7.1
      14 May 2017 at 11:22 am

      Wouldn’t this have had cabinet approval?

    • Draco T Bastard 7.2
      14 May 2017 at 11:45 am

      The Cabinet Manual doesn’t have any legal standing. That’s how National gets away with picking and choosing the rules that they’re willing to follow that are written into it.

    • mickysavage 7.3
      14 May 2017 at 11:51 am

      How about 3.16(c)?

      “It would clearly be improper for Ministers to instruct their departments to act in
      an unlawful manner. Ministers should also take care to ensure that their actions
      could not be construed as improper intervention in administrative, financial,
      operational, or contractual decisions that are the responsibility of the chief
      executive. “

      • Rosemary McDonald 7.3.1
        14 May 2017 at 1:38 pm

        Maybe, since Ngaro is not the Minister responsible for the Ministry through which the Contract was negotiated it is considered ok?

        Tolley’s office was asked for a comment when the email thing hit…https://thestandard.org.nz/msd-tried-to-shut-down-housing-providers/…and appropriately responded with “its an operational issue.”

        Methinks Our Rulers are aware of 3.1(c) and think this is a way around it.

  8. Murray jones 8
    14 May 2017 at 11:15 am

    The inactivity of the National Party is not surprising .They represent people who have a vested interested in fighting any change that reduces their power and creates opportunities for people on low incomes to better their lot .They have this insane idea that the poor through benefits are taking a dollar from their pocket when the reality is they have had themselves huge tax reductions since the Muldoon years

  9. marty mars 9
    14 May 2017 at 11:17 am

    Election year. Nasty nasty tactics indeed, shit next they’ll be blaming the homeless themselves for their plight – oh wait that already do that. Fuck you gnats – you will know each and every victim of your callous indifference, we will make sure of that.

  10. John Stowell 10
    14 May 2017 at 11:43 am

    A proposal has recently been sent by me to Marguerite Delbet, Auckland Council’s advisor on democracy, suggesting that a series of forums could be convened with citizens and Auckland residents chosen by lot, enough of them to have a good chance to be representative, and given the task of deciding what are the most important elements of Auckland’s housing problems, and what they think should be done about them. Such a move by the council would at least have a chance of giving the people of Auckland a truly democratic voice. The proposal would need lots of work to make it effective, the biggest hurdle perhaps being how to persuade a large sample of Auckland’s diverse population to be part of the group from which the actual participants would be chosen by lot. It should be made rewarding and enjoyable to attend, and expenses covered and possibly a fee paid to each attendee. The end product might still be massive disagreement on what should be done, but it might also be surprisingly informative and innovative. We’ll never know unless something like this is tried.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      14 May 2017 at 11:48 am

      The proposal would need lots of work to make it effective, the biggest hurdle perhaps being how to persuade a large sample of Auckland’s diverse population to be part of the group from which the actual participants would be chosen by lot.

      Make it compulsory like jury duty.

      • Incognito 10.1.1
        14 May 2017 at 1:31 pm

        Nah, waive their Council Rates for a year after they have fulfilled their responsibility as a good citizen and have actively engaged with and participated in the debate/process. Give people an incentive and a reward and the ‘desired behaviour’ will often follow with some surprising (magical) results. The hardest part is to shake people out of their lethargy and apathy and to overcome their initial inertia.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1
          14 May 2017 at 3:33 pm

          Take it that you haven’t done jury duty?

          You can get out of it if you have a good excuse and you get paid for being there.

          • Incognito 10.1.1.1.1
            14 May 2017 at 4:40 pm

            If you’re employed you’ll need the support of your employer to get out of jury service and only temporarily and only once. Yes, you get some fees paid but I hardly consider these to be incentivising or rewarding and it again depends on your employer whether they’d pay any shortfall.

            My suggestion @ 10.1.1 would not work as it would only apply to rate-payers.

    • Molly 10.2
      14 May 2017 at 2:27 pm

      Any forum such as this would have to include information sharing and problem defining sessions before asking what solutions are.

