National’s strategy on the Housing Corp P fiasco

Written By: - Date published: 7:59 am, May 31st, 2018 - 83 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, housing, jacinda ardern, Judith Collins, national, paula bennett, Politics, same old national, Simon Bridges - Tags: , ,

A few years ago I was in awe of National’s media management. They seemed to be bullet proof. When confronted with issues they would role out these simplistic responses that you knew had been focus grouped to within an inch of their lives. John Key had this ability to stare into a camera and sum up the will of the majority. This is because that will had been surveyed extensively. Add in some Crosby Textor designed attack lines and they seemed impenetrable.

But no more. The current party leadership is insipid. Simon Bridges is on a tour of the country going to the most remote places for photo opportunities. Given the one sided nature of his tussles with Jacinda Ardern in the House I am not surprised.

No one else is firing.  Judith Collins stands above the rest because she managed to catch Phil Twyford sneak in a phone call after an airplane’s doors were closed.

And a multitude of problems caused by the last Government are becoming more and more apparent.

The latest is Housing Corp’s war of terror on any tenant when minute traces of methemphetamine was found in their flat.  The corporation’s stance attracted attention and informed ridicule two years ago.

Many learned voices said that Housing Corp was applying the wrong test, that they were insisting on clean ups for areas where methamphetamine had been consumed when the standard they were applying was for areas where methamphetamine had been manufactured.

They were told they were wrong, repeatedly. For instance by Dr Stuart Jessamine of the Ministry of Health. Listen to this interview from October 2016 and sense the frustration in his voice as he pleads for Housing Corp to understand.

But National saw a chance to be tough on drugs and on beneficiaries at the same time and clear out a few Housing Corp units and ready them for whatever, presumably sale.

They finally accept publicly they were wrong.  But their messaging is muddled and chaotic.

We had yesterday the strange situation yesterday where National MPs gave three different takes on the issue. They had to counter the very clear determination of Peter Gluckman that the policy was a crock, but even so their disparate responses were startling.

First up was Judith Collins. She said it was all basically Housing Corporation’s decision and had nothing to do with the Government. From Television New Zealand:

Speaking this morning to TVNZ 1’s Breakfast programme, Ms Collins was defensive of her former government, saying the decisions to evict people and undertake testing were made by Housing New Zealand, not Ms Bennett.

“The government didn’t tell Housing New Zealand to do this – this is a Housing New Zealand response and they have to act independently,” she said.

“If Housing New Zealand has taken certain steps .. they have told the minister what they’ve done, they haven’t asked the minister’s permission.”

So defence one was the Government had no control over decisions that led to a hundred million dollar spend. They were incompetent, rather than malevolent.

Then Simon Bridges had a go.  He said the government was basically ignorant of the problems.  From the Herald:

National leader Simon Bridges welcomed the new report out yesterday on methamphetamine, saying meant more people could occupy more houses but rejected speculation the previous Government was captured by the industry.

“If the standard was too high, in a sense, it’s good news if it comes down. It means we can have more people housed in more houses,” he told the Herald’s Focus this morning.

But he rejected any suggestion the previous Government was not as critical of the meth investigation and contamination industry as it could have been.

“Ultimately it was the same deal with us as it will be with this current Government,” he said.

But he said the situation remained unclear.

“We need to get to the bottom of it,” he said of a disparity between the Standards New Zealand standard and the Gluckman report finding. “It’s not entirely straightforward but it does seem clear the standard was too high.”

The second defence, National did not know about the faulty standard.  They were ignorant rather than malevolent.

Then to cap things off Paula Bennett had a go on Checkpoint.

Paula Bennett says Housing New Zealand should apologise to tenants kicked out over meth contamination, despite welcoming the agency’s zero-tolerance stance when she was social housing minister.

Ms Bennett was the relevant minister between 2014 and 2016, when hundreds of tenants were evicted from state houses after traces of methamphetamine were found, sometimes at levels now known to constitute no risk.

…

Ms Bennett said she welcomed the report and told Checkpoint that Housing New Zealand should re-evalute the cases of people who were evicted from their homes, in light of the new information.

