Planet Rugby Forum

Seneca of the Night wrote:Farrar goes Beast Mode on the Massey VC:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/09/the_ ... eline.html

Serious blogging mastery.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:Farrar goes Beast Mode on the Massey VC:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2018/09/the_ ... eline.html

Serious blogging mastery.

Massey University has behaved disgracefully over this.
The idea that university students need protection against views that challenge them is the exact opposite of what university is supposed to engender.

As for Don Brash being a racist, to a large percentage of the country, promoting one law for all is the essence of democracy not racism.

Those who fancy themselves as self appointed moral arbiters are no better than Mao's red guards, and should give themselves a napalm enema and do the world a favour.

What I found interesting is that the dopey VC from Victoria behind the name change is a Vet from Massey and the VC at Massey is also a Vet. Where the hell did this come from? Vets? What happened to Ancient Greek Professors? A Classicist would not have made these dumbarse mistakes.

deadduck wrote:How many were affected? One source says 300, another 800 people. Does that mean 500 were legitimate evictions?

guy smiley wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Danyl McLaughlin on Bridges recent comments on meth eviction compensation

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-09 ... s-remarks/

One of NZ’s best political commentator imo.

Decent read, that.

Rather than fuss over the petty machinations of a VC at Massey making a fool of herself, this meth hysteria fiasco is worth a hard look, not just for the sheer cost of the stuff up but what it represents.. a ruthless attack on the weak in society by government. And they're tripling down on it after the chief scientist and the health dept have given them an out.

guy smiley wrote:Rather than fuss over the petty machinations of a VC at Massey making a fool of herself, this meth hysteria fiasco is worth a hard look, not just for the sheer cost of the stuff up but what it represents.. a ruthless attack on the weak in society by government. And they're tripling down on it after the chief scientist and the health dept have given them an out.

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:Has Ardern misled Parliament? Looks like she said she didn't respond to Hanley's text, then got asked if that meant she'd just ignored it and repeated that she'd not responded, then asked 'not even an emoji' and confirmed correct 'not even an emoji'.

Turns out there's a string of texts from her to him, including her saying she'll see if there's a role for him, then giving him her email address after he raises the CTO role.

The odd thing is that there was just no need for any of this - it's straight out incompetence in the act, the cover-up, and getting caught.

Wilderbeast wrote:Danyl McLaughlin on Bridges recent comments on meth eviction compensation

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-09 ... s-remarks/

One of NZ’s best political commentator imo.

Tehui wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Danyl McLaughlin on Bridges recent comments on meth eviction compensation

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-09 ... s-remarks/

One of NZ’s best political commentator imo.

I'll probably see Danyl at a school reunion in a month's time.

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:

Tehui wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Danyl McLaughlin on Bridges recent comments on meth eviction compensation

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-09 ... s-remarks/

One of NZ’s best political commentator imo.

I'll probably see Danyl at a school reunion in a month's time.

He's very good - he's actually capable of balance unlike say Stephen Mills on National Radio on a Monday.

guy smiley wrote:

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Rather than fuss over the petty machinations of a VC at Massey making a fool of herself, this meth hysteria fiasco is worth a hard look, not just for the sheer cost of the stuff up but what it represents.. a ruthless attack on the weak in society by government. And they're tripling down on it after the chief scientist and the health dept have given them an out.

That's a bit strong! Public servants just aren't like that.

They carry out the master's bidding...

this was a policy decision and Bridge's double / triple down over it, after the Ministry of Health game them the perfect out in acknowledging they got it wrong pretty much confirms that. Drugs are badddd mmmkay and tough policy good etc...

I have a close relative involved in this at departmental level so I've been able to get something of an insight, by no means complete. It's been pretty shitty for all involved at that end, which pales a little in comparison to being evicted because of flawed process, of course.

Wilderbeast wrote:I know people in HNZ. How no heads rolled is beyond me.

Guy Smiley wrote:I have a close relative involved in this at departmental level so I've been able to get something of an insight,

guy smiley wrote:The Head of department hid, from what I can gather and let others take the heat. It wasn't pleasant.

BillW wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Danyl McLaughlin on Bridges recent comments on meth eviction compensation

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-09 ... s-remarks/

One of NZ’s best political commentator imo.

Decent read, that.

Rather than fuss over the petty machinations of a VC at Massey making a fool of herself, this meth hysteria fiasco is worth a hard look, not just for the sheer cost of the stuff up but what it represents.. a ruthless attack on the weak in society by government. And they're tripling down on it after the chief scientist and the health dept have given them an out.

Yeah?
Well here's a better read.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opini ... mpensation
This is a different view of the payouts which, unlike that Danyl McLaughlin fluff piece, is based on facts and data.

Since July 2013, 4958 of HNZ's properties have been contamination-tested, triggered by reasonable grounds for suspicion, with 2483 properties testing above the Ministry of Health and Standards New Zealand's prevailing thresholds at the time.

Of those, 1214 properties were tenanted when testing was carried out. In the case of 264 properties, HNZ was satisfied that the present tenants weren't responsible for the contamination and they were promptly rehoused. HNZ also paid for their moving costs and shelled out grocery vouchers or cash grants to atone for placing them in contaminated rentals.

In a further 159 properties, the tenants were allowed to stay put, while it was remedied. But for 791 properties, the occupants were found responsible for the contamination, they were not rehoused, and were served with a seven-day notice, a 90-day notice, or a Tenancy Tribunal order to vacate.

Hundreds of these tenants were already breaching other aspects of their tenancy agreements, like unpaid rent, vandalism and engaging in unlawful behaviour. In the case of 275 tenancies, the individuals were suspended from being housed by HNZ for one year.

The HNZ report also reveals that of their rentals that tested positive for meth, 565 of them actually clocked up a reading of 15μg/100cm2 or higher. (The new contamination threshold as decreed by Sir Peter Gluckman.)

