Health approach to be taken for users of synthetic drugs, harsher penalties for suppliers

Posted on by

By: Lucy Bennett

Political Reporter, NZ Herald

People who make or supply synthetic drugs face life in prison under changes announced by the Government today.

Police Minister Stuart Nash and Health Minister David Clark announced that two compounds found in most synthetics – AMB Fubinaca and 5FABD – will be reclassified as Class A drugs, attracting a maximum penalty of life in prison for manufacture and supply.

A new classification, Class C1, will be created to give police greater search and seizure powers for other new and emerging drugs. It is essentially a holding classification before those drugs are then made Class A.

The move is part of a two-pronged approach to stop those “peddling in death in our communities”, according to Nash – cracking down on makers and suppliers but treating drug use as a health issue rather than a criminal issue.

Police will be told to use more discretion when dealing with people caught using the drugs.

That approach will also be extended to users of all illegal drugs, but Clark and Nash denied it was “decriminalisation by stealth”.

Nash said 52 people had died this year alone from using synthetics, which are often laced with poisonous chemicals.

“Under current laws synthetics and other dangerous drugs are killing people and fuelling crime while dealers and manufacturers get rich. The current approach is failing to keep Kiwis safe and can’t be continued,” Clark said.

“It’s time to do what will work. We need to go harder on the manufacturers of dangerous drugs like synthetics, and treat the use of drugs as a health issue by removing barriers to people seeking help.”

The measures announced today are:

• Reclassifying the two main ingredients found in synthetics linked to recent deaths – AMB Fubinaca and 5FABD – as class A drugs

• Creating a temporary C1 classification for new and emerging drugs to give police greater search and seizure powers

Jacinda is dishonest

Posted on by
by Christie on December 14, 2018 at 9:00am

Oh dear. The prime minister of the open and transparent government is now being accused of being dishonest about her text messages, received from Richie Hardcore, a supporter of Karel Sroubek, because she has pretended, all the way through this farcical situation, that she had no personal interest and a lot of secret information about the case that would change our minds about giving residency to a wife-beating drug lord who is in jail on drug trafficking charges… but is a lovely boy really.

Well, his mother says so anyway.

But the opposition doesn’t think so. Stuff reports: quote.

The Opposition leader claims the prime minister has been dishonest about a text message she received from a friend of Czech drug-smuggler Karel Sroubek.

When asked if he believed that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had lied about a message from Richie Hardcore, National leader Simon Bridges said by omission, she had been dishonest and that was “pretty much the same” as lying.

Ardern confirmed she received the message but said she did not engage with the unsolicited message. end quote.

 

I don’t have the prime minister’s mobile phone number to send a text to. Do you? So Richie Hardcore is a privileged person. Now why would that be? quote.

Bridges said it “beggars belief” that this was the first or only communication from Hardcore to Ardern about Sroubek.

He believed she knew more about Sroubek than she was saying or that Hardcore had been lobbying her. end quote.

 

I have to admit, this makes sense. Hardcore is clearly a close associate of Jacinda and Clarke. He is also an associate of Karel Sroubek. That the prime minister thinks it is okay to give her immigration minister directives to award residency to people supported by her friends is both surprising and very disappointing. That she may have actually done it beggars belief. quote.

“For nearly two months, my colleagues and I have been asking serious questions and the picture painted by Ardern was that she knew nothing about any of this … that’s dishonest.”

He said he did not buy her comment that her phone number was widely available and questioned why she would not release the text message.

Hardcore works in counselling and rehabilitation in Auckland and it is understood Ardern had met him at various events.

He had previously provided references in support of Sroubek (or Antolik as he was then known) to the sentencing judge in March 2016, arguing against him being jailed, and then to the Parole Board in December 2017. His pleas fell on deaf ears on both occasions: Sroubek was jailed in 2016, and the Parole Board refused early release in 2017.

When asked about the message on Thursday, Ardern said she would not release the text because she received a number of communications from a number of individuals in various capacities but she would consider an Official Information Act request. end quote.