“If I was the minister … I would certainly be wanting to look at it all and see individual cases and make sure that actually [the process] has been fair and reasonable,” Ms Bennett said.

When asked if some tenants should be compensated, she said they should.

Ms Bennett defended her views at the time she was minister, saying she herself had raised concerns about the testing limits at the time.

“I’ve always had concerns… I just didn’t think that the 0.5 [microgram limit] sounded right,” she said.

“I questioned [the Health Ministry] in particular who had set that standard, questioned Housing NZ numerous times, got the Standards Authority involved.”

Despite her concerns, Ms Bennett said she could not refute the evidence she was given or stand in the way of Housing New Zealand to impose a different set of standards.

Her statement that the Health Ministry set the relevant standard needs to be questioned.

So Bennett thinks that tenants should be compensated and that if she was the minister she would want to review individual cases and make sure that the process had been  fair and reasonable.

But here is the thing.  She was the Minister of Social Housing until December 18, 2016.

It is clear from this Radio New Zealand post that the Government must have realised its tough on methamphetamine stance was based on a faulty understanding.  On November 3, 2016 Radio New Zealand reported:

Housing New Zealand Minister Bill English is backtracking on his announcement of a review into meth evictions to determine whether the housing agency had been acting fairly.

The housing agency has been heavily criticised for using Ministry of Health meth test guidelines, which were only valid in former meth labs, to evict tenants for personal use.

Earlier today, Mr English told reporters that his agency would now review all of its meth evictions to see if it had acted fairly.

“Just going back over cases to make sure that they’ve been fairly treated,” he said.

“Now that [the Ministry of] Health have come up with another standard, Housing New Zealand are applying that, and they’re just checking through to make sure that whatever cases they’ve dealt with in the past were dealt with fairly.”

But Mr English later said he was confused, and there was a review of the houses left empty from meth contamination – not the evictions themselves.

Back then National must have known about the problem.  Why else would English announce a review of meth evictions, or even a review of empty houses?

And why the backtrack?  Presumably he was rolled by the rest of cabinet on his desire to actually ensure justice for housing corp tenants.

There must have been a conscious decision made to not review the meth evictions.  Which makes Bennett’s claim that there should be a review hard to stomach.

Fuckers. They actually contemplated a human response, an apology to those who had been hurt and a check to make sure Housing Corp had acted fairly.  Then they backtracked.

Whether this position was reached through National’s incompetence, its ignorance and failure to properly understand the situation, or a malevolent disinterest in the plight of the poor, or a combination of all three reasons, does not really matter.  Each reason shows that National should not be trusted with the levers of power.

I think their strategy is they want us to forget it all.  Let’s not do that.

83 comments on “National’s strategy on the Housing Corp P fiasco ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    31 May 2018 at 8:07 am

    Her statement that the Health Ministry set the relevant standard needs to be questioned.

    According to Russell Brown and Andrew Geddis on Twitter (referring to RNZ interview)…

    Brown: …the MoH meth lab cleanup guidelines (which weren’t a standard) weren’t “discredited”. They were misunderstood and misused. I find myself somewhat concerned that Hooker has taken cases over this if that’s his level of understanding.

    Geddis: Yeah – he seemed not to understand what the Min of Health standard on contamination by manufacture related to … or, if he did, he was unusually forgiving of HNZ’s decision to adopt this as a basis for evicting people where there only was meth use.

    Bennett: incompetent, mendacious, corrupt.

  2. Gosman 2
    31 May 2018 at 8:51 am

    Why are you so focused on National MS? They aren’t even in power anymore in case you missed the last half year or so.

    • ScottGN 2.1
      31 May 2018 at 8:54 am

      Because the whole 100 million dollar fuckup was completely their fault.

      • Gosman 2.1.1
        31 May 2018 at 8:57 am

        You have the evidence that they instructed Housing NZ to implement the policy do you?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          31 May 2018 at 9:06 am

          They didn’t prevent the policy despite knowing it was based on bullshit. Personal responsibility is a vicious, cynical lie. Thanks for confirming that.

        • ScottGN 2.1.1.2
          31 May 2018 at 9:09 am

          Do you have any evidence to support Bennett’s pathetic excuse that she was so inept as a Cabinet Minister that she was powerless to stop HNZ’s lunatic crusade?