      If you fail to do this, it will result in the first impulse or prejucide of participants being introduced right at the start and will devolve into debates about those proposals. If you take the time to information share, and allow the groups to come to a consensus on how to the define the problems – then you will have a much better outcome in terms of possible solutions and active participation.

      Follow the precepts of change facilitation sessions and that might be a good starting point.

      • John Stowell 10.2.1
        14 May 2017 at 5:32 pm

        Molly, I have put the full fantasy suggestion up on moredemocracyplease.nz, and you will see that it is envisaged as a three session process – define the most important issues – discuss and propose solutions – receive and discuss Council reaction to the proposed solutions, some of which Council might adopt.

        • Molly 10.2.1.1
          15 May 2017 at 9:45 am

          Great. I have had a look at the website for moredemocracyplease.nz and the programme does seem to follow a change facilitation method.

          I just have a couple of suggestions:

          People selected at random have to be informed, and that information can often take longer than one workshop. Especially with an issue such as housing which has multiple layers of issues to unpick, and requires a complex solution rather than a simple one. This is probably true of many of the issues that Auckland Council would like to broach, but remains true for all the more complex ones.

          For that reason, a random approach – while sounding more democratic might actually just produce a random outcome.

          I can’t currently think of a solution for that, but one thought is whether you considered a ballot system (for individuals only), where those interested can put their details and then randomly select from that pool? I suggest this because after going through the consultation for the Unitary Plan, it became apparent that many approach the issue of housing from one perspective – and one perspective only. There really has to be a comprehensive information session/s for this issue before the discussions can even begin to frame the perceived problems and vote.

          Therein, lies the next comment “The facilitator will then produce a set of cards with some of the obvious housing problems (not enough building, bad quality building, poorly regulated rental market, whatever) and invite the group to think of others. “. This already leads the group and can stifle innovative thinking. The usual suspects will come up in the discussion without prompting.

          Ensure during initial discussions that participation remains equal by putting a time limit in place for each participant. That helps set the standard for ongoing discussions – as everyone has participated.

          Auckland Council does consultation fairly well, what is difficult is seeing the implementation of those consultations and seeing framework provided for innovative solutions.

  11. RedLogix 11
    14 May 2017 at 11:44 am

    Ngaro seems oblivious of the distinction between his role as Associate Minister, and member of the National Party. Threatening to use his ministerial power to financially attack a political opponent is about as serious as it gets. Really WTF.

    Makes Philip Field’s crimes look fairly innocuous by comparison. And he got five years.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      14 May 2017 at 11:48 am

      Makes Philip Field’s crimes look fairly innocuous by comparison. And he got five years.

      QFT

    • weka 11.2
      14 May 2017 at 12:02 pm

      “seems oblivious”

      Or they no longer care and think they can get away with this. Which is even scarier 🙁

  12. Rosemary McDonald 12
    14 May 2017 at 12:06 pm

    Getting back to the title of the post….

    Government Social Programs Contractor and Charity, The Salvation Army, quickly rejected the idea of buying up HNZ stock and getting into the landlord business…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11421462

    Prime Minister John Key confirmed earlier plans to go through the transfer in January. The plan is to transfer more of the responsibility for housing low-income and vulnerable tenants by selling a portion of housing stock to community providers such as churches, iwi and non-government organisations.

    But Major Campbell Roberts, of the Salvation Army, says the church organisation does not believe “the lives of tenants would be sufficiently improved by such a transfer”.

    Nor did it have the “expertise, infrastructure and resources to successfully manage any social housing transfer of size”, he said.

    “It’s just that to take on a significant number of houses is a very complex operation … the numbers require huge inputs of capital.” Housing NZ was in an appalling state, he said.

    “The reality is with Housing NZ that through successive governments it’s really making a mess of what it’s doing. Housing NZ has massive delayed maintenance … from a government and management point of view, appallingly done and so you can’t leave it how it is.””