You have to ask why she will not release the text. Let’s face it, the reason cannot be good. It is getting harder and harder to believe that Hardcore did not solicit the prime minister… particularly as Sroubek is such a lovely citizen, just grossly misunderstood. Sroubek’s wife, who is in a safe house in fear for her life, is clearly misguided in her assessment of him. quote.

She confirmed she had known Hardcore for a number of years and had proactively shared that she had received information from him, highlighting, it was only after the minister made his decision on the Sroubek case.

“I’ve only been asked in the past about whether I knew anyone that made representations on this case. I’ve made it very clear I knew nothing of this case until it was in the public domain. I do not know who made representations on the case and I could not, hand on heart, say whether anyone who contacted me made representation. I saw yesterday that the opposition were asking very direct questions – made the decision to put out there what contact I had received. I want to reiterate I did not receive this communication until the case was on the public domain.” end quote.

Whatever. What was all the stuff about ‘read between the lines’? She had ignored all representations on this case, in spite of the fact that he should never have been given residency. Not at any point, not at any time.

The prime minister is obfuscating here, and the deputy prime minister is covering for her, but then, as he is one of her henchmen, that should come as no surprise.

Winston was always a master of trying to hold the previous government to account, but he is ducking and weaving like a snake. He may appear smart in the house, but he is fooling no one. This government is probably the most dishonest government ever, and Winston Peters put it there.

There, fixed it for you

Posted on by
by Whaleoil staff on December 8, 2018 at 9:00am

The Labour party posted the following on their facebook page…

#TodayInHistory A major milestone for New Zealand. Who remembers this?

 

In New Zealand, (as the Labour party well know) we do NOT elect our Prime Minister we elect the party or parties that form the government. Thanks to the Whaleoilphotoshopping team we were able to fix this inaccuracy for them…

 

It was the Nats that did it… ???

Posted on by
by Christie on December 8, 2018 at 8:30am

Winston Peters is trying to blame the previous government for signing New Zealand up to the UN’s Global Compact on Migration, claiming that the whole process was initiated in 2016.

Nice try Winston, but no chance.

Stuff reports: quote.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has criticised National for attacking a United Nations pact on migration, which he says the party initiated in 2016.

This week National leader Simon Bridges said if his party was in government, it would pull out of the UN’s Global Compact on Migration because of what he saw as its potential to restrict New Zealand’s ability to set its own migration and foreign policy.

He called on the Government to outline its position on the intergovernmental negotiated agreement, which is set to be signed in Morocco next week.

Peters told Parliament on Thursday that Cabinet had not yet made a decision on the now-controversial pact, which was the result of a process National began in Government in 2016. end quote.

 

First of all, kudos to Simon Bridges for two things here. First, he says National doesn’t want a bar of the UN’s Pact. Good. Secondly, by saying that a National government would pull out of it, he has brought the issue to the attention of the public and the media, who have studiously ignored the subject, even though the pact is to be signed in a week’s time. Once again, the sycophantic media have avoided the hard questions, and it was left to the leader of the opposition to bring these question to the fore. Good on Simon Bridges for that. quote.

“We are dealing with a compact process that was signed up to by the then National Party in December 19, 2016 … committed New Zealand to signing the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and to have the process of time going forward to this time in 2018,” Peters said. end quote.

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, will you Winston? National did not sign up to anything in 2016. quote.

National’s Foreign Affairs Spokesman Todd McClay asked Peters if he was aware the agreement made no distinction between legal and illegal migration and called for restrictions on freedom of speech and the media.

Peters said he had studied the allegations, which had been made by some countries around the world and some people in a worldwide campaign, very carefully.

“Both those allegations are demonstrably false,” he told the House. end quote.

Not true here either, Winston. You are just making it up. quote.

Outside the House, McClay rejected any suggestion National had signed up to an agreement in 2016 that had led to this pact.

He said an agreement had gone through the UN that New Zealand had not spoke out against, but had not actively signed up to – only 15 countries had.

“We didn’t attend the meetings. All countries in the UN allowed it to go through. It was open for signature, the National Government did not sign it – Peters is wrong, but that happens often.” end quote.

Yes, but the real question here is not what the previous government did – or did not do – in 2016. The big question is – what is this government going to do about this pact now? quote.