Remember the 87-year-old pensioner who was forced out of her rental of 60 years? The TV news channels paraded her last week as a prime victim of HNZ's "bogus testing". Not only did HNZ rehouse her and pay the moving costs, but her rental recorded an off-the-charts meth reading of 22.5ug/100cm2. And that followed the tenant's son arranging for the property to be commercially cleaned before testing. There had also been a firearms incident at the place.

Yes, in the great majority of cases, the positive meth readings fell well short of the new Gluckman threshold that HNZ has now embraced. However, why are we frittering away big bucks compensating the occupants of those 791 properties, who had been cooking or smoking meth in their state rentals?

If anyone was unfairly evicted who genuinely hadn't broken their tenancy agreement or allowed meth to be used in their rental, sure, compensate them. But is there actually such a case?

Why should hundreds of bad eggs be financially rewarded for criminal behaviour or breaching their tenancy agreement, just because of overcautious meth contamination readings?

BillW wrote:You've missed the whole point of the article Uncle.

Since July 2013, 4958 of HNZ's properties have been contamination-tested, triggered by reasonable grounds for suspicion, with 2483 properties testing above the Ministry of Health and Standards New Zealand's prevailing thresholds at the time.

Of those, 1214 properties were tenanted when testing was carried out. In the case of 264 properties, HNZ was satisfied that the present tenants weren't responsible for the contamination and they were promptly rehoused. HNZ also paid for their moving costs and shelled out grocery vouchers or cash grants to atone for placing them in contaminated rentals.

In a further 159 properties, the tenants were allowed to stay put, while it was remedied. But for 791 properties, the occupants were found responsible for the contamination, they were not rehoused, and were served with a seven-day notice, a 90-day notice, or a Tenancy Tribunal order to vacate.

Hundreds of these tenants were already breaching other aspects of their tenancy agreements, like unpaid rent, vandalism and engaging in unlawful behaviour. In the case of 275 tenancies, the individuals were suspended from being housed by HNZ for one year.

The HNZ report also reveals that of their rentals that tested positive for meth, 565 of them actually clocked up a reading of 15μg/100cm2 or higher. (The new contamination threshold as decreed by Sir Peter Gluckman.)

Remember the 87-year-old pensioner who was forced out of her rental of 60 years? The TV news channels paraded her last week as a prime victim of HNZ's "bogus testing". Not only did HNZ rehouse her and pay the moving costs, but her rental recorded an off-the-charts meth reading of 22.5ug/100cm2. And that followed the tenant's son arranging for the property to be commercially cleaned before testing. There had also been a firearms incident at the place.

Yes, in the great majority of cases, the positive meth readings fell well short of the new Gluckman threshold that HNZ has now embraced. However, why are we frittering away big bucks compensating the occupants of those 791 properties, who had been cooking or smoking meth in their state rentals?

If anyone was unfairly evicted who genuinely hadn't broken their tenancy agreement or allowed meth to be used in their rental, sure, compensate them. But is there actually such a case?

Why should hundreds of bad eggs be financially rewarded for criminal behaviour or breaching their tenancy agreement, just because of overcautious meth contamination readings?

I don't know what you read.

BillW wrote:You've missed the whole point of the article Uncle.

Since July 2013, 4958 of HNZ's properties have been contamination-tested, triggered by reasonable grounds for suspicion, with 2483 properties testing above the Ministry of Health and Standards New Zealand's prevailing thresholds at the time.

Of those, 1214 properties were tenanted when testing was carried out. In the case of 264 properties, HNZ was satisfied that the present tenants weren't responsible for the contamination and they were promptly rehoused. HNZ also paid for their moving costs and shelled out grocery vouchers or cash grants to atone for placing them in contaminated rentals.

In a further 159 properties, the tenants were allowed to stay put, while it was remedied. But for 791 properties, the occupants were found responsible for the contamination, they were not rehoused, and were served with a seven-day notice, a 90-day notice, or a Tenancy Tribunal order to vacate.

Hundreds of these tenants were already breaching other aspects of their tenancy agreements, like unpaid rent, vandalism and engaging in unlawful behaviour. In the case of 275 tenancies, the individuals were suspended from being housed by HNZ for one year.

The HNZ report also reveals that of their rentals that tested positive for meth, 565 of them actually clocked up a reading of 15μg/100cm2 or higher. (The new contamination threshold as decreed by Sir Peter Gluckman.)

Remember the 87-year-old pensioner who was forced out of her rental of 60 years? The TV news channels paraded her last week as a prime victim of HNZ's "bogus testing". Not only did HNZ rehouse her and pay the moving costs, but her rental recorded an off-the-charts meth reading of 22.5ug/100cm2. And that followed the tenant's son arranging for the property to be commercially cleaned before testing. There had also been a firearms incident at the place.

Yes, in the great majority of cases, the positive meth readings fell well short of the new Gluckman threshold that HNZ has now embraced. However, why are we frittering away big bucks compensating the occupants of those 791 properties, who had been cooking or smoking meth in their state rentals?

If anyone was unfairly evicted who genuinely hadn't broken their tenancy agreement or allowed meth to be used in their rental, sure, compensate them. But is there actually such a case?

Why should hundreds of bad eggs be financially rewarded for criminal behaviour or breaching their tenancy agreement, just because of overcautious meth contamination readings?

I don't know what you read.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

BillW wrote:You've missed the whole point of the article Uncle.

Since July 2013, 4958 of HNZ's properties have been contamination-tested, triggered by reasonable grounds for suspicion, with 2483 properties testing above the Ministry of Health and Standards New Zealand's prevailing thresholds at the time.

Of those, 1214 properties were tenanted when testing was carried out. In the case of 264 properties, HNZ was satisfied that the present tenants weren't responsible for the contamination and they were promptly rehoused. HNZ also paid for their moving costs and shelled out grocery vouchers or cash grants to atone for placing them in contaminated rentals.