          • tc 2.1.1.2.1
            31 May 2018 at 9:39 am

            nah evidence is something RWNJ’s ask for when they know it’s going to be hard to find.

            National were expert at leaving no trace which tends to be the case when you’ve dropped consultants into the public service to do your bidding.

            Coercion and the unspoken threat of losing your job tend to be very effective tools of that trade.. classic MO.

          • Gosman 2.1.1.2.2
            31 May 2018 at 9:43 am

            It is a huge leap from stating the policy has been shown not to have scientific backing to saying HNZC was on a ‘lunatic crusade’. There are multiple reasons HNZC may well have been interested in the Meth issue and acted in such a manner. They may well have been looking to err on the side of caution in relation to the safety of their tennants and did not want to assume that it was all good.

            • Stuart Munro 2.1.1.2.2.1
              31 May 2018 at 9:54 am

              Of course they will try to argue that – but it’s rubbish.

              It’s the same with their austerity economics – no foundation in anything but wishful thinking, but they’re wedded to it anyway.

              If you follow good science advice you have some comeback if it proves inadequate. But if, like the Gnats, you flagrantly and irresponsibly ignore all the evidence, then it’s on you. Entirely.

            • Dean Reynolds 2.1.1.2.2.2
              31 May 2018 at 10:11 am

              The way you defend the indefensible is despicable. Bennett & National were committed to privatising NZ s State housing stock & needed a smoke screen issue to distract from this. What better red herring than to put out the narrative that State house tenants were drugged up & worthy of eviction, even if the science was dodgy?
              After wasting $100 m of taxpayers’ funds, evicting whole families, charging some of them for the ‘clean up’, barring them from getting another State house for 12 months & boarding up 240 State houses during a housing crises, the truth has emerged & Gosman & his National Party cronies are exposed for shits that they are

              • Gosman …
                31 May 2018 at 10:19 am

                I don’t know why you think I support the National party.

                • Stuart Munro …
                  31 May 2018 at 11:21 am

                  It’s pretty obvious:

                  Disparaging of anything Left or positive
                  Obsessed with Venezuela but knows nothing about it
                  Leaps to defend the most egregious National rorts every time

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  31 May 2018 at 10:55 pm

                  So what, you’re voting ACT? Conservative? NZ First, even? *shrug*

                  Doesn’t stop you from being an apologist for the Nats, clearly.

                • pat …
                  1 June 2018 at 1:38 pm

                  what IS obvious is that you like wasting oxygen……….i hope you have been planting plenty of trees.

              • Baba Yaga …
                31 May 2018 at 2:07 pm

                “Bennett & National were committed to privatising NZ s State housing stock…”
                Complete bs. If that were the case they would have sold the lot over 9 years. They didn’t. In my opinion the market should provide virtually all social housing, because then it is private landlords who take the risk of owning homes where people want to live. The government suck at second guessing in todays fluid society. They should get the hell out of it.

                • Dean Reynolds …
                  31 May 2018 at 4:50 pm

                  Baba Yaga, governments of all shades have been building State housing since the early 1900’s. Only Right Wing fanatics like you & Bennett believe that State housing should be privatised. If National had ‘sold the lot’ they would have been a one term government, given the opposition, NZ wide, to privatising state assets – remember the overwhelming ‘No’ referendum on the privatising of the power companies? Instead, National started privatising State housing by stealth.
                  Re your BS claim that ‘the government suck at second guessing’, who the hell do you think plans ahead when it comes to building new schools & hospitals – the shitty market place? You need to get a grip

                  • Baba Yaga …
                    31 May 2018 at 5:09 pm

                    “who the hell do you think plans ahead when it comes to building new schools & hospitals”
                    When did I mention schools or hospitals? Please keep up.

                    “Only Right Wing fanatics like you & Bennett believe that State housing should be privatised.”
                    You’ve clearly never met a right wing fanatic. The private sector has been involved in the building of state housing provision for decades, just as they have been involved in the delivery of education and health services, I have no problem with the government funding social housing, but there is no good reason for taxpayers money to be tied up in owning homes when the private sector will do it for us.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      2 June 2018 at 2:51 pm

                      The private sector has been involved in the building of state housing provision for decades, just as they have been involved in the delivery of education and health services.