“The one that is before Cabinet has been negotiated by his Government. A lot of New Zealanders have the same concerns that Australia, the United States, and more than 15 other countries do, the Government shouldn’t be signing this, it commits the Government to doing things that are not in our interests.” end quote.

What is Winston’s modus operandi here? By blaming the previous government for supposedly signing us up to the deal, does this mean that the Labour-led coalition government is going to sign it?

That is what it sounds like to me.

How on earth could Winston, who has been anti-immigration for as long as anyone can remember, ever consider signing up to this?

The fact that the government has not condemned the pact for the damage it would do to member country’s sovereignty, is telling enough.

Photoshopped image credit: Luke

Everyone knows that Jacinda, and her puppet master, Helen Clark, would want to sign the pact, which basically allows all migrants to country shop and turns migration into a human right. How can Winston even consider signing up to something like this?

I’m not sure there is any other way of interpreting Winston’s movements here. To me, it appears that the government is going to sign New Zealand up to this treasonous pact and then he is going to blame National for it.

Winston’s treachery really does know no bounds. His reasoning, however, is harder to fathom. Surely Winston is too old for a job at the UN? So what else has he traded for agreeing to this?

Whatever it is, you can bet your sweet life that it will be beneficial to Winston himself, but if he really is selling New Zealand out to the UN, then this time he really has gone too far

Our most vulnerable are being betrayed by this government

Posted on by
by Max Sky on December 8, 2018 at 11:30am

A new report has suggested that decriminalising drugs should earn the Government half a billion dollars in benefits.

The recent cry from the New Zealand MSM to increase the alcohol drinking age to twenty whilst an ex-prime minister encourages legalisation of the sale of marijuana, and then the Coalition of Losers compensating meth users for being evicted from State housing while government agencies attempt to eradicate cigarette smoking, have me questioning the irrational, contradictory edicts and the real underlying intentions of our government.

The repudiation of our historical Christian foundations and moral precepts may have harmful repercussions to vulnerable children and adults, yet the ‘Progressive Left’ reject those principles on the spurious grounds that it would actually ‘protect the most vulnerable’.

‘Progressive’ cultural changes have undermined respect for the absolute rules that constrain how people behave.

‘Progressive’ policies damage the family unit by encouraging ‘lone parenting’ whilst discouraging marriage and denigrating men.

Being the child of a fatherless family since age 8 years, I was quite oblivious and happy and fortunately I had the benefit of excellent teachers as male role models. Now, as a man in my later years, I can perceive the misery of some children living under the yoke of a fatherless system which can lead to crime, educational underachievement or dropping out, alcohol and drug addiction and early pregnancy. These dysfunctional attitudes will then be handed down to the next generation.

Added to the problem of the fatherless family, we now have in some Western left-wing countries the official attitude that the use of drugs should be ‘managed’ rather than reduced.

The attitude of ‘harm reduction’ by decriminalisation of some drugs is being pushed despite the potential for young persons and adults to become enslaved to them. Legalising some drugs may encourage the risk takers, the dysfunctional and the vulnerable to try the more dangerous illegal drugs.

Managing addiction by legalising more drugs, rather than reducing addiction, is harmful. If marijuana needs to be legalised, do it by allowing the pharmaceutical companies to develop scientifically legitimate, FDA approved, marijuana-derived medications to alleviate definite medical symptoms.

If we don’t do that then legalisation is nothing more than tax gathering and socialist control.

Now, in a similar way, we face the prospect of the UN controlling our immigration levels. If they get it wrong, will we be allowed to deport terrorists or criminals for our protection? Or will their possible jeopardy if they are deported be prioritised over ours?

We have a government which seems intent on taking away our dominion while betraying our most vulnerable.

Painting faces black is racist but painting them white is not

Posted on by
by Suze on December 2, 2018 at 8:30am

Why is painting faces black considered racist, but painting them white is not?

Traditionally, geishas paint their faces white, so do Halloween characters and traditional French mime artists. I’ve never heard one word of complaint from white skinned people about racism in the face of white-faced performers.

French mime artist

A traditional Dutch character, Black Pete, is joining Rotorua’s Christmas festivities this year and calls of racism are upsetting the event organisers. The same thing is happening overseas, including in Holland where the tradition originates. Newshub reports. Quote.