In a further 159 properties, the tenants were allowed to stay put, while it was remedied. But for 791 properties, the occupants were found responsible for the contamination, they were not rehoused, and were served with a seven-day notice, a 90-day notice, or a Tenancy Tribunal order to vacate.

Hundreds of these tenants were already breaching other aspects of their tenancy agreements, like unpaid rent, vandalism and engaging in unlawful behaviour. In the case of 275 tenancies, the individuals were suspended from being housed by HNZ for one year.

The HNZ report also reveals that of their rentals that tested positive for meth, 565 of them actually clocked up a reading of 15μg/100cm2 or higher. (The new contamination threshold as decreed by Sir Peter Gluckman.)

Remember the 87-year-old pensioner who was forced out of her rental of 60 years? The TV news channels paraded her last week as a prime victim of HNZ's "bogus testing". Not only did HNZ rehouse her and pay the moving costs, but her rental recorded an off-the-charts meth reading of 22.5ug/100cm2. And that followed the tenant's son arranging for the property to be commercially cleaned before testing. There had also been a firearms incident at the place.

Yes, in the great majority of cases, the positive meth readings fell well short of the new Gluckman threshold that HNZ has now embraced. However, why are we frittering away big bucks compensating the occupants of those 791 properties, who had been cooking or smoking meth in their state rentals?

If anyone was unfairly evicted who genuinely hadn't broken their tenancy agreement or allowed meth to be used in their rental, sure, compensate them. But is there actually such a case?

Why should hundreds of bad eggs be financially rewarded for criminal behaviour or breaching their tenancy agreement, just because of overcautious meth contamination readings?

I don't know what you read.

Would any of this meth testing have reached the legal threshold in terms of burden of proof. Doesn't sound like it to me. In which case, evicting those people without compensation (whether they are actually guilty or not) was always going to be on flimsy ground. Cause and effect can't have been categorically proven in all those cases, which definitely means there's a risk of some of those originally uncompensated evictees being hard-done-by.

No doubt it should have been handled better and more systematically in the first place too.

BillW wrote:You've missed the whole point of the article Uncle.

Since July 2013, 4958 of HNZ's properties have been contamination-tested, triggered by reasonable grounds for suspicion, with 2483 properties testing above the Ministry of Health and Standards New Zealand's prevailing thresholds at the time.

Of those, 1214 properties were tenanted when testing was carried out. In the case of 264 properties, HNZ was satisfied that the present tenants weren't responsible for the contamination and they were promptly rehoused. HNZ also paid for their moving costs and shelled out grocery vouchers or cash grants to atone for placing them in contaminated rentals.

In a further 159 properties, the tenants were allowed to stay put, while it was remedied. But for 791 properties, the occupants were found responsible for the contamination, they were not rehoused, and were served with a seven-day notice, a 90-day notice, or a Tenancy Tribunal order to vacate.

Hundreds of these tenants were already breaching other aspects of their tenancy agreements, like unpaid rent, vandalism and engaging in unlawful behaviour. In the case of 275 tenancies, the individuals were suspended from being housed by HNZ for one year.

The HNZ report also reveals that of their rentals that tested positive for meth, 565 of them actually clocked up a reading of 15μg/100cm2 or higher. (The new contamination threshold as decreed by Sir Peter Gluckman.)

Remember the 87-year-old pensioner who was forced out of her rental of 60 years? The TV news channels paraded her last week as a prime victim of HNZ's "bogus testing". Not only did HNZ rehouse her and pay the moving costs, but her rental recorded an off-the-charts meth reading of 22.5ug/100cm2. And that followed the tenant's son arranging for the property to be commercially cleaned before testing. There had also been a firearms incident at the place.

Yes, in the great majority of cases, the positive meth readings fell well short of the new Gluckman threshold that HNZ has now embraced. However, why are we frittering away big bucks compensating the occupants of those 791 properties, who had been cooking or smoking meth in their state rentals?

If anyone was unfairly evicted who genuinely hadn't broken their tenancy agreement or allowed meth to be used in their rental, sure, compensate them. But is there actually such a case?

Why should hundreds of bad eggs be financially rewarded for criminal behaviour or breaching their tenancy agreement, just because of overcautious meth contamination readings?

I don't know what you read.

Hareaway wrote:I may come across as a bit grinch like (yeah I know) but can we just leave baby Neve and the fish murderer out of the coverage for just ten seconds
Seriously I would be interested in how our PM is going at the UN

But alas it appears the woman’s weekly photo ops are the first priority.
I think our PM has something to offer , the first man not so much

Hareaway wrote:I may come across as a bit grinch like (yeah I know) but can we just leave baby Neve and the fish murderer out of the coverage for just ten seconds
Seriously I would be interested in how our PM is going at the UN

But alas it appears the woman’s weekly photo ops are the first priority.
I think our PM has something to offer , the first man not so much

Santa wrote:

BillW wrote:You've missed the whole point of the article Uncle.

Since July 2013, 4958 of HNZ's properties have been contamination-tested, triggered by reasonable grounds for suspicion, with 2483 properties testing above the Ministry of Health and Standards New Zealand's prevailing thresholds at the time.

Of those, 1214 properties were tenanted when testing was carried out. In the case of 264 properties, HNZ was satisfied that the present tenants weren't responsible for the contamination and they were promptly rehoused. HNZ also paid for their moving costs and shelled out grocery vouchers or cash grants to atone for placing them in contaminated rentals.

In a further 159 properties, the tenants were allowed to stay put, while it was remedied. But for 791 properties, the occupants were found responsible for the contamination, they were not rehoused, and were served with a seven-day notice, a 90-day notice, or a Tenancy Tribunal order to vacate.

Hundreds of these tenants were already breaching other aspects of their tenancy agreements, like unpaid rent, vandalism and engaging in unlawful behaviour. In the case of 275 tenancies, the individuals were suspended from being housed by HNZ for one year.

