Are Minister’s influence peddling State homes in Glenn Innes

avatr Mana News editor Joe Trinder

GI_Housing

Influence peddling is the illegal practice of using one’s influence in government or connections with persons in authority to obtain favours or preferential treatment for another, usually in return for payment.

Whenever I ask these simple questions, Peniaphobic Tory’s with a fear of the poor people get enraged with accusations of conspiracy theories, as though I killed kittens for asking legitimate questions of this blatant conflict of interest. The Tamaki housing group have claimed the  Tamaki redevelopment Co Ltd are like pigs at the trough selling themselves HNZ state assets, after evicting the current housing New Zealand tenants from land owned by the tax payer.

Here are a few questions the Ministers might want to ask themselves. I implore the disciples of hate blogs to contain their outrage, before making ridiculous allegations these are questions nothing more.

  1. Are Ministers enriching their “friends” by offering backhander’s of cheap property while evicting State Housing tenants in Glen Innes?
  2. Are Ministers using preferential treatment of confiscated State housing properties and offering them to “friends” and not the original tenants?
  3. Why is Housing New Zealand offering state housing tenants to move into their “friends”  private housing, with offers they will subsidize the remainder of expensive housing at the cost of the taxpayer?
  4. Can the Ministers confirm the evicted HNZ Tenants forced into their “friends” private housing that was previously state property will receive subsidies for the remainder of their tenancy?
  5. What housing security is in place to prevent  their “friends” ruthlessly evicting the former HNZ Tenants in 6 months from now?
  6. Why are Government Ministers even the major shareholders in a limited liability company?
  7. Why is a limited liability company given authority of law enforcement to evict State housing tenants?
  8. Why does the former chair of the GI Business association Murdoch Dryden own the majority of the properties in Glenn Innes?
  9. Why isn’t Murdoch Dryden hundreds of properties of interest to the Tamaki redevelopment Co Ltd instead of helping themselves to state assets.
  10. If there is a housing crisis in Glenn Innes why are their so many houses left dormant without Tenants?
  11. Are housing New Zealand homes public property paid by generations of Tax payers not intended to be offered to a limited liability company?
  12. Is the confiscation of water view State Housing social cleansing to gentrify a National voting electorate a conflict of interest.

shares

  • Joe Trinder

    To the disciples of hate blogs if you lack the intelligence to understand these are questions
    and decide to make one of your enraged hate filled rants your comment will be deleted. I know its hard for your crowd to use brainpower but have a little empathy for your fellow countrymen.

  • Dave_1924

    Joe…. some interesting questions in there. Do you have some facts to back up your questions 1-4? That is a set of allegation of serious nature and should be investigated properly if you have some facts to back the questions?

    As for Question 6 “Why are Government Ministers even the major shareholders in a limited liability company?” The reason is simple. The company is a vehicle for cooperation between the Government and Auckland Council for the redevelopment of the land. It is standard procedure for the Ministers to be the named shareholder of such companies on behalf of their ministries. When the Minister changes the shareholding is updated to the new minister. The Ministers are not holding the shareholding in the own right BUT as minister in trust for the Government. Believe that has been pointed out before, when this matter was previous posted about…

    • Joe Trinder

      Please explain where I have stated a fact or made an
      allegation?

      • Dave_1924

        Joe… You have asked a bunch of questions – which hint in an oblique way at an accusation. I have asked you to put up some facts if you have any. Otherwise it seems a bit like an attempted smear.

        So is it just a smear or have you got well found grounds that something dodgy is going on?

        I note you avoid commenting on my response to Q6…

        • Joe Trinder

          You still failed to explain where I made a statement or an
          accusation your trying to connect imaginary dots using presumptions and
          conjecture. Any further comments you make where I need to explain the
          definition of a question will be swiftly deleted.

          • Dave_1924

            Oh Joe…… You have posited questions which infer some wrong doing. I have asked do you have a fact to back the insinuation and you having a hissy fit. I am actually quite interested in knowing if anything dodgy is going on in the Tamaki Redevelopment because its a huge project with lots of dollars associated. But apparently asking if you have something concrete or are just throwing around questions hoping people joining dots is not good form here.

            And here is an example of an allegation dressed up as a question to make sure its not defamatory:

            “Are Ministers enriching their “friends” by offering backhander’s ” from Q1.

            Ban or delete as you see fit – its your website and comments columns after all..

          • Dave_1924

            And you deleted my response addressing this Joe…… you and WOBH have a lot in common it seems no questions allowed…

          • He_Maori

            I wouldn’t support your final post here….You have been granted the opportunity to respond to the article as I can read it. I can also read the author asking you to substantiate your response of which you seem to have implied accusations have been made. I think questions imply nothing other than an attempt to seek clarification. They are important questions and as I read on Q6. has drawn, at least for me, some new knowledge. Whether I like it or not it appears to be valid and at face value legal. As for the questions they could be viewed as an oblique attempt at making accusations but only if you read this post with a narrow lense. In this posts entirety if the questions answered come back and clarify that Ministers are not influence peddling state homes in Glen Innes then they have served a purpose and left readers with no doubt and more faith in the work that our Ministers do. In contrast if answers come back and cast doubt on our Ministers ethics then we the public, tax payer or voter become more informed. Either way the question list remains sound and robust and can work both ways.

  • Russell

    Ask Russell Tully how his Housing was in the middle of a Christchurch winter dying in ice beside the river, yeah well he fought back. He didnt just die or suicide as they tried to push him too. Then they had to make sure what he had to say was never heard, especially not by a jury. A murder trial without a lawyer and the accused being banned from court, unheard of ever, except in political trials were the accused has fled . Yup NZ you got poverty and injustice issues, nothing to be proud off, Long past time Bastille day was recalled, there is good reason why it is celebrated. And the young c#$t Max Key, Son of John Key thinks mocking the humans his fathers has rendered homeless, landless and many lifeless is to be made fun of. Well past any stage of entertaining political correctness. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1409/S00082/on-the-ashburton-shooting.htm