                      Except that they haven’t, BY. National has sold off 6,000 state homes between 2008 and 2016.

                      And most education and health is state funded. The private sector can’t even do private schools without requiring a handout from taxpayers to survive.

                      but there is no good reason for taxpayers money to be tied up in owning homes when the private sector will do it for us.

                      Except that private sector can’t, BY. In case you hadn’t noticed, that’s what this is all about.

                      I’m guessing that the colour of the glasses you’re wearing have a rose-tint to them. Because your world-view is at variance with the reality around us.

              • edgil …
                31 May 2018 at 10:54 pm

                Well put Dean Reynolds. We need articulate defenders like you. Thanks.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.2.2.3
              31 May 2018 at 1:11 pm

              Not really.

              Evicting hundreds of people on no rational grounds is most definitely irrational, and doing so for years after the stupidity is pointed out certainly matches the duration of a crusade.

              • Gosman …
                31 May 2018 at 1:48 pm

                Given this “obvious” fact why hasn’t Phil Twyford dismissed the senior leadership team of HNZC since they implemented this “Lunatic crusade”?

                • McFlock …
                  31 May 2018 at 2:51 pm

                  Probably because the final responsibility for the policy doesn’t rest with them, but his predecessors.

                  • Gosman …
                    31 May 2018 at 3:13 pm

                    Oh so the leadership of HNZC only go on a ‘Lunatic crusade’ when they are told to.

                    Do they not have any ability to make decisions for themselves then and if not, do you not think management of a Crown entity should be allowed to think for themselves considering they are paid a lot of money?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 May 2018 at 3:18 pm

                      Hey, if they have a lunatic idea that gets immediately scotched, that’s one thing.

                      If it goes on literally for years and results in the eviction of hundreds of people, then obviously they’re fulfilling the wishes of their minister.

                      While the Nuremburg Defense might not apply to war crimes, it certainly would make for a very interesting unfair dismissal case.

                    • Gosman []
                      31 May 2018 at 4:12 pm

                      You are just making excuses for the bad performance of the HNZC leadership team

                    • Crashcart …
                      31 May 2018 at 3:37 pm

                      Have you worked in government Gos? Even as a pleb at my level it is made very clear that no decision that may eventually reflect upon the minister or government should be made without it first being run by and approved by said minister. When you are talking about something as large scale as setting these sorts of limits and spending the money on clean up that was spent you have to have you shit sorted.

                      There is no way this was as simple as the heads of HNZC making a decision and back briefing the minister. The environments in which we operate are set at ministerial level. We are well aware when we put something before a minister of what their expectations and attitudes are and we have to work to those.

                      I don’t get how the sort of people who support paying both COE’s and Ministers such high wages because of the responsibility are then more then happy for them to dump that responsibility on those who work for them.

                    • Gosman []
                      31 May 2018 at 4:14 pm

                      Yes and have just finished a stint with HNZC interestonly enough. They seem quite autonomous

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      31 May 2018 at 4:45 pm

                      “You are just making excuses for the bad performance of the HNZC leadership team”

                      You are just inventing excuses for the disgraceful previous government because the truth shows them to be irredeemable villains.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 May 2018 at 4:51 pm

                      You are just making excuses for the bad performance of the HNZC leadership team

                      You’re pretending it was bad performance, rather than a bad job done well.

                      The methmyth served government policy 100%.
                      The myth was exposed to ministers years ago.
                      The ministers refused to change the policy.

                      Public servants might be moral vacuums who serve government policy no matter what its impact, but serving bad policy doesn’t always mean their performance is bad. Just that their masters are bad.

                      The flipside is when they can’t adapt to serve new masters. That’s when you’d expect to see higher-level turnover.

        • Ken 2.1.1.3
          31 May 2018 at 4:54 pm

          Gosman – Did National not have a ministry and a minister of housing when they were in government and all this was going on?

          • Gosman 2.1.1.3.1
            1 June 2018 at 1:29 am

            HNZC is not the Ministry of Housing. It is a standalone Crown agency.