The HNZ report also reveals that of their rentals that tested positive for meth, 565 of them actually clocked up a reading of 15μg/100cm2 or higher. (The new contamination threshold as decreed by Sir Peter Gluckman.)

Remember the 87-year-old pensioner who was forced out of her rental of 60 years? The TV news channels paraded her last week as a prime victim of HNZ's "bogus testing". Not only did HNZ rehouse her and pay the moving costs, but her rental recorded an off-the-charts meth reading of 22.5ug/100cm2. And that followed the tenant's son arranging for the property to be commercially cleaned before testing. There had also been a firearms incident at the place.

Yes, in the great majority of cases, the positive meth readings fell well short of the new Gluckman threshold that HNZ has now embraced. However, why are we frittering away big bucks compensating the occupants of those 791 properties, who had been cooking or smoking meth in their state rentals?

If anyone was unfairly evicted who genuinely hadn't broken their tenancy agreement or allowed meth to be used in their rental, sure, compensate them. But is there actually such a case?

Why should hundreds of bad eggs be financially rewarded for criminal behaviour or breaching their tenancy agreement, just because of overcautious meth contamination readings?

I don't know what you read.

McLaughlin is quite good. I used to read the Dim Post a lot before he closed it. I'm a little surprised at the fluffiness of his piece. I would have expected, given his background in stats, that he would have looked at the actual data but he doesn't seem to have done that.

Wilderbeast wrote:Just today, National has been raving about saving the Tahr and getting a petition signed and all sorts. It's a god damn pest for crying out loud, what are they playing at? Linky

Wilderbeast wrote:

Santa wrote:

BillW wrote:You've missed the whole point of the article Uncle.

Since July 2013, 4958 of HNZ's properties have been contamination-tested, triggered by reasonable grounds for suspicion, with 2483 properties testing above the Ministry of Health and Standards New Zealand's prevailing thresholds at the time.

Of those, 1214 properties were tenanted when testing was carried out. In the case of 264 properties, HNZ was satisfied that the present tenants weren't responsible for the contamination and they were promptly rehoused. HNZ also paid for their moving costs and shelled out grocery vouchers or cash grants to atone for placing them in contaminated rentals.

In a further 159 properties, the tenants were allowed to stay put, while it was remedied. But for 791 properties, the occupants were found responsible for the contamination, they were not rehoused, and were served with a seven-day notice, a 90-day notice, or a Tenancy Tribunal order to vacate.

Hundreds of these tenants were already breaching other aspects of their tenancy agreements, like unpaid rent, vandalism and engaging in unlawful behaviour. In the case of 275 tenancies, the individuals were suspended from being housed by HNZ for one year.

The HNZ report also reveals that of their rentals that tested positive for meth, 565 of them actually clocked up a reading of 15μg/100cm2 or higher. (The new contamination threshold as decreed by Sir Peter Gluckman.)

Remember the 87-year-old pensioner who was forced out of her rental of 60 years? The TV news channels paraded her last week as a prime victim of HNZ's "bogus testing". Not only did HNZ rehouse her and pay the moving costs, but her rental recorded an off-the-charts meth reading of 22.5ug/100cm2. And that followed the tenant's son arranging for the property to be commercially cleaned before testing. There had also been a firearms incident at the place.

Yes, in the great majority of cases, the positive meth readings fell well short of the new Gluckman threshold that HNZ has now embraced. However, why are we frittering away big bucks compensating the occupants of those 791 properties, who had been cooking or smoking meth in their state rentals?

If anyone was unfairly evicted who genuinely hadn't broken their tenancy agreement or allowed meth to be used in their rental, sure, compensate them. But is there actually such a case?

Why should hundreds of bad eggs be financially rewarded for criminal behaviour or breaching their tenancy agreement, just because of overcautious meth contamination readings?

I don't know what you read.

McLaughlin is quite good. I used to read the Dim Post a lot before he closed it. I'm a little surprised at the fluffiness of his piece. I would have expected, given his background in stats, that he would have looked at the actual data but he doesn't seem to have done that.

You do realise that HNZ screwing up isn't in dispute, right? It is accepted by all involved, including HNZ themselves and the National party. I don't get what the stats will prove. What the opinion piece is more concerned about is the message coming out of National that none of these people deserve compensation, as they are all crooks (why are they crooks exactly?). Danyl seems to think this is quite extreme and possibly something of a new approach for National in opposition. If you scream some trigger words loud enough, hopefully no one will stop and check your facts. It is rather reminiscent of Trump style politics, and would suit Collins to a tee.

Just today, National has been raving about saving the Tahr and getting a petition signed and all sorts. It's a god damn pest for crying out loud, what are they playing at? Linky

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Just today, National has been raving about saving the Tahr and getting a petition signed and all sorts. It's a god damn pest for crying out loud, what are they playing at? Linky

Isn't the tahr thing a potential little wedge issue between The Greens and NZ First? National's having a laugh at their expense.

BillW wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:You do realise that HNZ screwing up isn't in dispute, right? It is accepted by all involved, including HNZ themselves and the National party. I don't get what the stats will prove. What the opinion piece is more concerned about is the message coming out of National that none of these people deserve compensation, as they are all crooks (why are they crooks exactly?). Danyl seems to think this is quite extreme and possibly something of a new approach for National in opposition. If you scream some trigger words loud enough, hopefully no one will stop and check your facts. It is rather reminiscent of Trump style politics, and would suit Collins to a tee.

Just today, National has been raving about saving the Tahr and getting a petition signed and all sorts. It's a god damn pest for crying out loud, what are they playing at? Linky

Your reply confuses me Wildebeest.
I thought I was the one trying to introduce some facts to the issue by quoting that article.

Much of the commentary in HNZ's 188-page report has been pasteurised to please the ideological persuasions of their political masters. But buried beneath the spin and fluff, some searing facts provide some sobering context about the scourge of meth in state housing and how the agency arguably acted in good faith.

