Will PGF use taxpayer funds to sue the taxpayer?

March 25th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

The Problem Foundation is seeking legal advice over a possible High Court challenge to a controversial Government decision to axe funding for most of its services for addicts.

So because the Salvation Army was judged better able to provide support for gambling addicts, the may use some of its money (90% taxpayer funded) on court action rather than actually helping gambling addicts. Shows their sense of priority.

The PGF has been claiming that the loss of its funding will silence its voice. This shows how much they have lost the plot. Taxpayers do not fund them to be a voice to lobby Government. That is explicitly illegal, ruled so by the Auditor-General. They are funded to provide support for gambling addicts. Any advocacy is meant to come out of their own funds.

So if they claim their loss of taxpayer funding will silence their voice, it is a de facto admission they have been illegally cross-subsidising their advocacy work from their taxpayer funding. This means it is no surprise that the Salvation Army were found to be better able to actually help problem gamlers.

In Stuff the PGF said:

Ramsey confirmed the meetings, saying “it’s fair to say our political activity creates tension with the funder” but said he had told the ministry no taxpayer money was spent on advocacy work.

Yet in the same article he says:

Ramsey said the ministry’s decision, which strips away 77 per cent of the foundation’s budget and is likely to result in up to 52 job losses from a staff of 63, had the effect of “silencing the big voice against gambling”

So he is contradicting himself.

The answer of course is that the PGF used the taxpayer funding to massively fund their lobbying activities. It’s easy to do so. The biggest cost is always staff time, and you just have a proportion of the staff’s time spent on lobbying.

Now again I have no problems with lobbying – so long as it is not taxpayer funded lobbying.

Tags: ,

136 Responses to “Will PGF use taxpayer funds to sue the taxpayer?”

  1. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    I bet they go to Court. Oops I’d better get myself to the Salvation Army.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    PGF is little more than a Labour Party front group soliciting for funds. Check out the people associated with it -ex-Labour MPs all over the place.

    They are just upset that their cosy little rort will no longer be carrying on. Boo hoo.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Taxpayers do not fund them to be a voice to lobby Government. That is explicitly illegal, ruled so by the Auditor-General.

    Judith says the Auditor-General is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Monty (978 comments) says:

    What is most of concern here is that the PGF have been using taxpayer money to illegally lobby the government. I think it is time that all groups who receive taxpayer funding do not use the taxpayer funds illegally. Of course that will mean a distinction of the money they use for lobbying and how such lobbying is funded.

    I am pleased that the procurement process for the tender of the gambling addiction services was audited and given a clean bill of health by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Something trevor and grant and the Secretary of the PSA don’t want to acknowledge. In fact e PSA secretary made the causation that the Salvation Army did not even submit a tender. Of course Brenda Philpot has been unable to substantiate that claim when challenged.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    The New Zealand AIDS Foundation spends one hell of a lot of time lobbying. They spent a lot of time and money trying to have a couple of videos they claimed were anti-gay banned. It is hypocritical for those concerned about funding lobby groups to not say a word about the funding of the AIDS Foundation which has lobbied for such things as not screening migrants for HIV. That was a strange position for an organization meant to reduce the spread of HIV.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    This sort of thing makes my blood boil. Glad to see all those jobs go.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RF (1,404 comments) says:

    But But But.. poor Tony Milne needs the funding. How will he survive until September – if he gets in. Timmy is in Wellington and has his hands full trying to clean up after Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Some people just love a cover up and the subsequent spin.

    The government is in the pocket of the gambling industry.

    “The government’s decision to cut the Problem Gambling Foundation’s funding is looking stinkier and stinkier. First, news that they were the target of repeated complaints from the gambling industry:

    The Ministry of Health had several meetings with the Problem Gambling Foundation to address concerns about political lobbying after complaints by poker machine trusts about outspoken attacks on the sector, the Sunday Star-Times has been told.

    A senior industry source said pokie trusts had lodged several complaints with the ministry about PGF’s behaviour, resulting in the foundation’s chief executive, Graeme Ramsey, being called to “please explain” meetings.

    Ramsey confirmed the meetings, saying “it’s fair to say our political activity creates tension with the funder” but said he had told the ministry no taxpayer money was spent on advocacy work.

    Second, it seems that the Salvation Army didn’t even apply for the contract it won:

    The Salvation Army says it was unaware it would be taking over as the lead agency for gambling addiction services after the Ministry of Health controversially cut funding to the Problem Gambling Foundation.

    National manager of addictions Captain Gerry Walker said he had not yet been shown a contract and “did not know what the situation is”.

    His organisation had applied for its usual amount of funding for gambling addiction services – between $1 million and $2 million.

    Instead, the ministry decided that it would take over as the national provider.