‘Black Pete’ to appear at the local feast of St Nicholas on December 5.  The traditional character sees those playing them paint their face black and lips red, then put on a curly black wig and hand out presents and sweets to children.

 

The demonstrators were on their way to Dokkum, above, to protest against the inclusion of Zwart Piet in the town’s festival. Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images

It’s been called racist – even by many in the Netherlands, where the character originates – but Rotorua Netherlands Society member Douwe Visser believes it’s just tradition.  He told NZME it will have to change in the future, after some conversations in the community, but not now.” End of quote.

Origins of the character are not considered insulting – it is only our politically correct over-sensitivity that has caused this change in thinking.  People are dreaming up insults that never existed previously. Black Pete is a good guy.   Quote.

I think it has to change a little because for some people it’s looked at as insulting, but originally it wasn’t meant that way,” he told NZME. “I think it will change in the future, but we’ll have to talk about it.” End of quote.

Rotorua Multicultural Council president Margriet Theron said she’s in two minds about the costumes and will wait to see what the public has to say.

“The old Dutch people are very attached to the tradition but … I don’t think it’s going to go down well,” she told NZME.

It hasn’t gone down well with the NZ Human Rights Commission, who told NZME people need to challenge the perpetuation of racist stereotypes and customs like Black Pete.

“Racism, overt or casual, is not acceptable,” a spokesperson said.

Fights in the streets have broken out in the Netherlands over the character.” End of quote.

The NZ Human Rights Commission has lost the plot, yet again.

We need to stop being so precious about “racism”.  Let’s get a French mime artist to tag along with Black Pete at Rotorua’s Christmas festivities to highlight the ridiculousness of the racism argument.  They can both hand out sweets and pressies to the kids.

Maori more affected by climate change

Posted on by
by Christie on December 1, 2018 at 8:00am

Seeing that you are no longer allowed to express your opinions about climate change onStuff (unless you are a fawning believer, that is), I thought maybe you would like the opportunity to have your say on some of their climate change articles on Whaleoilinstead. quote.

quote.

[Mike] Smith, the activist, is now in charge of climate change policy for the high profile Iwi Leaders Group. end quote.

Well, we are off to a cracking start. We all know how level-headed and objective the average activist is. quote.

He says Māori, in particular, are at greater risk from the effects of climate change.

“We’re super vulnerable, like we are to anything,” Smith says.

“When it comes to climate change it’s like the poorest people in the world are going to be hit the hardest first and that’s a lot of us.” end quote.

I think the climate mantra is that, in general, the poor on the planet will be most affected – like those who live in the Bay of Bengal or Banda Ache in Indonesia. I don’t think the climate dogmatists meant Onehunga or Upper Hutt somehow. quote.

 

“It can be quite overwhelming the global climate change issues,” says Ōtaki resident and environmental scientist Aroha Spinks.

“To see those prediction models of how much water was going to be along that coastline was a big eye opener,” says Spinks.

“I’m sure some people got a bit of shock to see how much of that coastline could potentially be underwater.” end quote.

Or then again, it might not. quote.

Urupā, Māori burial sites, are common along New Zealand’s coastline and could soon become submerged.

“For some hapū and iwi there is a real pressing need to act to move tūpāpaku (corpses) to higher ground,” says Niwa research scientist Dr Darren King. end quote.

Forgive me. (Shakes head.) I thought we were all going to be 20 feet underwater in the next two years. If moving corpses is the biggest issue, well… sorry. quote.

“The climate change challenge for Māori society is about sustainable living arrangements and development, as much as it is about natural hazards management such as risks associated with flooding, storms and coastal erosion,” [King] says. end quote.

Not about maintaining your traditions then? quote.

A major challenge for Māori communities is how they will pay for any necessary physical adaptations. end quote.

How about using some of that Treaty settlement money that has been paid in compensation to Maori over the last 30 or so years? Just a thought. quote.

For well-off households and communities, the costs of adaptation will be manageable. But many Māori communities struggle to survive in the present let alone thinking about what needs to be done to adapt to, and help reduce climate change, says Dr Rhys Jones, a public health medicine specialist.