Wilderbeast wrote:I know people in HNZ. How no heads rolled is beyond me.

UncleFB wrote:

BillW wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Danyl McLaughlin on Bridges recent comments on meth eviction compensation

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-09 ... s-remarks/

One of NZ’s best political commentator imo.

Decent read, that.

Rather than fuss over the petty machinations of a VC at Massey making a fool of herself, this meth hysteria fiasco is worth a hard look, not just for the sheer cost of the stuff up but what it represents.. a ruthless attack on the weak in society by government. And they're tripling down on it after the chief scientist and the health dept have given them an out.

Yeah?
Well here's a better read.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opini ... mpensation
This is a different view of the payouts which, unlike that Danyl McLaughlin fluff piece, is based on facts and data.

Just read this piece on your suggestion. The writer of it seems a bit conflicted and it's hard to see it as a better read - it's just a different opinion. He poos poos other journos for not reading it, then he states that it's a politically driven report, but decides it's ok to use parts of it in support his opinion as he ignores one of the key themes of the report (systemic issues that led to poor performance in some aspects by HNZ).

Santa wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

BillW wrote:You've missed the whole point of the article Uncle.

Since July 2013, 4958 of HNZ's properties have been contamination-tested, triggered by reasonable grounds for suspicion, with 2483 properties testing above the Ministry of Health and Standards New Zealand's prevailing thresholds at the time.

Of those, 1214 properties were tenanted when testing was carried out. In the case of 264 properties, HNZ was satisfied that the present tenants weren't responsible for the contamination and they were promptly rehoused. HNZ also paid for their moving costs and shelled out grocery vouchers or cash grants to atone for placing them in contaminated rentals.

In a further 159 properties, the tenants were allowed to stay put, while it was remedied. But for 791 properties, the occupants were found responsible for the contamination, they were not rehoused, and were served with a seven-day notice, a 90-day notice, or a Tenancy Tribunal order to vacate.

Hundreds of these tenants were already breaching other aspects of their tenancy agreements, like unpaid rent, vandalism and engaging in unlawful behaviour. In the case of 275 tenancies, the individuals were suspended from being housed by HNZ for one year.

The HNZ report also reveals that of their rentals that tested positive for meth, 565 of them actually clocked up a reading of 15μg/100cm2 or higher. (The new contamination threshold as decreed by Sir Peter Gluckman.)

Remember the 87-year-old pensioner who was forced out of her rental of 60 years? The TV news channels paraded her last week as a prime victim of HNZ's "bogus testing". Not only did HNZ rehouse her and pay the moving costs, but her rental recorded an off-the-charts meth reading of 22.5ug/100cm2. And that followed the tenant's son arranging for the property to be commercially cleaned before testing. There had also been a firearms incident at the place.

Yes, in the great majority of cases, the positive meth readings fell well short of the new Gluckman threshold that HNZ has now embraced. However, why are we frittering away big bucks compensating the occupants of those 791 properties, who had been cooking or smoking meth in their state rentals?

If anyone was unfairly evicted who genuinely hadn't broken their tenancy agreement or allowed meth to be used in their rental, sure, compensate them. But is there actually such a case?

Why should hundreds of bad eggs be financially rewarded for criminal behaviour or breaching their tenancy agreement, just because of overcautious meth contamination readings?

I don't know what you read.

Would any of this meth testing have reached the legal threshold in terms of burden of proof. Doesn't sound like it to me. In which case, evicting those people without compensation (whether they are actually guilty or not) was always going to be on flimsy ground. Cause and effect can't have been categorically proven in all those cases, which definitely means there's a risk of some of those originally uncompensated evictees being hard-done-by.

No doubt it should have been handled better and more systematically in the first place too.

What? What legal threshold? Reaaonable doubt? Going by the stats many of those evicted could have been evicted for multiple breaches off their tenancy. That's the relevant legal threshold. And on the face of it HNZ was actually quite lenient because it ignored a lot of activity that was in breach.

Wilderbeast wrote:

BillW wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:You do realise that HNZ screwing up isn't in dispute, right? It is accepted by all involved, including HNZ themselves and the National party. I don't get what the stats will prove. What the opinion piece is more concerned about is the message coming out of National that none of these people deserve compensation, as they are all crooks (why are they crooks exactly?). Danyl seems to think this is quite extreme and possibly something of a new approach for National in opposition. If you scream some trigger words loud enough, hopefully no one will stop and check your facts. It is rather reminiscent of Trump style politics, and would suit Collins to a tee.

Just today, National has been raving about saving the Tahr and getting a petition signed and all sorts. It's a god damn pest for crying out loud, what are they playing at? Linky

Your reply confuses me Wildebeest.
I thought I was the one trying to introduce some facts to the issue by quoting that article.

You didn't introduce facts, you introduced a counter opinion piece which attempted to justify a counter-narrative by cherry picking data from HNZ's report. This quote says enough really:

Much of the commentary in HNZ's 188-page report has been pasteurised to please the ideological persuasions of their political masters. But buried beneath the spin and fluff, some searing facts provide some sobering context about the scourge of meth in state housing and how the agency arguably acted in good faith.

Basically, the guy is ignoring 9/10th's of the report to draw his own conclusions. If you seriously wanted to introduce facts, there are better ways to go about it.