    So, a contract is taken away from an organisation which is publicly acknowledged to do excellent work, and given to one which didn’t even apply for it, because that organisation is unpopular with the industry the funder is supposed to be cleaning up after. If that isn’t a political decision driven by revenge, I don’t know what is.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/stinkier-and-stinkier.html

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Huevon (222 comments) says:

    @ Chuck Bird – yeah, good luck taking something away from the gayz. Pokie addicts, not so much…

    The moral of the story here is: don’t depend on the government! Been proven to me over and over again in life.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    As for the lobbying, this requires informed people – people who work in their day job providing services become informed. But they do their lobbying in their own time.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Want to downtick the fact that the Sallies did not even tender for the national contract.

    The truth is as unpopular on this blog as Twitter is in Turkey with its PM.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “Want to downtick the fact that the Sallies did not even tender for the national contract.”

    SPC – what are the regulations covering Govt tenders – do they exclude widening the scope of services that a tenderer has bid for?

    “As for the lobbying,this requires informed people – people who work in their day job providing services become informed.”
    I don’t see why you’d think the Sallies aren’t up to it:
    http://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/research-media/social-policy-and-parliamentary-unit

    The oppositon to this decision seems very political when it is stated by MoH that the SA will deliver better value. The tender was for treatment services, not lobbying, so the PGF can continue with it’s donation funded campaigns, and more problem gamblers can receive treatment services.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    RN
    It would seem extraordinary if the funding has been switched from one provider to another without a tender process.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    mikenmild – there was a tender process.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    When does the problem gambling levy become taxpayer money?.

    The problem gambling levy is set under the Gambling Act 2003 to reimburse the Government for the costs of the problem gambling integrated strategy to prevent and minimise gambling harm.

    http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/mental-health-and-addictions/problem-gambling/problem-gambling-levy

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Right Now, and the contract was then awarded to a group that did not tender …

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It’s money collected compulsorily from the gambling providers cha, so it is pretty much treated like any other source of government revenue.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    So…not a tender process then.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Maybe those paying the problem gambling levy want it to go to a group that doses not challenge their industry but just helps its victims, so the Sallies know that if they lobby government in ways the industry does not like they will be replaced also.

    Not so much a tax/levy as an investment in silencing opposition to their industry.

    Maybe the liquor business should look at emulating this practice …

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. peterwn (3,275 comments) says:

    I think they would rely on the Combined Beneficiaries Union v COGS case:
    https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/31/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/d9181172-dafa-4676-8b3a-a16848b6043c/d9181172-dafa-4676-8b3a-a16848b6043c.pdf

    The CBU would have had expectation of continuing funding. PGF, however had a term contract to provide a specific service for a specific. Now, all things equal, if that funding stopped, the employees providing the service could seek similar positions with the Sallies or others (they have skills and experience which make them quite employable – presumably, and PGF would remain solvent – unless they had been engaging in non-charitable activities such as lobbying and troughing. I suspect PGF will quickly lose interest in a lawsuit if their organisation is laid bare for what it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    SPC and mm, stop lying.

    But the head of the Salvation Army’s Addiction Services, Captain Gerry Walker, says this [lefty lies they didn't tender for it] is wrong.

    “We tendered for it,” he told New Zealand Doctor, “We tendered for what we believed we had the capacity and capability to deliver.”

    Captain Walker says he does not know where the idea the Salvation Army was surprised to receive the contract had come from and that it had not described itself as the “national provider”.

    “There is no surprise. We have been waiting to hear what we will be contracted to provide.”

    http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/news/2014/march-2014/24/we-did-tender-for-gambling-addiction-services,-say-sallies.aspx

    So let’s see. An organisation stacked full of senior lefties illegally uses taxpayer money to conduct political activities against the govt of the day, because does anyone on earth think they would have done the same if a Liarbore govt had been in power; AND then it LIES and LIES and LIES when it loses the taxpayer-funded propaganda teat because it couldn’t deliver enough of the services with the money remaining after they’d spent the rest of it on illegal propaganda activities.

    You guys are disgusting, you know that? The whole lot of you.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    peterwn, and what “is” the PGF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Monty (978 comments) says:

    Milk mild and others. I have heard that the sallies did not submit a tender? Brenda Philpot of the PSA also made the same accusation. I have tried to find any evidence of this. I can’t. But I did find out that the tender was scrutinised by PWC and was found have found to have followed a rigorous process including evaluation. Therefore I can only assume that the rumour of no tender by the sallies is a deliberate lie. Happy to retract and apologise if you can provide evidence of no tender. So Far Brenda Philpot has failed to provide any link or evidence and instead tried to divert away from the issue.

    I call bullshit on this. Can anyone associated closely with the tender confirm that there was a rigorous process?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    “people who work in their day job providing services become informed.” – they have their outlook changed by dealing with a few shit bags who cant gamble. then they decide the best thing to do is to reduce Dimes freedom by banning it

    “But they do their lobbying in their own time.”