“A lot of people talk about climate change as a threat multiplier for people who are also facing disadvantages or poor health, it exacerbates those threats,” Jones says. end quote.

So… if we have money, we’ll be okay? So we are not going to be 20 feet underwater in the next two years then? Or is it just the poor that will be? quote.

Substandard housing is an issue for all New Zealanders especially during an extreme weather event. But many of those living in poor housing are Māori, says Jones, who represents over 600 health professionals in Ora Taiao, the Climate and Health Council.

“It’s not just the immediate event, it’s the period after; washed out roads, power out, no water. There are huge risks to health as well, if they can’t access water and can’t get to health services.” end quote.

A lot of these problems can be remedied, at least partially, by local councils taking steps to improve their floodwater management. I did not realise that weather was racist. People in better housing can still suffer the effects of floods. quote.

Smith is up for the challenge but is concerned others aren’t.

“We’ve got ten years to get our emissions down. We’ve got to shift public opinion and support governments that are prepared to do the right thing even if it’s going to hurt.” end quote.

Even if it is true that we have 10 years to get emissions down (isn’t it funny how it has been 10 years since about 2002? Shouldn’t we all be 20 feet underwater already?), there is just about nothing that little ol’ New Zealand can do about it. Unless the big emitters start to pull their weight, we will still be 20 feet underwater… in 10 years time.

The article states that Maori will be more affected than other New Zealanders because they live in poor housing and need to move their corpses. Excuse me making light of it, but nothing in this article makes the future seem very dire, for Maori or for anyone else.

And Stuff does not allow anything other than sycophantic comments on an article like this?

Stuff needs a new logo.

How about this one from the awesome Boondecker?

Says it all really.

Whaleoil Transcript: Mike Hosking & Jacinda Ardern on the Coastal Pacific train, Formula E, Sroubek, Louisa Wall, the pride parade & whether Santa is male

Posted on by
by Suze on November 28, 2018 at 10:00am

Newstalk ZB

Mike

Good morning, how was that train the other day?

Jacinda

Good morning. Aah, it was fantastic. I haven’t been on the aah… the Coastal Pacific before but to see it back up and running again was fantastic. What’s really incredible as you travel along the journey you can see the extent of the aah… the land slips, the amount of… ah… civil engineering, ah… genius that has had to be applied to getting the train back on the track.  You can see why it won an international civil engineering award.

Mike

Exactly, and deservedly so and when you look at the projects they beat, it is an extraordinary thing.  Having said that, and that is not a criticism at all, the $40 million you handed out, is that a genuine investment as opposed to a subsidy?

Jacinda

No, absolutely, it is an investment. Kiwi Rail, absolutely, we have… we have responsibility for, and what… what we’re wanting to do in the region is a boost for tourism is to increase the frequency of that… aah… of that service. It’s running seven months of the year, this boost will enable it to run all year round. It will enable extra capacity to built into the service, it will bring in a premium service, you will know from tourism offerings that aah… rail services internationally often offer that level of service and we don’t have that currently so we will um… upgrade the reservation service, um, upgrade three stations, ah, to cope for that extra capacity and um… involve a bit of marketing for the service.

 

 

Mike

Good. Do you know about us getting the rights to the Formula E race in Auckland?

Jacinda

Ah, no.

Mike

Right. So, we’ve won the rights. Do you know what Formula E is?

Jacinda

In… in… not in great detail.

Mike

So, it’s like Formula One except that it’s for electric cars and it’s a growing form of motor racing.

Jacinda

I could have assumed (laughs).

Mike

We have won the right to host one of the races and they’ve been in touch with people like James Shaw and Grant Robertson and stuff like that. They want fourteen….

Jacinda

What year?

Mike

Um, next year, end of next year.

Jacinda

Right, right.  All things manageable, 2021 is quite busy.

Mike

Next year you want to be on board because we have beaten Australia to this and all the manufacturers are into this because electric is the future of the… the um… future of transport…

Jacinda

I bet it is! Have you driven one yet?

Mike

No, I haven’t driven one. Oh, I’ve driven an electric car but not a racing car. Anyway, they need $14 million and $14 million from the government brings in $150 million in terms of investment and messaging and branding and marketing and all that sort of stuff.  Why don’t you give it to them?

