Written By: mickysavage - Date published: 8:19 am, November 26th, 2015 - 46 comments

Categories: Abuse of power, housing, making shit up, national, paula bennett, same old national, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

I posted previously about the apparent crisis caused by existing or prospective state house tenants turning down state houses because of the chirping of birds or the particular colour of some doors. Paula Bennett made a big song and dance about it. The results were such that senior Ministerial time was expended on this problem and a paper was taken to Cabinet. From the reaction I thought there must be thousands of these sorts of cases and the complete lack of sensitivity by those being offered Government assistance was causing the cogs of Government to grind inefficiently.

So I decided to use the OIA to ask how many prospective tenants turned down state houses because the local birds chirped too loudly or the back yard was too small or the door colour was too bright.

Since then I have been led down different garden paths, subject to very strange clarification requests and then refused an answer on the basis that the Government had already told Phil Twyford. But I can tell the good people of Aotearoa New Zealand with some confidence the numbers of these strange people who are threatening the social fabric of our society.

The story starts on October 23 when I wrote to Housing New Zealand using the very efficient fyi.org.nz website in these terms:

Yesterday Paula Bennett gave a speech and talked about actual or

prospective housing corporation tenants who had turned down houses

offered to them. The speech is at http://beehive.govt.nz/speech/opening-co… She talked about prospective tenants complaining about birds

chirping, the back yard being too small and the door being the

wrong colour. She mentioned 414 refusals in the past 12 months. Please advise: 1. How many refusals were because of birds chirping?

2. How many refusals were because of the back yard being too small?

3. How many refusals were because the front door was the wrong

colour?

4. How many refusals were because the house was damp or cold or

mouldy?

5. How many refusals were considered appropriate.

I received a polite response and was told that a reply could be expected by November 21 which according to the law was the last date on which a response should be provided.

Then on November 5 clarification was sought. I was asked “[d]o questions 1 to 5 relate to the 414 refusals or all refusals in the past 12 months?”

I guess this was not an unfair question although the context seemed to be pretty clear. The Minister had referred to 414 refusals so whatever the period was these refusals were the data I wanted to understand.

So on November 9 I decided to make it clear that I was talking about the data the Minister had referred to. I emailed this response:

Let me rephrase the request slightly. There is data suggesting that

in a 12 month period before Ms Bennett made her statement there

were 414 refusals of state houses. Of that data set of 414

refusals: 1. How many refusals by actual or prospective state tenants of offered state houses were because of birds chirping?

2. How many refusals were because of the back yard being too small?

3. How many refusals were because the front door was the wrong colour?

4. How many refusals were because the house was damp or cold or mouldy?

5. How many refusals were considered appropriate.

Then I was told that “[a]n extension of time is required to 27 November 2015 to allow for consultation.” I was also asked to consider the environment before printing the email which was the most sensible response I had received during this process.

Then yesterday I finally received a response. Twenty two working days after my original request I was told this in non searchable pdf:

The responses to Phil Twyford’s questions were given on October 28. Getting me to redefine my request after that, seeking “consultation” and then telling me politely to go away seems to be business as usual but they could have said on October 28 that these are the answers.

If you wade your way through all of the waffle the answers seem to be:

Given the trauma that many people go through in trying to find somewhere to live and given the added trauma caused to existing state house tenants when told they have to leave an area they have regarded as their home slightly unusual responses should not be unexpected. That three responses in a 12 month period should cause shock waves to the body politic and result in Ministerial speeches and Cabinet Papers suggests that this Government is fixated on bashing poor people at every opportunity for political advantage.

Shame on them. Of course at a superficial level they will maintain that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. But on Planet Earth it is clear that they will hold up for ridicule any individual to justify complete inaction in the face of a crisis.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