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    reid,

    Reid, as arrogant and as ill informed as usual …

    What about this do you not understand.

    “The Salvation Army – which also publicly opposed the National-SkyCity deal – would take over as the main provider for addiction services because it was believed to be able to make nearly $5 million in funding go further.

    National manager of addictions Captain Gerry Walker said he had not yet been shown a contract and “did not know what the situation is”.

    His organisation had applied for its usual amount of funding for gambling addiction services – between $1 million and $2 million.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11224123

    The Sallies did not tender for the main contract but their usual one.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Pete, the tendered for their usual contract not the one given to PGF IN THE PAST.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    What about being Dunne’s poodle on the net leaves you unable to comprehend the facts?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    Reid, as arrogant and as ill informed as usual … What about this do you not understand.

    SPC I told you, stop lying… From the same article I posted above. I’ve bolded the relevant bit so you can’t lie anymore.

    The New Zealand Herald reported on Saturday the Salvation Army was “unaware” it would be taking over as the lead agency for gambling addiction services. The paper says the army had applied for its usual amount of funding for gambling addiction services, but the ministry decided it should take over as the national provider…

    …But the head of the Salvation Army’s Addiction Services, Captain Gerry Walker, says this is wrong.

    http://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/news/2014/march-2014/24/we-did-tender-for-gambling-addiction-services,-say-sallies.aspx

    Read the whole thing this time and hey, STOP LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    This seems to have upset a lot of people.

    Here’s an idea – no funding for anyone. Let these “charitable” organisations raise funds. Easy. Then they can do with em what they like.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    Suck it up SPC. You got caught out propagating a lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Reid, care to link to something that does not require a subscription?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Seems to me that SPC has been caught out believing a story in the Herald, a story which explicitly quoted Gerry Walker. So either Walker was misreported or was lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    Reid, care to link to something that does not require a subscription?

    I went straight to it SPC, another lie? Hey, it’s OK, we know you’re embarrassed but next time you get caught out, try to make something up about not being able to find it that’s at least slightly believable.

    Seems to me that SPC has been caught out believing a story in the Herald, a story which explicitly quoted Gerry Walker. So either Walker was misreported or was lying.

    ALL the lefties have been vigorously pushing this almost as hard as they pushed it when they learned they were about to lose taxpayer funding for their hatchlings at the Student Unions. ALL the repeaters in the media of course simply publish the Liarbore and Gween releases as if they were facts. Perhaps this is why the researcher left, she didn’t want to lie so Matt shouted at her.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Yes, that link does require a subscription.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    SPC they shouldn’t be lobbying with tax payer money. They can start a lobbying group with their own money and their own time just like anyone else. I don’t want my hard earned money going to an organisation that is going to be using it to lobby rather then help people like they are supposed to. How is that so hard to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    Yes, that link does require a subscription.

    It doesn’t for me and I noticed Pete G posted the same article then deleted it when he saw I’d already put it up, I’ll quote the whole thing below.

    Cliff Taylor
    ctaylor@nzdoctor.co.nz
    Monday 24 March 2014, 1:01PM
    Related Stories
    Anti-gambling body hit hard in pocket
    The Salvation Army has refuted claims by Opposition parties that it won a contract to provide gambling addiction services without seeking it.

    Criticism of the Ministry of Health’s decision to strip the Problem Gambling Foundation of most of its funding has continued this week, with the Green Party asking how the Salvation Army had been awarded the contract.

    The New Zealand Herald reported on Saturday the Salvation Army was “unaware” it would be taking over as the lead agency for gambling addiction services. The paper says the army had applied for its usual amount of funding for gambling addiction services, but the ministry decided it should take over as the national provider.

    Foundation funding slashed

    Funding for the Problem Gambling Foundation, which has been operating for 20 years, has been cut from $4.7 million to $1.1 million. It will have to lay off most of its 63 staff.

    Green Party gambling spokesperson Denise Roche says serious questions need to be asked about the ministry’s decision. Opposition politicians claim the foundation is paying the price for criticising the government’s deal with SkyCity, which gets more pokie machines in its casino in exchange for building a convention centre.

    “The fact the Salvation Army said it did not tender for the contract to supply problem gambling services, yet was awarded it, adds weight to the allegation that the Problem Gambling Foundation was being punished for its opposition to the SkyCity deal,” Ms Roche says in a press release.

    We tendered, says Salvation Army

    But the head of the Salvation Army’s Addiction Services, Captain Gerry Walker, says this is wrong.

    “We tendered for it,” he told New Zealand Doctor, “We tendered for what we believed we had the capacity and capability to deliver.”