Jacinda

Ah, I couldn’t answer that here and now given you’ve been briefing me life as we speak on this particular scenario. Um… that imagine… I imagine that they would probably be making pitches for the major events fund that we have available. And there always assess… you know what’s the benefit to NZ in the same way that we did for…. for instance, for the America’s Cup.  How much… how much the Crown puts in versus how much it generates for the economy.  So, we often factor in those… those different elements but I couldn’t… I couldn’t answer….

Mike

No, I didn’t expect a commitment to be honest.  But 14… 14 for 150 return is not bad, do you not think?

Jacinda

Mmm.. yeah… well, look on paper, but I wouldn’t want to give any expectations on the radio without even having looked into it…

Mike

Karel Sroubek. When do we get an announcement from Mr Lees-Galloway?

Jacinda

It’ll be very soon.  Um… I got asked this at post-cab yesterday. It’ll be very soon.

Mike

This week?

Jacinda

Ah, that would be… that would be my expectation.

Mike

Was the minister, now that you’ve got it all back on your desk and everybody’s been briefed and everybody’s been looked into, was the minister been misled, or short of information?

Jacinda

He’s always said in the public…. I am not going into too much detail before we put it out there publicly because we are still finalising, still finalising some of the… the… the legal details, but as I’ve always said there was contradictory information in the public domain versus what was put before the minister. That was the whole point of immigration going back over… ah… the case, and going back to Sroubek’s lawyer, but as I say, we will be able to share more detail on that very soon.

Mike

Do you still have confidence in him?

Jacinda

Yes, I do.

Mike

Aaah… so, he’s not losing his job?

Jacinda

No, he’s not.

Mike

Is Sroubek getting booted out of the country?

Jacinda

I’m not commenting on that until we finally announce the final outcome of the case.

Mike

Well, when you’ve just said finalising the legal details that indicates to me that… ah… when legal details need to be finalized things are changing within…

Jacinda

You can draw any inference that you would like on that…

Mike

Well, well the guys in jail.  As with residency, nothing needed to change if you are not going to do anything, if you’ve got lawyers involved you are looking to boot him out.

Jacinda

And that was always… that… we always made that clear. There was a period where… ah… through the information through Sroubek’s lawyer. So, lawyers have always been involved in this for… for a little while now.

Mike

If you try to boot him out and they go to court, which… which they will, and that incurs more cost does that not put pressure back on Lees-Galloway’s original decision?

Jacinda

Well, again I am not going to do is jeopardize any elements of this case until we have finalised it and put it out.  You can ask me that question next week.

Mike

Okay, well I will of course. Having said that, can I wrap it up this way.

Jacinda

Of course. I’ll look forward to it.

Mike

Can I wrap it up this way, are you satisfied with what you’ve decided and what will be announced?

Jacinda

Aaah… one… the final outcome, ah… we’ll stand by, but I also need to make sure, Mike, that looking forward… aah… in the way that we handle, aah… these individual cases, which are complex, I am not particularly satisfied with the process that’s been applied, ah over a number of years now, for successive governments, so there’s no politics in that, it’s just when I look at the way that… the position that we put ministers in… I think we could do it better. And so, I will be looking at that as well.

Mike

Is Louisa Wall guilty of hate speech?

Jacinda

No, no.

Mike

Should be… should she be saying things like ‘I don’t want any f****g TERFS at the pride parade?

Jacinda

Don’t think the language is language… um… that I would endorse, and I think Louisa would probably um… you know… would have some regret over that… over that element but… um… look, she was… was sharing a view around… aah…  around trans-gender rights… um… and, look that’s… she’s absolutely free to express that.

Mike

What do you make has happened… of what has happened over the pride parade given that was your old patch?

Jacinda

Oh, well… central… central Auckland… aah… so… I… I… have for many years joined the pride parade and it’s… yeah… it’s always been a celebration a really inclusive affair. For me though this is a matter that really is for the organisers. And I’ve… I’ve… I haven’t haven’t waded into this… I don’t think it is for me to be an arbiter who does… and isn’t involved in the parade… so, that for me… is something for the organizers to deal with.