            • Ken 2.1.1.3.1.1
              2 June 2018 at 2:47 pm

              That’s not what I asked you.

            • Frank Macskasy 2.1.1.3.1.2
              2 June 2018 at 2:55 pm

              The Right are very big on demanding personal responsibility, Gosman.

              “We’re striving for a safe, vibrant and progressive New Zealand that encourages individual choice, responsibility and excellence”

              ref: http://act.org.nz/join/

              “We believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the following values:

              […]

              Personal Responsibility”

              ref: https://www.national.org.nz/our-values

              Who takes responsibility for bogus meth testing/cleaning and the $100 million it has cost taxpayers?

              Because so far, neither Bridges , English, nor Bennett have put their hand up to take responsibility for this fiasco.

        • tracey 2.1.1.4
          5 June 2018 at 2:40 pm

          Just to clarify, you are saying that personal responsibility is something for other people and when Nats are in Cabinet the buck doesnt stop with them. Makes you wonder why they get such high salaries and perks

    • JessNZ 2.2
      31 May 2018 at 10:03 am

      We focus on National because again and again, they make Labour look so good in comparison.

      Don’t strain any muscles while you stretch for any plausible justification for Bennett failing to do her Social Housing job.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.3
      31 May 2018 at 11:13 am

      Because National’s lying needs to be held up to the light.

      • Gosman 2.3.1
        31 May 2018 at 1:49 pm

        The light of a left wing blog which most people who read it don’t support the National party. Who is being convinced of the “evils” of National by doing this?

        • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.1
          31 May 2018 at 2:41 pm

          It filters out and we know that not only Left read this blog. You’re here for example and not all of the Right are as stuck in their ways and against the evidence as you.

    • Enough is Enough 2.4
      31 May 2018 at 12:52 pm

      On current polling National is still the most popular party in Parliament.

      It is therefore critical that we continue to highlight their failings so that we can collapse that support.

      • Gosman 2.4.1
        31 May 2018 at 1:54 pm

        Since that seems to have been one of the main activities of certain people on this blog for the past 9 plus years how’s it been working out for you guys so far ? 🙂

        • crashcart 2.4.1.1
          31 May 2018 at 3:39 pm

          Being that they are no longer the government I would think the trend is in the right direction.

          • Baba Yaga 2.4.1.1.1
            31 May 2018 at 4:38 pm

            Being that they are still the most popular party in parliament, I would think not!

            • tracey 2.4.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2018 at 2:45 pm

              Which says an awful lot about the people who vote for them

              Running down of hospitals
              High youth suicide rates
              Under supply of teachers
              Under supply of midwives
              Growing child poverty
              Wrongful spending on meth decontamination
              Suppression of unfavourable reports during an election
              Deliberate breaches of Privacy Act
              Deliberate flouting of conflict of interest rules
              Creating crime stats
              Deliberate misuse of OIA
              Bungled and negligent EQC repairs
              …

              And still 44% will vote for them cos they believe BS like ‘we got dud advice’

              At some point some Nat voters must get sick of being made to look like fools by repeating tge crap our of tgeir MPs mouths

              • Baba Yaga …
                5 June 2018 at 3:49 pm

                You’re making it up Tracey. Meanwhile, labour break promises and lie their way along the merry road to electoral oblivion.

                • McFlock …
                  5 June 2018 at 3:56 pm

                  I must say that I’m loving national’s lose the election and whine like a little bitch model of dooming its enemies to “electoral oblivion”. The most popular losers in parliament definitely struck a tremendous blow for NZ society when they chose that strategy.

    • Carolyn_nth 2.5
      31 May 2018 at 4:58 pm

      Of course, it’s not like the Nats spent 9 years in government attacking Labour and the Green Party; David Cunliffe, “9 long years” of Labour so it’s “Labour’s fault”, form letters, where they live (Cunliffe), where they studied (Cunliffe), what they wear (Turei), past history on benefits, etc, etc…..???!!!