    Captain Walker says he does not know where the idea the Salvation Army was surprised to receive the contract had come from and that it had not described itself as the “national provider”.

    “There is no surprise. We have been waiting to hear what we will be contracted to provide.”

    No details on tender

    Asked how much of the total services the Army had tendered for, he says it is not appropriate to discuss the content of its tender.

    “It was for what we could deliver,” he says. “It was an open and transparent tender.”

    Associate healthy minister Peter Dunne has rubbished the Opposition claims, saying the ministry had signalled in 2012 that it would go to the market for the provision of gambling harm minimisation services.

    The process to retender the contracts was an open, contestable tender, Mr Dunne says in a press release.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Reid, I got the story from no right turn who got it from the Herald – who quoted Walker himself.

    So is Walker claiming he was misquoted? And, if so, why no follow up story in the media – just some Doctor newspaper.

    I have seen nothing in the MSM to the effect that the Sallies tendered for the main contract.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Cunningham, the PGF said they did not lobby with the government funding but provided their services with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    I have seen nothing in the MSM to the effect that the Sallies tendered for the main contract.

    Yes I rarely see things in the MSM that run counter to lefty lies and memes until long after the news cycle has moved on, then it’s a page 9 correction in tiny tiny print. Isn’t that peculiar.

    Cunningham, the PGF said they did not lobby with the government funding but provided their services with it.

    Since they’ve been proven to have lied about why they lost the tender why do you hallucinate they’re in the least bit interested in telling the truth about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    I think there is some confusion caused by early news reports that Capt Walker said they hadn’t tendered for anything more than their “usual” $1-$2 million.
    Does anyone else think a variance of $1 million for “their usual” contract is “unusual”

    That aside it seems the basis for the allegation that the SA didn’t submit a bid was the initial article in the Herald by Isaac Davison. Perhaps he should be asked for the full transcript of his interview with Capt Walker, it seems he may not have been strictly factual with his reporting.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Well go and buy a fucking subscription, you pricks.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Reid, no where does the NZ Doctor story contradict the Herald report.

    Walker does not say they tendered for the main contract. The usual 1 to 2 M (being inexact is to be expected in the business of tendering) is not the 5 m for the main contract.

    There is nothing new to add to the Herald report.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I see the Health Ministry is still likely to use the PGF to supply some specialist services, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    If you want to go to the NZ Doctor article without a login, do a google search and find it that way. It’s trying to return through a link that asks you to login. Search on this
    But the head of the Salvation Army’s Addiction Services, Captain Gerry Walker, says this is wrong
    Look for the NZ Doctor Online search result and click it to get there

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    Reid, no where does the NZ Doctor story contradict the Herald report.

    Contradictions bolded.

    The New Zealand Herald reported on Saturday the Salvation Army was “unaware” it would be taking over as the lead agency for gambling addiction services. The paper says the army had applied for its usual amount of funding for gambling addiction services, but the ministry decided it should take over as the national provider.

    Green Party gambling spokesperson Denise Roche says…

    “The fact the Salvation Army said it did not tender for the contract to supply problem gambling services, yet was awarded it, adds weight to the allegation that the Problem Gambling Foundation was being punished for its opposition to the SkyCity deal,” Ms Roche says in a press release.

    But the head of the Salvation Army’s Addiction Services, Captain Gerry Walker, says this is wrong.

    “We tendered for it,” he told New Zealand Doctor, “We tendered for what we believed we had the capacity and capability to deliver.”

    Captain Walker says he does not know where the idea the Salvation Army was surprised to receive the contract had come from and that it had not described itself as the “national provider”.

    There is no surprise. We have been waiting to hear what we will be contracted to provide.”

    Walker does not say they tendered for the main contract.

    He doesn’t say they didn’t, either. He said they did not describe themself as “the national provider.” That doesn’t mean they didn’t tender for it indeed since they were not surprised to receive the contract it indicates they did, in fact, tender for it which means the Herald is lying, and/or repeating a lie, and so are you.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    The confusion is caused by the focus of the NZ Doctor story being Walker’s refuting the claim of Roache that they did not tender, he says they did tender.

    The Herald report covered the fact they did not tender for the main contract that PGF held but their usual one.

    Reid, I hope that when you read all you read on the net to inform yourself of your worldview it is done with more acuity than on this occasion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    So let me get this straight.
    Some citizens like to gamble.
    Some citizens like to gamble more than they can afford, ie become a problem.
    Some of those citizens resort to fraud, theft, borrowing or Koha to fund the gambling they cannot finance.
    When discovered some claim they are “Addicted”.
    Some do gooders feel sorry for them and their spawn because the money is a bit short.
    Some other citizens see an opportunity to make some dosh from “helping” gamblers having bad luck.
    Some of the little helpers have had their income stream disrupted by due process.
    Having gambled and lost those little helpers who were very well rewarded are now seeking assistance.
    Those very unlucky people are now going to gamble some of the money awarded to help the less fortunate gamblers to win in court.