Report

Methamphetamine Contamination Housing New Zealand's Response - September 2018 [PDF, 3.3 MB]
Key docs in report
Executive Team papers

Executive Team paper 01 Deloitte Methamphetamine (P) Review (12 April 2016) [PDF, 505 KB]

Executive Team paper 02 Meeting of the Executive, Effective Decision Making Around When and How Tenancies are Terminated [PDF, 903 KB]
Board papers

Board paper 01 - Deloitte Methamphetamine (P) Review (3 May 2016) [PDF, 671 KB]

Board paper 02 - Ministry of health methamphetamine contamination threshold (18 October 2016) [PDF, 855 KB]

Board paper 03 Suspensions policy (25 October 2011) [PDF, 666 KB]

Board paper 04 5- 1 CE report - Encouraging Good Neighbour Behaviour Policy introduced (26 March 2009) [PDF, 656 KB]

Board paper 05 - Minutes of a meeting of the Board of HNZC -Suspensions Policy (25 October 2011) [PDF, 747 KB]

Board paper 06 Extracts from Board minutes fom 30 June 2015 to 18 October 2016 [PDF, 653 KB]

Board paper 07 3-1 CE Report (Dog Attack) 27 October 2015 [PDF, 620 KB]

Board paper 08 Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Housing New Zealand (27 October 2015) [PDF, 1.2 MB]

Board paper 09 6-2 Chief Operating Officer Report (24 November 2015) [PDF, 929 KB]

Board paper 10 Minutes of a meeting of the Board of HNZC (24 November 2015) [PDF, 890 KB]
Other key documents used in the report

01. T-250 Guidelines for managing tenant belongings affected by methamphetame contamination [PDF, 2 MB]

02. CA-716 Managing Methamphetamine -Meth- in Housing New Zealand Managed Properties [PDF, 6.5 MB]

03. CA - 717 Guidelines for Managing Methamphetamine (Meth) in Home Lease Properties (24 April 2018) [PDF, 1.6 MB]

04. CA - 718 Guidelines for Managing Methamphetamine (Meth) in Emergency Housing properties [PDF, 808 KB]

05 CA-719 Guidelines for Managing Methamphetamine (Meth) in Community Group Housing properties [PDF, 732 KB]

06. Methamphetamine contamination (Wanganui results) P Lab training [PDF, 2.5 MB]

07. Technical commentary and opinion relating to the nature, health significance and persistence of trace methamphetamine on indoor surfaces (13 June 2016) Dr Nick Kim [PDF, 1.6 MB]

08 . Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties - Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards - Professor Sir Peter Gluckman [PDF, 532 KB]

09. Housing New Zealand Corporation Review of P (P)Contaminsation Management and Strategies (8 April 2016) - Deloitte [PDF, 1.3 MB]

10. Review of Remediation Standards for Clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratories Risk Assessment recommendations for a New Zealand Standard (7 october 2016) ESR [PDF, 1.5 MB]

11. NZS8510-2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties [PDF, 2.1 MB]

12. Memo Interim Testing & Remediation Approach - P Contamination (6 May 2015) [PDF, 728 KB]

13. Correspondence between the PSA and HousingNew Zealand (28 January - 9 March 2016) [PDF, 717 KB]

14. Encouraging Good Neighbour Behaviour Policy (8 October 2010) [PDF, 560 KB]

15. T-229 Anti-Social Behaviour Guideline [PDF, 4.5 MB]

16. Guidelines for remediation of Clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratory Sites (August 2010) Ministry of Health [PDF, 712 KB]

17. T-126 Tenancy Management Procedure Methamphetamine P and Housing New Zealand Corporation Tenancies [PDF, 743 KB]

18 Project initiation document Methampetamine Contamination Policy Review (28 July 2015) [PDF, 1.7 MB]

19. Methamphetamine Management Programme Brief (7 April 2016) [PDF, 1.2 MB]

20. Methamphetamine Management Programme Plan (27 July 2016) [PDF, 1.6 MB]

21. Standards and Methods Stream Project Initiation Document, Methamphetamine Management Programme (5 September 2016) [PDF, 1.8 MB]

22. Methamphetamine Health Update to Staff (12 February 2016) [PDF, 830 KB]

23. Memo - Advice on Methamphetamine Threshold, Acting Chief Executive to Chair of Housing New Zealand (13 July 2016) [PDF, 512 KB]

24. Memo - Advice on Methamphetamine Threshold, Acting Chief Executive to Chair of Housing New Zealand (1 August 2016) [PDF, 629 KB]

25. Email correspondence between Methamphetamine Programme Manager and Dr Nick Kim , 25 July 2016 [PDF, 530 KB]

26. Methamphetamine Management Board memoradndum -using methamphetamine - management of unlawful activity (5 September 2016) [PDF, 972 KB]

27. P-250 Policy for Managing Methamphetamine (P) in Housing New Zealand Managed Properties [PDF, 566 KB]

28. ESR - Housing New Zealand Methamphetamine contamination data project (update)10 August 2017 [PDF, 2 MB]

29. Correspondence between Housing New Zealand Chief Executive and Chai Chua, Director General, Ministry of Health - 27 October 2016 [PDF, 842 KB]

30. Project Completion Report Customer Risk Indicator Project (June 2010) [PDF, 1.7 MB]

31. Interim Process for requesting and undertaking methamphetamine testing on tenanted properties (19 November 2015) [PDF, 863 KB]

32. Business Alert - Interim Change to Methamphetamine Process for Termination - use of 90 day notice and 7 day notice (12 May 2016) [PDF, 513 KB]

33. Final Drug Communications email- 23 February 2018 [PDF, 496 KB]

34. Operational Policy Guideliens(29 July 2011) [PDF, 1.4 MB]

35. SOC Min (11) 62 Improvements to the Housing New Zealand Corporation's Social Allocation System [PDF, 1.6 MB]

36. SOC (11) 19 Improvement to the Housing New Zealand Corporations Social Allocation System [PDF, 9.7 MB]
Other related documents
2018

Other documents

2018 05 02 - Meth guidelines and supporting collateral for HLP [PDF, 502 KB]

2018 06 00 - Meth Testing Standard Operating procedure - Interim 15.06 [PDF, 806 KB]
2017

Other documents

2017 06 29 - MBIE announces new New Zealand Standard for meth [PDF, 491 KB]

2017 08 04 - Disposal of belongings left at a meth-contaminated property [PDF, 547 KB]