      • tracey 2.5.1
        5 June 2018 at 2:46 pm

        Shhhhhh, inconvenient facts explode Nat heads

      • Baba Yaga 2.5.2
        5 June 2018 at 3:52 pm

        When someone tries to pass off a mansion in one of the Auckland’s priciest suburbs as just a do-up, then their opponents will call bs, and rightly so. When someone makes claims on their CV that a demonstrably false, then their opponents will call bs, and rightly so. And when someone commits benefit fraud and is proud of it, then their opponents will call bs, and rightly so.

    • Leonhart Hunt 2.6
      1 June 2018 at 3:07 am

      National is in opposition, to say they have no power belittles our democracy, we don’t have a two party race and then at the finish line the opponent shuffles quietly off an opposition still votes on bill’s , has influence on issues and wields real power to change, just less than the party “in” power and by our last election the power wielded between national and the coalition’s difference is minimal.

      While the coalition gets to wear the fancy hat and decide the dance list, national is not powerless, in fact I would call our last election a truly odd victory that has a both labour and national sitting government.

      • tracey 2.6.1
        5 June 2018 at 2:47 pm

        Well said and their influence via main media remains strong, not to mention the relaying of deeds by supporters back to Ms Collins.

  4. Jason Rika 4
    31 May 2018 at 9:00 am

    Don’t you mean Government? Gos

  5. Jess NZ 5
    31 May 2018 at 9:43 am

    Yes, National and specifically Paula Bennett, were very aware of expert concerns in 2016 and claimed to be reviewing it. Took the new govt to stop the scam. Nat and Bennett doing as trained and pretending not to remember, hoping the voters will forget.

    ‘Housing New Zealand is wasting millions of dollars on vacating and cleaning states houses “contaminated” with methamphetamine which are actually safe to live in, an expert says.’

    ‘Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett says she shares some of the concerns, and officials are reviewing methamphetamine (P) contamination guidelines to see whether they should be changed.

    ‘Massey University environmental chemist Nick Kim, who helped develop the guidelines, said they were being inaccurately applied to properties where P had been smoked, not manufactured.’

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/81548539/Officials-reviewing-P-contamination-guidelines-as-expert-says-risk-overstated

  6. Sabine 6
    31 May 2018 at 9:51 am

    The state goal was that the State should do nothing to house our poor, our elders, our infirm, and that their wetdream is to sell what ever housing is still in the states name. As for the tenants? As the vile P.Bennet (Beneficiary par excellence) would say : Zip it sweety, or I dox you to the media.

    So my bet is they were indifferent to the plight they caused, they were malevolent in their intentions and they are liars, and to a large extend the polite classes of NZ knew this and could care not one bit, as they were not the ones kicked out of housing, branded as drug users, branded as drug using/cooking parents, and the same can still be said today of the chattering useless polite landed gentry that runs NZ politics.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      31 May 2018 at 11:17 am

      The state goal was that the State should do nothing to house our poor, our elders, our infirm, and that their wetdream is to sell what ever housing is still in the states name.

      National’s goal is to sell off everything the state owns because:

      James Meek has it right when he argues that ordinary people end up paying ‘private taxes’ to companies for privatised services:

      [What] makes water and roads and airports valuable to an investor foreign or otherwise, is the people who have no choice but to use them. We have no choice but to pay the price the tollkeepers charge. We are a human revenue stream; we are being made tenants in our own land, defined by the string of private fees we pay to exist here.

      Quote from Why we can’t afford the rich” by Andrew Sayer, Richard Wilkinson

      Privatisation is simply a way to increase the unearned income that the rich get.

  7. bwaghorn 7
    31 May 2018 at 10:33 am

    Standi national == we knew but we did fuck all and it wasn’t our job any way . Middle management at it’s best

  8. DH 8
    31 May 2018 at 11:29 am

    I didn’t know much about this except for the media reports on it. Now it’s blown up I did a little reading and find myself appalled at the ease of which we can see such a miscarriage of justice in this country. I thought it was largely just about differences of (professional) opinion when clearly it’s more serious that that.

    To my mind this is big enough, and enough people have been unfairly penalised, to call for a commission of inquiry to get to the bottom of it.

    In light of all the other information this needs looking into IMO (hat tip to incognito for the link);

    https://www.standards.govt.nz/sponsored-standards/testing-and-decontamination-of-methamphetamine-contaminated-properties/

    It appears to fly in the face of scientific opinion that properties where P was only used do not require decontamination. (see section 2.1.x) AU/NZS Standards are serious and authoritative publications, how and why did they get it so wrong?