    Those gamblers want support now they have lost and on balance are going to lose again, bad luck I say. Ha Ha.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Tautaioleua (309 comments) says:

    You’re all missing the point here. The Salvation Army has been just as vocal about gambling and the sky city deal over the years. This throws cold water on any “theory” that the PGF had its funding swiped for being critical of government.

    It’s also bad taste given that the entire tendering process was scrutinised by an independent organisation. Those behind PGF are left-leaning and hate the idea that they have lost to a centre right christian organisation.

    For example, the same socialists tried to label the Sallies homophobic in a social media campaign last year. They will stop at nothing to rob the faith based organisations of public money.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “I see the Health Ministry is still likely to use the PGF to supply some specialist services, too.”
    They still get $1mill to provide services to the Asian community, and I think they get over $1mill from other funding sources. That is what the PGF said they were using to fund their lobbying, so I don’t see why that would stop – in fact I’d expect their donations to be pouring in after all this publicity.

    “The Herald report covered the fact they did not tender for the main contract that PGF held but their usual one.”
    You claim that is a fact based on the reporting of one Isaac Davison. It’s not even in quotes in the story. It may not be a fact at all. And that is it – that is ALL you’ve got. Laugh innit?

    “I hope that when you read all you read on the net to inform yourself of your worldview it is done with more acuity than on this occasion.”
    Do you see your reflection in the mirror?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    SPC said

    Want to downtick the fact that the Sallies did not even tender for the national contract.

    A bare-faced lie SPC; the Herald reports:

    Salvation Army addictions director Captain Gerry Walker said he was also unaware that the foundation had lost its main contract until he read news reports on Friday, but confirmed the army tendered to provide “more than we currently deliver”.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11225568

    He said the army has 18 gambling-related staff in six “Oasis” centres, compared with 63 Problem Gambling Foundation staff in 10 centres.

    Take your bullshit elsewhere :D

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Right Now, I don’t think that Walker has a problem with the Herald report, in NZ Doctor he was only refuting the claim of Roache that they did not tender – and even then Roache may have only meant they got a contract for the main role that they did not tender for.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    SPC – I deleted my post because it duplicated what Reid said. But that seems to make it clear that Denise Roche made an incorrect claim. Oddly that press release isn’t on the Green website but it’s on Scoop.

    Problem gambling decision raises serious questions

    Revelations that the Salvation Army was awarded Problem Gambling’s contract without seeking it raise serious questions about how that decision was made, the Green Party said today.

    “The fact the Salvation Army said it did not tender for the contract to supply problem gambling services, yet was awarded it, adds weight to the allegation that the Problem Gambling Foundation were being punished for its opposition to the SkyCity deal,” said Green Party gambling spokesperson Denise Roche.

    “Problem gambling is a serious problem in New Zealand and those fighting to deal with the problem should not be punished for doing their job.

    “I think the Government and Health Ministry have serious questions to answer about how this contract was awarded.

    “Have their been any other occasions when an organisation that did not even tender for a Government contract got it? It is a highly unusual situation.

    “This decision needs to be revisited. New Zealanders will not accept this treatment of an advocate fighting to make life better for people.”

    Roche and Labour seem to have gobe hard out on then politics but are misleading and diverting from valid questions about the suitability of the SA to take this over.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock, there is still no evidence that the Sallies tendered for the main contract. Or the national service.

    “Asked how much of the total services the Army had tendered for, he says

    “it is not appropriate to discuss the content of its tender. “It was for what we could deliver,” he says. “It was an open and transparent tender.”

    Yes the Sallies had a back up role to the main provider, how much than their usual supporting role they bid for has not been clarified.

    One things seems clear they got more than they tendered for.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. thedavincimode (6,800 comments) says:

    Some citizens like to gamble more than they can afford, ie become a problem.

    That’s the bit right there that is your fault gravedodger. At least try and pretend that you accept responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. thedavincimode (6,800 comments) says:

    SPC

    Stop doing a Nursey.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    I think the Taxpayers Union should look into the matter of the government awarding contracts to groups for services that they did not tender for.

    It seems that they chose to reject PGF, and then because the Sallies tendered for a little more than their usual contract decided to pass on most of the main contract to them as well – leaving PGF with only the more specialised Asian services where the Sallies had no experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Another dropping point for failed socialists and defunct Labourites gone. Time to weed them out of GWRC, this is another leeching point for trough-snouting bludgers and felons, all of the left-wing persuasion.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @SPC, face it – you got busted lying. The proof is above for all to see. My only question to you is: why did you lie?