2017 10 16 - Meth management updated documents [PDF, 504 KB]

2017 06 28 - BN 17 038 - Announcement of new methamphetamine testing and remediation standards (NZS 8510) [PDF, 489 KB]

2017 12 01 - BN 17 080 HNZ policy on the management of methamphetamine contamination [PDF, 665 KB]

2017 01 31 AH 16 093 - Overview of HNZ's approach to methamphetamine contamination (A3593377) [PDF, 833 KB]

2017 03 24 AH 17 026 - HNZ's remediation of methamphetamine contaminated properties [PDF, 490 KB]

2017 05 05 - AH 17 047 - Update on HNZ methamphetamine contaminated properties [PDF, 500 KB]

2017 08 10 Housing New Zealand - Methamphetamine Contamination Data Project (Update) [PDF, 1.3 MB]

Emails

2017 03 21 Meth testing [PDF, 797 KB]

2017 05 02 Meth contamination in state houses [PDF, 870 KB]

2017 05 02 Qs from Anne [PDF, 934 KB]

2017 06 12 Follow up to meeting between Minister Ngaro and Health officials [PDF, 783 KB]

2017 11 13 meth [Out of scope] [PDF, 623 KB]
2016

Other documents

2016 04 01 - New policy and procedures for managing methamphetamine in our properties [PDF, 544 KB]

2016 05 13 - Online training for methamphetamine management [PDF, 498 KB]

2016 07 08 - Meth Forums Feedback [PDF, 705 KB]

2016 07 08 - Methamphetamine Update [PDF, 500 KB]

2016 08 15 - Installing Construction Locks on properties which have tested positive for meth [PDF, 503 KB]

2016 11 24 - We are updating our methamphetamine decontamination policy and processes [PDF, 523 KB]

2016 12 09 - Updated P Flag Statuses for methamphetamine contamination [PDF, 520 KB]

2016 04 12 Minute of Executive Team - Review of Methamphetamine Contamination and Strategies [PDF, 487 KB]

2016 07 00 Interim methamphetamine contamination threshold [PDF, 748 KB]

2016 02 17 - AH 16 006 Methamphetamine alarms [PDF, 496 KB]

2016 08 05 - AH 16 019 Increase in methamphetamine (threshold) guidelines [PDF, 537 KB]

2016 10 18 - AH 16 074 Potential effects on HNZ with changes in Ministry of Health methamphetamine contamination guidelines [PDF, 598 KB]

2016 10 25 - AH 16 078 HNZ operational implementation of Ministry of Health's new methamphetamine guidelines [PDF, 570 KB]

2016 10 28 - AH 16 080 Methamphetamine-related evictions [PDF, 656 KB]

2016 11 18 - AH 16 084 - Update on methamphetamine standards [PDF, 533 KB]

2016 12 12 AH 16 089 Upcoming public consultation on development of standard for testing and remediation of methamphetamine in residential properties - HNZ comment [PDF, 484 KB]

2016 10 28 Methamphetamine number of tests and expenditure by financial year [PDF, 547 KB]

2016 10 28 Q&A Methamphetamine information for Minister [PDF, 605 KB]

2016 09 30 - Using methamphetamine - managing unlawful activity [PDF, 1 MB]

Emails

2016 04 12 Minute of Executive Team - Review of Methamphetamine Contamination and Strategies [PDF, 487 KB]

2016 04 15 NZ First Sick tenants trapped in P contaminated houses [PDF, 1010 KB]

2016 04 19 NZ First Housing NZ Breaches Tenancy and Health Laws [PDF, 518 KB]

2016 04 19 Response from office of Hon Paula Bennett [PDF, 664 KB]

2016 04 29 meth tests - Police engagement [PDF, 658 KB]

2016 05 02 Settlement for meth contamination health affects_Redacted [PDF, 1.7 MB]

2016 05 03 Urgent advice needed please [PDF, 614 KB]

2016 05 05 [Redacted name and address] Otahuhu [PDF, 893 KB]

2016 05 06 NZ First_ sick tenants trapped in P contaminated state house [PDF, 1.6 MB]

2016 05 18 Enquiry regarding P contamination in properties [PDF, 878 KB]

2016 05 24 [name redacted] - checkpoint, RNZ [PDF, 3.7 MB]

2016 05 30 P contamination in HNZ homes [PDF, 766 KB]

2016 06 10 - IV tomorrow [PDF, 834 KB]

2016 06 14 NZ housing [PDF, 602 KB]

2016 06 16 Meth Standard (Draft response to Ross Bell) [PDF, 842 KB]

2016 06 21 Far North and Whangarei updates [PDF, 615 KB]

2016 06 21 Methamphetamine and Housing NZ [PDF, 1.5 MB]

2016 06 21 URGENT Methamphetamine and HNZ [PDF, 650 KB]

2016 06 27 Methamphetamine Remediation Treatment [PDF, 792 KB]

2016 06 28 NEWSHUB [PDF, 851 KB]

2016 06 29 meth standards [PDF, 799 KB]

2016 06 30 [Name and address redacted] New Plymouth - Copy [PDF, 852 KB]

2016 07 05 Support for young mother and her tamariki - Copy [PDF, 918 KB]

2016 07 05 Urgent meth stats and meth contaminated stock - attachment - Copy [PDF, 845 KB]

2016 07 06 Considerations around announcing change in meth testing level - Copy [PDF, 737 KB]

2016 07 07 - McKay to GRU Thank you for your email - Copy [PDF, 637 KB]

2016 08 03 HNZ meth standard [PDF, 550 KB]

2016 08 03 One news media enquiry - Copy [PDF, 1.3 MB]

2016 08 04 Quick question - Copy [PDF, 864 KB]

2016 08 04 Morning report interview request- meth and HNZ - Copy [PDF, 881 KB]

2016 08 08 Officials meeting - Charlie Mitchell will accompany me - Copy [PDF, 495 KB]