    Now, that last paragraph is significant…because nearly two years later, another charity and government contractor IHC wholehearted leaped at the chance of buying up HNZ stock…and…

    “A new chief executive has been appointed to the helm of the organisation that will be taking over ownership of Tauranga’s state houses.

    Accessible Properties announced that Greg Orchard has started in his new role as the organisation prepares to acquire and manage more than a thousand Housing New Zealand houses in Tauranga.

    Mr Orchard comes from the Wellington City Council where he held the role of chief operating officer.

    He is a chartered accountant who has previously worked at Housing New Zealand in the roles of chief financial officer and general manager of asset services.

    Accessible Properties chairman Paul Adams said the organisation was pleased to have Mr Orchard take on the new role.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11791828

    So, a former chief financial officer and asset services manager is considered by IHC to be the bestest choice for CEO of a company set up to buy up and administer HNZ stock that another charity had rejected on the grounds that HNZ was a mess and “Housing NZ has massive delayed maintenance … from a government and management point of view, appallingly done and so you can’t leave it how it is.””

    All very confusing…but just to add another wee little tidbit…

    Idea Services, the contracted Provider arm of IHC…the ones that actually work with those with learning disabilities has incurred the wrath of their funder the Ministry of Health…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11833367

    “Disability Issues Minister Nicky Wagner has strongly condemned a national disability support provider over a contract dispute – saying Idea Services has been “totally irresponsible” and let down vulnerable clients.

    Wagner, also Associate Health Minister, said she had been told by the Ministry of Health that it was only advised last week that Idea did not intend to renew its contract, after the service had previously indicated they would renew.

    “They also gave no notice to their clients. And what is worse, Idea Services refused to agree to a temporary three month contract to allow arrangements to be made to look after their clients.””

    Something very strange going on here…

    [I’ve just reformatted that so it’s clearer. In future please make it clear what is quote and what is your own words, thanks – weka]

    • millsy 12.1
      14 May 2017 at 12:21 pm

      On the topic of Accesible Properties, there is word on various FB groups that since they got hold of the HNZ places in Tga, they are conducting mass evictions of the tenants there.

    • Rosemary McDonald 12.2
      14 May 2017 at 12:27 pm

      Sorry weka…having issues with my aging laptop. I can’t do the formatting thing here on TS…whereas I can on other sites. Very frustrating for me as well.

      However…Bomber Bradbury over at The Daily Blog has, for our entertainment, given us a new caption for the photo of Alfred Ngaro…

      http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/05/14/national-party-scum-threaten-urban-maori-salvation-army-and-john-campbell/

      • weka 12.2.1
        14 May 2017 at 1:06 pm

        Lol, that link.

        Re quoting, if you can’t use the formatting tags, then try something like this,

        >>>“A new chief executive has been appointed to the helm of the organisation that will be taking over ownership of Tauranga’s state houses.

        Accessible Properties announced that Greg Orchard has started in his new role as the organisation prepares to acquire and manage more than a thousand Housing New Zealand houses in Tauranga.

        Mr Orchard comes from the Wellington City Council where he held the role of chief operating officer.

        He is a chartered accountant who has previously worked at Housing New Zealand in the roles of chief financial officer and general manager of asset services.

        Accessible Properties chairman Paul Adams said the organisation was pleased to have Mr Orchard take on the new role.”
        <<<

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfmc_id=1503343&objectid=11791828

        Your commentary here 🙂

        Or

        _________________

        “A new chief executive has been appointed to the helm of the organisation that will be taking over ownership of Tauranga’s state houses.

        Accessible Properties announced that Greg Orchard has started in his new role as the organisation prepares to acquire and manage more than a thousand Housing New Zealand houses in Tauranga.

        Mr Orchard comes from the Wellington City Council where he held the role of chief operating officer.

        He is a chartered accountant who has previously worked at Housing New Zealand in the roles of chief financial officer and general manager of asset services.