    But it is hilarious watching you twist & turn.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    I don’t care if the sallies did not submit a formal tender. However they must have. Importantly they are not a front for the Labour Party that is the main thing. Let the PGF solicit funds from the Labour movement. But then Labour Party activists are quite skilful at taking other people’s money and using it for their purposes.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer,

    Really? So where is the evidence that the Sallies tendered for the main contract that they were awarded. There is none here.

    No where has Walker said that they tendered for all the contract that they were awarded.

    Has no one any proof that the Herald report was wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    And what twisting and turning …

    The NZ Doctor report does not say what Reid purported it to have said. It only denies Roche’s claim that they did not tender at all and that alone.

    If this has happened under Labour you lot on kiwiblog would be all over it as a breach of government contract propriety.

    Speaking truth to power on partisan blogs is the burden of citizenship in a modern democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    There’s no point in engaging with SPC. He/she will just dissemble and dissemble and dissemble rather than admit error.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. greenjacket (466 comments) says:

    SPC – you have been caught out LYING.
    Now if you had any remaining sense of decency, you’d apologise for being such a dishonest dick. Or crawl away liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    SPF – you’re embarrassing yourself more than usual.

    No one cares that your little hate group missed out on funding aka money taken from ordinary New Zealanders by force..

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Typical. Those challenging the party line must be “lying”, as the government can do no wrong …

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I don’t thing SPC is a liar, just not very humble. He’s hardly the first person around here to dissemble rather than simply admit he got something wrong. However, he is a real exponent of it.

    I remember once he said that the Sovereign of the United Kingdom no longer held the title, “Defender of the Faith” but was now instead called “defender of faiths”. When it was pointed out that this is factually incorrect (it’s just something Prince Charles mused about) he just kept spinning and spinning. When it was pointed out that there was such a thing as the Royal Titles Act 1953 which sets out the style of the monarch, he just kept spinning and spinning – going to ever more ridiculous lengths to avoid an admission of error.

    So, I wouldn’t waste your time.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. peterwn (3,275 comments) says:

    SPC re your question: ‘peterwn, and what “is” the PGF?’

    The Problem Gambling Foundation is a lobbying, job creation and troughing organisation that delivers some service to problem gamblers.

    The Salvation Army delivers therapy services to about twice as many problem gamblers as PGF does and they can deliver dual therapy for those with say alcoholic and gambling addictions.

    Speaks for itself, really.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    SPC – you seem to feel the PGF “deserved” the work and “should have been awarded” the contract.

    Well guess what petal. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.

    You aren’t OWED this work, you aren’t ENTITLED to win the contract.

    Now piss off and find someone who cares to bleat to. You’ll have a long and difficult search, all the PGF has experienced here is what We in private enterprise call “life”.

    The lowest or any tender may not necessarily be accepted.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @SPC, well as others have already pointed out…

    You referred to “the fact that the Sallies did not even tender for the national contract”. But that was a lie – they did tender for the contract (you could have simply made a mistake, but your subsequent twisting suggests you were deliberately lying).

    You have now shifted your position – hilariously unsubtly – to argue that the Sallies didn’t tender “for all the contract they were awarded”. So at least you seem to admit (unintentionally, I presume) that your first position – that there was no tender – was a lie.

    Your new position, however, is also false. I can only assume that you don’t know the first thing about tendering. You cannot have a tender “foisted” upon you. The simple fact of the contract proves you are wrong.

    Not sure why you are still trying to deny you lied. Is it because your real identity known and you are embarrased to have been caught?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    SPC… Do you honestly think that the Salvos didn’t tender for this work, and the first they heard about it was when MOH rang them up and told them they were expected to deliver services that they’d never offered to perform?

    So we have the new SPC model of government procurement. Anyone, at any time, might answer their phone and find a public servant telling them they were expected to perform some commercial service for the government. One that they’d never offered to perform. Ring ring… Hello… Ministry of Defence here David, we’ve decided to buy some new frigates from you… they need to be ready by the end of the year, and it doesn’t matter that you don’t know anything about frigates, offer to build them, or quoted a price to build them.

    You believed a Green MP. The Green MP was telling a lie. Green MPs have family connections to PGF so by lobbying for PGF over the Salvos they’re also corrupt. You should have apologised for being so gullible. Instead, you’ve doubled and tripled down on your gullibility and launched yourself in to full retard territory. Fool!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Cato, what is it that I got wrong? Care to explain what this is in the contract matter …

    (on the other matter did I claim that the title had changed or simply that the Crown no longer operated as a defender of faith and noted that Charles had acknowledged this).

    I note this is not the first time you make the criticism and use this example.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer, the claim I made initially was that they did not tender for the contract they won and that they did not tender for the main contract. My position has not changed.