2016 08 09 IV THE HUI - Copy [PDF, 656 KB]

2016 08 09 Notes and actions from todays officials meeting - Copy [PDF, 711 KB]

2016 08 10 Hui [PDF, 746 KB]

2016 08 18 Meth testing [PDF, 571 KB]

2016 09 09 Update on health revision of the meth standard [PDF, 482 KB]

2016 09 13 Cost of meth contamination for HNZ - Copy [PDF, 659 KB]

2016 10 17 Draft method standard - Copy [PDF, 541 KB]

2016 10 18 SHRP Comms meeting [PDF, 661 KB]

2016 10 18 Addendum to guidelines [PDF, 4.5 MB]

2016 10 18 Ministry of Health draft media release - Recommendations for methamphetamine contamination clean-up [PDF, 2.3 MB]

2016 10 19 Media request [PDF, 1.1 MB]

2016 10 19 Meth briefing [PDF, 663 KB]

2016 10 19 TVNZ query [PDF, 715 KB]

2016 10 20 Meth standards [PDF, 2.8 MB]

2016 10 25 Morning [PDF, 1.2 MB]

2016 10 25 Meth briefing [PDF, 646 KB]

2016 10 25 meth standard lines [PDF, 737 KB]

2016 10 27 Going now [PDF, 784 KB]

2016 10 27 HNZC media release - new MoH guidelines Redacted [PDF, 976 KB]

2016 10 31 90 day notices and meth [PDF, 1.2 MB]

2016 11 03 Herald email [PDF, 1.2 MB]

2016 11 03 Mof NZ-Aus, Meth [PDF, 502 KB]

2016 11 03 Radio NZ inquiry [PDF, 628 KB]

2016 11 09 Minister Resp for HNZ PQ 14182, 14183 [PDF, 667 KB]

2016 11 14 4 written PQs from today [PDF, 683 KB]
2015

Other documents

2015 05 28 - Methamphetamine Contamination - Interim Changes to testing and Remediation [PDF, 524 KB]

2015 06 15 Below is data for anti-social behaviour [PDF, 689 KB]

2015 11 23 - New interim methamphetamine testing policy for tenanted properties [PDF, 557 KB]

2015 07 28 Methamphetamine Contamination Policy Review [PDF, 1.7 MB]

2015 11 00 Baseline Testing of Void Properties for Methamphetamine Contamination [PDF, 1.1 MB]

2015 09 17 - AH 15 085 Methamphetamine contaminated vacant properties [PDF, 692 KB]

Emails

2015 02 11 [Name redacted] [PDF, 862 KB]

2015 04 16 enquiry regarding [redacted] Blockhouse Bay Auckland [PDF, 739 KB]

2015 04 28 Proactive media statement on methamphetamine detections in HNZ homes [PDF, 1.3 MB]

2015 06 19 - Methamphetamine Contamination indicator in Kotahi and in Work Orders [PDF, 542 KB]

2015 08 10 Housing New Zealand response [PDF, 1.1 MB]

2015 09 22 methamphetamine briefing [PDF, 564 KB]

2015 09 22 SH officials with Minister Bennett [PDF, 721 KB]

2015 10 19 Methamphetamine [PDF, 554 KB]

2015 10 19 meth contamination in HNZ houses [PDF, 593 KB]

2015 10 20 Methamphetamine [PDF, 1.3 MB]

2015 10 21 methamphetamine contamination in Hobsonville rental houses [PDF, 1 MB]

2015 11 04 Minister PR on meth [PDF, 887 KB]

2015 11 04 Fact checking for draft PR - Urgent [PDF, 834 KB]

2015 11 04 Minister PR on meth [PDF, 887 KB]

2015 11 09 Meth users stopping vulnerable from getting state houses [PDF, 913 KB]

2015 11 10 misleading article [PDF, 1.7 MB]

2015 11 12 dog attack on meth tester [PDF, 1 MB]

2015 11 22 [untitled - re dog attack on meth tester] [PDF, 691 KB]
2014

Other documents

2014 09 08 - PLab Property [PDF, 501 KB]

2014 12 19 - Methamphetamine (P) contaminated properties [PDF, 473 KB]

2014 00 00 ET minutes clippings -2014 - 2018 [PDF, 2 MB]

2014 04 28 Executive team meeting key point summary - 28 April 2014 [PDF, 877 KB]

2014 7 29 ET Meeting Summary 5 August 2014 [PDF, 366 KB]

2014 09 16 ET Meeting minutes -16 September 2014 [PDF, 1013 KB]
2013

Other documents

2013 02 22 - AH 13 013 Illegal activity and eviction policy. R [PDF, 1.6 MB]
2012

Other documents

2012 08 29 - AH 12 122 Housing New Zealand Corporation response to the manufacture of methamphetamine in state rental properties. R [PDF, 1.4 MB]

2012 09 06 AH 21 127 Methamphetamine incident summary [PDF, 551 KB]
2009

Other documents

2009 03 25 - Damage to properties from P Labs - Briefing for Oral Question [PDF, 181 KB]

2009 01 19 - AH 09 001 _P_ Lab explosion. R (A3599761) [PDF, 613 KB]

2009 07 09 - AH 09 131 Methamphetamine Sensors in State Houses [PDF, 479 KB]
2008

Other documents

2008 12 16 - Methamphetamine Laboratories [ ] Manurewa Auckland - Briefing for Oral Question [PDF, 676 KB]

2008 12 00 Meeting of the Executive, Effective Decision Making Around When and How Tenancies are Terminated [PDF, 903 KB]
2007

Other documents

2007 06 06 - BN 07-94 Good Neighbour Practices [PDF, 1.3 MB]
2004

Other documents

2004 - 2016 Weekly updates to Minister [PDF, 2 MB]

2004 06 16 - BN 04-58 HNZC Work on the Risks of Methamphetamine [PDF, 656 KB]