  9. Drowsy M. Kram 9
    31 May 2018 at 11:39 am

    National in ‘Government’ = the party of malign neglect.

    And ‘party’ hard they did, on so many fronts from crises in housing and health services, to public asset sales, to creating tax ‘havens’, to degrading the environment and a ‘not our problem’ attitude to biosecurity.

    Commissions of inquiry are needed, soon. Many of National’s farcical excuses for public servants (Key, English, Joyce, Coleman) have done a runner (see how they run), but that’s no reason to let worms off the hook.

  10. taxicab 10
    31 May 2018 at 11:52 am

    Let’s not forget the Genesis of this . METHCON a business started by a one Mike Sabin .

  11. Michelle 11
    31 May 2018 at 1:45 pm

    Collins is talking a load of crap as usual same old bull from an old bull that needs to be put down. (past its use by date)

  12. The Chairman 12
    31 May 2018 at 2:19 pm

    Good post, Micky. You raise some valid points. National’s oversight was lacking to say the least.

    HNZ tenants weren’t the only ones negatively impacted from this. Homeowners, landlords and insurance companies have also suffered unnecessary costs/losses.

    Therefore, although Bennett’s claim is hard to stomach, she is correct in her belief compensation should be paid. And if we’re honest, I think most on the left would have to agree with that.

    After exploiting the treatment of HNZ tenants to score political points,  Phil Twyford  shows his true colours.

    “I haven’t given any thought to compensation and I don’t intend to.” – Phil Twyford 

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/05/landlords-won-t-get-compensation-for-following-incorrect-meth-standards.html

    https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018647263/no-compensation-for-meth-evictions-housing-nz

    • Muttonbird 12.1
      31 May 2018 at 2:55 pm

      I couldn’t find any example in those links of Twyford using HNZ tenants to score political points.

      Your prime objective here is to discredit the Labour led government and this effort proves it.

      • The Chairman 12.1.1
        31 May 2018 at 3:15 pm

        Those links weren’t given with the intent to give that example as it is rather common knowledge. Nevertheless, here (below) is one example.

        Twyford referenced the case of Robert Erueti, who was evicted from his state house where he lived for more than 15 years, after traces of meth were detected.

        “A very, very tiny amount of methamphetamine residue was found on his property. I don’t think there was any suggestion that he was responsible for that,” Twyford said.

        “He was evicted from his property and spent the last 14 months living in a grotty boarding house and then homeless. It is a mad policy, it is unfair.”

        https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11962497

        My objective in this instance is highlighting this Labour led Government’s failure to offer compensation. Hence, your assertion proves nothing.

        Moreover, are you going to defend Twyford’s cold-hearted stance?

        Are you genuinely going to tell me you are from the left and are going to oppose people being compensated for this?

        As for discrediting this Labour led Government, Twyford (via his comment) did that all on his own. I merely highlighted it.

  13. Ken 13
    31 May 2018 at 4:55 pm

    One word…….”Methcon”

  14. Ankerrawshark 14
    31 May 2018 at 5:38 pm

    Chairman I applause Twyford for uncovering this Rort.

    You people and I include Paula B in this don’t give a dam and just use this situation caused by National to get a dig at labour.

    Paula b was minister when this happened =Minister is responsible………

    • The Chairman 14.1
      2 June 2018 at 9:54 am

      I also applaud Twyford. But he’s now dropped the ball a number of times.

      Ruling out compensation. But I see he has done a bit of a flip flop on that, which is good. And if it wasn’t for the immense public outcry (such as from the media and people like myself) the flip flop would have been unlikely.

      He was ignorant to the fact HNZ are still pursuing tenants for now-discredited meth decontamination. Which I see in another turn around has now stopped. The media pressure and public outcry was again immense.

      And that the new standard HNZ has adopted is still not fit for purpose. Meaning unnecessary costs, stress and social harm is still going to be created. All based upon a “might be”

      As this is still yet to sink in, there has been little public outcry, thus no turn around in sight as yet.