Mike

Have you heard from the Americans directly on Huawei?

Jacinda

Aaah… those issues are not something that would come to be me… um… aah… necessarily directly. If you are asking me whether it’s been raised at that level, with me directly… no it hasn’t, um… but I would give the same answer that I’d given in public um… that we have… aah… um…. a strong legislative framework… um… through what’s called our ticks of legislation that’s been around since 2014, from memory, that allows us to go through a process of analysing aah… the details of any application that affects our network. It’s a good way to operate, it means that we check off all the national security concerns with any application.

Mike

Is Santa male?

Jacinda

(Laughs) That’s what I’ve always been brought up to believe.

Recording ends.

KiwiBuild costings underestimated by $18 billion

Posted on by

Documents show KiwiBuild will cost 10 times more than what Labour calculated and announced in Opposition.

The cost of Housing Minister Phil Twyford’s flagship housing scheme KiwiBuild has been woefully underestimated, National Party Leader Simon Bridges says.

“Documents released to National show KiwiBuild will cost 10 times more than what Labour calculated and announced in Opposition. This raises serious questions about the credibility of KiwiBuild.

“Earlier this year the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) advised Mr Twyford that the $2 billion budget was only enough to build 1,000 houses a year under Labour’s original model.

“But Labour has promised it would build 10,000 homes a year by the end of its first term in office. Rather than increasing the budget 10-fold, Labour has shifted the policy from KiwiBuild to KiwiBuy and is underwriting private developers to build the houses for them.

“Labour had nine years in Opposition to come up with policies. It’s unbelievable that one of its flagship policies that it campaigned on in the election was miscalculated by such a huge amount.

“We’re not talking about a small error, Labour underestimated its flagship housing policy by $18 billion dollars.

“Taxpayers are forking out for a housing subsidy scheme for middle to high income earners.

“This adds to the headaches KiwiBuild is already causing the Government. Houses are not being built in the right places, at the right size, for the right price, which means they’ll have to be sold for less than what the Crown paid for them.

“MBIE also advised there was a high risk that there won’t be enough buyers for the KiwiBuild homes the Government is underwriting. This is clear already with one of the first ballots for a KiwiBuild home already extended due to a lack of interest.

“MBIE expects the cost of the underwriting scheme to go into the hundreds of millions, or possibly billions, over the next 10 years. This is a huge under-estimation from the Government.

“KiwiBuild hasn’t been properly thought through and it’s costing taxpayers millions more than first announced.”

6 Handy Andy shifts dirt like nothing else can

Posted on by
by idbkiwi on November 21, 2018 at 9:30am


Ya gotta hand it to Handy Andy, he knows not what he knows, what he knew was all new, he had altogether no idea but knew all about it, all at the same time, except he didn’t but did…

I’ve no idea, but suspect it wasn’t just Andy’s nose growing during this interview:

Guyon Espiner:

Yeah, but, as head of the EPMU with members who were in this mine who were reporting safety incidents at the time, reporting over a thousand of them, [1,083 incidents] did you know about any of these safety issues when you were head of the EPMU?

Andrew Little:

Not until afterwards, not until after the, uhm…

 

Guyon Espiner:

So why not?

Andrew Little:

After the investigation was happening, and uhm…

Guyon Espiner:

“Why not?”

Andrew Little:

Well I don’t, you know we had, the union had, roughly 50,000 members at the time, uhm, so I don’t get, ah, I don’t get detailed reports on everything happening at every work site. I have to say that Pike River was well on, ah, my radar because from members that the union had at other mining sites, including Solid Energy mining sites and other underground mining sites in the area, that there were was word that Pike River mine was well behind schedule, there was financial pressure on the company, the guys were under pressure, there were questions about, ah, the guys being sent underground and their level of experience and…

Guyon Espiner:

Yeah, but you didn’t say that at the time though, did you; Minister? You didn’t say that! You said it was no different to any other mine and you said it had a very good health and safety committee that had been very active and that there had been nothing until now that alerted us to that.

Andrew Little:

Yes, because that was, that was what I was advised at the time.

Guyon Espiner:

(Long sigh)…

 

Handy Andy: Shifts stories like no other.