    The only new information I have had to assimilate is that the Sallies tendered for more than their usual contract but not as much as the main contract and what they were awarded.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Simple really. Let me lay it all out for you in the forlorn hope you will have the humility to accept it:

    – You relied on the interpretation in one report of an ambiguous quote given by a SA official, despite the fact that the report only directly quoted one-half of a sentence.

    – In addition to its obvious shortcomings, the existence of other, more direct and fully contextualised evidence offered by other sources. This does not contradict all interpretations of the actual quote in the Herald report, but does contradict your chosen interpretation.

    – Despite the foregoing, you steadfastly hold to your view despite the fact that it is no longer the simplest one incorporating all the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    davidp, I had not read the Roche statement when I first posted and was not influenced by it. Just the no right turn and Herald accounts.

    The situation is more a case of tendering for one frigate and then being asked to build 2.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    RRM, I have no idea if PGF deserved the work etc, the issue is the contract process and if reasons nothing to do with service provision played a part in the decision. Such as the industry raising complaints about PGF’s other role as a critic of the industry while being the service provider.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    SPC

    The situation is more one of having tendered to build two frigates,but declining to refer to yourself by some flippant made-up title such as “the national builder of frigates” prior to even being awarded the contract.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Hahahaha SPC. No, the claim you made was per your exact quote – which was a lie. Your desparate attempts to twist, twist, twist are quite amusing :-)

    But why?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    Tony Milne who was supposed to be a Manager in PGF would have been virtually a full time Labour Party activist. He knows nothing else. It was a mistake to employ such a person in a managerial role. Now the organisation which depends heavily on Government funding offended the very organisation who is funding them. In effect they diverted resources away from their core business to non core activities. No doubt they had warnings about this. But Milne and his coworkers were not going to be diverted. They opposed the Sky City deal and sought to embarrass the Government. Anyhow Milne’s legacy is to leave PGF a train wreak as he swans off to his political career. Any organisation that employs Labour Party activists when their very survival depends on Government funding needs to make it clear to such people that Labour Party political activity will not be tolerated.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer care to say what the exact quote was and how this was a lie.

    The Sallies did not tender for the main national contract that PGF had.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    So where is the evidence that the Sallies tendered for the main contract that they were awarded. There is none here.

    They were awarded the contract. Do I really have to state the obvious?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Cato, care to move from the abstract to the particular to make a contribution to this discussion?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Yes gazzmania, for SPC seems to have difficulty with both the obvious and the truth.

    SPC, if you’re going to tell lies at least try to be like ross69 and move seamlessly from lie to lie :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    gazzamaniac, having been given a contract for more than they tendered for the Sallies had two choices, accept it or stay with what they tendered for only.

    That they choose the former does not mean they tendered for the contract they were awarded.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    care to move from the abstract to the particular to make a contribution to this discussion?

    Sigh.

    “We tendered for it,” he [the head of the Salvation Army’s Addiction Services] told New Zealand Doctor, “We tendered for what we believed we had the capacity and capability to deliver.”

    Want me to put it in caps SPC? Maybe bold? What would help you to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I hope PGF do sue, they have a damn good case.

    1. They met every one of the targets requested of them in their last contract.

    2. They have increased the number of services and the numbers of PG’s they have dealt with.

    3. Their financial accountability was exemplary.

    Given all that, the Government is going to be extremely hard pushed to account for why they took the stance they did, and handed the contract to the Salvation Army, who not only didn’t tender for it, but are highly supportive of the performance of PGF who they have jointly worked with for many years.

    The Salvation Army are now in a really awkward position. They do not have the facilities or employees to meet the requirements of the contract. But, if they turn the contract down, problem gamblers could be left with out an alternative.

    How is the government going to justify their move when they have no bad performance issues to account for their decision?

    If, like some, they try to relate issues with the past CEO, then they will also have to account for why they have for the past 6+ years, continued to fund PGF. The Government should pay for their ‘mistake’. I just hope problem gamblers do not also have to ‘pay’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    @SPC “The Sallies did not tender for the main national contract that PGF had.”

    Where’s the evidence of this?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Salvation Army tendered for the same services they have always offered and of which they have sufficient existing frameworks to provide the services for.

    They did not tender for the extensive contract they were awarded by the Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Pete George (21,657 comments) says:
    March 25th, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    You can obtain under the OIA, if the particular organisations will not provide you with a copy of it.

    However, even if that wasn’t the case (and it is) The Government would be hard pushed to explain why they removed the contract from PGF, when their previous / recent performance as been exemplary, in that they met and exceeded every target set.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    Sheesh, there is some crap being spouted here…. by the same, ‘vested interest’ parties.

    This process started back in 2011 when the Ministry commissioned KPMG to examine VfM (Value for Money) in the area of problem gambling services. Their report observed there were no fewer than 23 (NGO) providers in NZ – each with their own fixed costs (replicated by others). Rationalisation of providers was a logical step – it was just a question of ‘how to do it’ and who would take lead role?