      I’m not using this to merely have a dig at Labour. I highlight these things in the hope the public outcry (my voice combined with others and the media) will help lead to them backtracking and doing better.

      Are you implying you also applaud Twyford ruling out compensation, HNZ for pursuing tenants for now-discredited meth decontamination and HNZ adopting a standard that is still not fit for purpose? I don’t, hence I’m speaking out.

      Remaining silent would help turn these things around. Moreover, applauding these things sends the Government the wrong message.

  15. Brigante 15
    31 May 2018 at 6:34 pm

    Gosman should quit being a fake and use his proper name..Whale Oil!

    • Matthew Whitehead 15.1
      31 May 2018 at 10:59 pm

      For the second time this month… Gosman isn’t Cam Slater. You’ll know someone is Cam Slater because they’ll be warned or banned almost as soon as they start posting.

  16. Bryan 16
    31 May 2018 at 8:13 pm

    Twyford= hypocrisy
    Previously all indignant and outrage at the victims of the “meth moral panic” eviction and remediation scam.
    Now there will be no apology or compo.
    A lesson from someone with a little more substance.
    His colleague, Justice Minister Andrew Little, last night said an apology was warranted.

    • Gabby 16.1
      31 May 2018 at 8:25 pm

      Lord Andrew McKenzie must have informed him as to what was going to be acceptable to his lordship.

  17. Ken 17
    31 May 2018 at 10:52 pm

    Another thing to consider is who is bringing in the meth.
    A few kilos of meth can’t be cheep, and you’d need to know the scene pretty well in China where it comes from to jack it up.
    You’d need to be very wealthy…….wealthy like those Chinese people who snapped up all our houses by outbidding Kiwis at the auctions.
    The kind of people who had direct access to John Key and his MPs.

    • edgil 17.1
      31 May 2018 at 11:20 pm

      Bingo. Or should I shout Housie.
      That is who will be moving in. Already witnessing it.
      Where is our Special Counsel Investigator Mueller?
      Collusion?

      • Ken 17.1.1
        1 June 2018 at 12:01 am

        Where is our Steven Colbert?
        The media have been complicit.
        Smart move getting the taxpayer to bail out Joyce’s Media Works.

        • edgil 17.1.1.1
          1 June 2018 at 12:41 am

          Mike Hoskings stopped me watching and listening ,with both Morning Report RNZ and TV.
          I never turn the TV on now. Only just starting to carefully listen to RNZ and BFM Due being stuck in the Maelstrom of Auckland traffic.
          I get to look through the Hurricane wire fences at empty land where once my neighbours lived. It saddens me.

  18. WILD KATIPO 18
    1 June 2018 at 3:11 pm

    … ‘ I think their strategy is they want us to forget it all. Let’s not do that ‘ ….

    ^^^

    THIS.

    Because that is precisely why New Zealanders don’t learn from past dabbling’s with the National party. And every time they pay the price for it.

    Slow learners.

    Conversely , every time they get sick of being shown yet again how toxic National are , they reach for the Labour vote and , while liking the social aspects,… still fail to recognize Labour is still in thrall to the neo liberals among them.

    Slow learners.

    What we really need, – and have a low prospect of at present , – is our own Jeremy Corbyn to arise. He or she does exist in this country , … they just need to step forwards and pick up the mantle.

    And although the current coalition is a good one, and infinitely better than National ever was or could be,… they are still a far cry from what this country needs ; a true Corbynesque social and economic revolution.

    • Gosman 18.1
      1 June 2018 at 3:19 pm

      Corbyn will not be the sort of leader you think he will be. I guarantee if he ever gets in to power you will be disappointed within a very rapid timeframe.

      • Stuart Munro 18.1.1
        1 June 2018 at 3:22 pm

        We’re disappointed with Bridges and Judith now, and they’re not even in power. And their pathetic trolls. Corbyn would be a massive step in the right direction – we know for sure what you like doesn’t work at all.

    • edgil 18.2
      1 June 2018 at 11:12 pm

      Succinct Wild Katipo.

  19. Robert Guyton 19
    2 June 2018 at 1:21 pm

    Has anyone footage of Key speaking to this issue in the House?

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