        Accessible Properties chairman Paul Adams said the organisation was pleased to have Mr Orchard take on the new role.”
        _______________

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfmc_id=1503343&objectid=11791828

        Anything that breaks it up visually.

        btw, the tags can be done manually using angle brackets. Not sure if that is your systems problem though or if it doesn’t handle the tags at all.

  13. The New Student 13
    14 May 2017 at 12:40 pm

    Seems to me that if the Government just did its job to serve the people, then all of those problems are rendered non-existent. But I guess the conservative approach is to create more work, making mountains out of molehills. And to perch some preferred customers at the top of those mountains.

  14. Faith 14
    14 May 2017 at 12:55 pm

    so in case we all haven’t already noticed, the National Government has already done very little about any of the important social issues in this country. It has based its whole existence around trying to build a business out of this country and the people are purely seen as production and commodities. Now to top it all off, they will say that any truth telling from the opposition will be “bagging ” on them? Well are we a demacratic society or not? If the opposition plays by this ridiculous threat, there is still a high likely hood that none of there projects will get off the ground. What kind of leaders are we appointing in this country? Is this the direction we are wanting to go people? If the opposition cant say anything, then maybe the silencing of the sheeple comes next. National sells our land to virtually anyone, spends money on things none of us want or need (flag change) sells our water for what can only equate to a golden handshake and does not listen to the needs and desires of the people of this country. Attacking our freedom of speech has to be the last straw surely.

  15. Sanctuary 15
    14 May 2017 at 1:52 pm

    National has already lost the housing debate. If they want to put the spotlight on their failure by turning into frightening bullies, then I welcome them to do so. Pretending there isn’t a housing crisis in Auckland whilst lashing out at their critics and seeking to muzzle debate will lose them votes by the truckload.

  16. JustMe 16
    14 May 2017 at 4:42 pm

    Paula Bennett had no hesitation let alone remorse for making public the names of beneficiaries who were critical of her. She is on record of saying she would happily do it again. A veiled threat by her in other words. She is now deputy pm of NZ having trodden roughshod over NZers in pursuit of the dollar signs. A woman with no remorse let alone empathy, credibility or integrity. Whomever votes for her will get what they voted for i.e a shallow person who may as well walk through a shopping centre in Newmarket with the intention of looking for a new wardrobe rather than someone who would ever care about a homeless person she sees right outside of that shopping centre after she has made her latest purchase(of say a blue coloured outfit). But then I am getting personal here but Paula Bennett has hardly been credit worthy of keeping beneficiaries details private let alone personal.
    In the 80s and during the Muldoon years a National MP in one of his drunken moments said to my late father’s boss that the reason why a particular company in the timber industry would not receive contracts was because they did not donate to the NZ National Party.
    And so if this is correct back then and even now then it does appear to all that donations to the government of today i.e 14.5.17; results in contracts being given to that company. Also it does seem that even donations by individuals to the government of the day results in Instant Kiwi citizenship even if the background of that individual is questionable.

  17. Sacha 17
    14 May 2017 at 5:23 pm

    The official backdown from Ngaro after Joyce had a wee chat with him, via reporter Katie Bradford: https://twitter.com/katieabradford/status/863623992690712576

  18. greg 18
    14 May 2017 at 7:43 pm

    when you are seriously incompetent threats and bullshit is the only way to maintain power you cant stand on your record welcome to natistan.

  19. Neil Mackle 19
    14 May 2017 at 8:05 pm

    Shades of TRUMP !

  20. mosa 20
    14 May 2017 at 9:18 pm

    Threats and fear are no way to run a country.

    It is starting to unravel as what they say in private is becoming public and the mask is starting to slip.

    Mr Joyce is in full damage control.

  21. Ad 21
    15 May 2017 at 7:54 am

    Well named Mickey.

    And great to see Joyce having to call him out.

    Really quick way to piss off the staff of every NGO in the country.
    Who vote.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.