Thanks. Yes I saw that. I'm really still hoping to find a clearly written description of the difficulties of getting photo ID in New Zealand if you're in certain circumstances.
Either those who think "our PM is a great guy to drink with" will realise the whole house of cards for what it is... or they'll sink further into denial and go a little bit Trump.
Or a bit of both. People start looking for excuses to claim that they never really liked that guy anyway. Every scandal from the last 5+ years will get an airing, but of course the alternative at the time was so much dreadfully worse, and so that justified voting and expressing support as people did.
It's hard to know how long this government's going to last. When it finally goes, though, I doubt many will be accepting any great personal mistakes in keeping it there so long. Which is fine, as long as the majority who voted against it actually wanted it gone.
My daughter spent the morning helping a young man get some photo ID. You can't seem to get photo ID without photo ID to prove it is you. It is extraordinarily difficult for people without a passport, drivers' licence or other identifying certification.
Would anyone happen to know of any clear write-ups on this (NZ-based, preferably online) which I could reference next time someone tries to argue with me on how reasonable it is to require regular people to have ID to do regular stuff that's meant to be accessible and easy to do?
Also in this day and age, many people simply don't get their coverage from the same traditional sources. There's so much more choice when looking for excuses to justify what's already believed.
The rate quoted on Checkpoint – $1330pw – is bizarrely high. Would a motel like that earn nearly $200 a night on casual rentals? I can't imagine it.
If there ever needed to be an example of a government driving revenue to business at the ultimate expense of poor and vulnerable people, who'll eventually face the debt collectors for money they're unlikely to have, this would have to be right up there.
Housing NZ is run as a business, and pays a dividend to the government. They haven't yet found a way to get dividends from WINZ.
It just seems so stupid that people eligible for social housing are being instructed to borrow money for paying what's apparently the full commercial rate to stay at motels, before becoming liable to pay it back at their own expense, which by definition of being eligible for social housing, they already can't afford. And then, I guess, we end up creating new situations which encourage people to get themselves criminal records.
If this shortage of social housing were being handled intelligently, motels should be competing with each other to get contracts for accommodating people, on behalf of HNZ, at substantially lower bulk rates.
Also, what are the main reasons for WINZ and Housing New Zealand being separate agencies?
I'm afraid I've missed much media around this. One thing that's confused me over John Campbell's reporting yesterday and tonight, though, is why people are reportedly being charged absurd amounts for emergency accommodation.... then "loaned" thousands of dollars to cover its use for a matter of days, then being required to pay it back, when they're supposedly already eligible for social housing.
Is this seemingly ridiculous thing of further indebting poor people, apparently due to HNZ's own inability to house them, because WINZ itself isn't a housing provider and doesn't have any legal mechanism to directly pay for emergency accommodation to which they're probably already entitled? Or is it more about politics?
Oh, the bureaucracy!
[Edit: Oops. This was meant to be a reply to the OP. Not to that specific comment.]
I think it was just part of a larger pattern of clumsy process. This Bill was just one of many that had similar treatment. When even DPF agrees there's been a problem with National's process, it's worth a glance.
I'd agree with Deborah that the issue wouldn't necessarily have been detected with lengthier time to consider, and that it's at least as significant that the government then chose to ignore symptoms of a likely problem when they were presented. That said, the process which led to this stuff getting legislated to begin with really stinks.
This government, from the day they got in, have insisted on oral briefings from officials. They never wanted a paper trail.
I guess that complicates things but it'd still seem like quite a risk for a Minister to claim they hadn't been told something, unless they were certain.
If I were a public servant who had any contact with political branches of the government, I think I'd perceive a big incentive to keep clear notes and aide-memoires in the organisation's EDRMS about everything that's been communicated, even if it was vocally. Otherwise you risk becoming the scapegoat despite doing your job properly.
I suppose the Minister can always fall back on the "oops I don't recall that" line, but not recalling stuff you were told also doesn't look that great. That happens a lot. The alternative is to start accusing government agencies of lying about stuff, which usually doesn't look great for any number of other reasons.