    This RFP was circulated to all interested parties.

    The Salvation Army did submit a response to the RFP for the provision of problem gambling services on a national basis. So did other parties including the PGF. For all we know, the PGF may well have been the third (or the least preferred) option, but as a result of the evaluation process, the bulk of the service provision was awarded to the Salvation Army with the entire process being monitored by independent auditors.

    In terms of who says what and why: follow the money – there are vested interests at play. Milne is a Labour activist. Denise Roche is a Gween MP and the partner of a former CEO of the Problem Gambling Foundation (union flunkie John Stansfield). Her views have to be treated as political and tainted. Over years (certainly during Stansfeild’s time as CEO), the PGF morphed into a political lobby group representing whatever position the Gweens and Labour decided – so instead of concentrating on the provision of specialist support for ‘problem gamblers’ they were an overt lobby outfit representing the political left. Others squawking will include those miffed because they are no longer on the gravy train of services (counselling etc) previously done under the PGF umbrella.

    The disappointment for me is that the recent media focus has been on the various PGF, Gween / Labour bleats – no-one has bothered to comment on the improvement in services that will occur because the provision of ‘problem gambling’ services has moved to an organisation that will support people affected by all forms of gambling and not worry about promoting the jaundiced views of a left wing, political lobby group.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Reid, yes they put in a tender, but was it one for the work PGF had the contract for or for their existing work?

    My first assumption from NRT and the Herald was that they tendered only for their existing work, now it seems the tender may have included more than that to the level that “we had the capacity and capability to deliver” and more than in the past but not the point where Walker could say they tendered for the main role performed by PGF.

    But this is what they got (sans only the Asian role).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Haha Judith the liar hopes the PGA will sue. Me too… that will really be a laugh

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    @SPC: “You can obtain under the OIA, if the particular organisations will not provide you with a copy of it.”

    I know of at least one journalist that has requested information under OIA – but suggesting to request information is not proof of anything. Unless you have proof to back up your claim it appears as if you are making things up.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Pete,

    Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne strongly rejected that claim, saying that the funding decision was the result of a robust, independent review which had looked to improve the sector’s value for money.

    The Salvation Army – which also publicly opposed the National-SkyCity deal – would take over as the main provider for addiction services because it was believed to be able to make nearly $5 million in funding go further.

    National manager of addictions Captain Gerry Walker said he had not yet been shown a contract and “did not know what the situation is”.

    His organisation had applied for its usual amount of funding for gambling addiction services – between $1 million and $2 million.

    Instead, the ministry decided that it would take over as the national provider.

    It is understood that the gambling industry has made a number of complaints about the Problem Gambling Foundation’s advocacy work.

    Some critics said yesterday that a state-funded organisation should not lobby on government policy.

    Right-leaning lobby group the Taxpayers’ Union welcomed the change, saying that the foundation was using public money for pet political causes.

    National MP Tau Henare caused an online debate after he wrote on Twitter: “Why should the Govt pay a group to be critical of it? Pay them to help but don’t pay them to bag the hand that feeds.”

    The foundation’s chief executive Graeme Ramsey said that its taxpayer funding came with strict conditions, and not a cent of it was spent on advocacy work.

    Campaigns were paid for with private donations.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11224123

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ LAC

    Load of crap as usual.

    PGF also offers services for all forms of gambling – and was required to lobby and advocate in their past contracts.

    PGF has performed and met every target – and their tender offered the same services at those offered by the Salvation Army, but on a much larger scale.

    Using your rationale – one could say that an organisation that deals specifically with the interests of problems gamblers, is more beneficial than one that has interests in so many social areas, and has an overarching religious component.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Pete, and today

    Salvation Army addictions director Captain Gerry Walker said he was also unaware that the foundation had lost its main contract until he read news reports on Friday, but confirmed the army tendered to provide “more than we currently deliver”.

    He said the army has 18 gambling-related staff in six “Oasis” centres, compared with 63 Problem Gambling Foundation staff in 10 centres.

    Mr Taylor said recent case law had established that tender processes could be taken to judicial review if a party could show that there was not a “level playing field” for all bidders.

    Affected staff were briefed yesterday. Mr Walker said the Salvation Army did not yet know what services the ministry wanted it to take over.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11225568

    If Walker did not know what services the ministry wanted it to take over, I guess it must be more than they tendered for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    It is understood that the gambling industry has made a number of complaints about the Problem Gambling Foundation’s advocacy work.

    Of course they have an issue with it. They have an issue simply being told how many problem gamblers originate from the questionable practices of their industry.

    People on here are saying that Labour etc have a vested interest – well you can’t get a bigger vested interest than the Gaming and Hospitality Industries.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    This comment would help PGF in any court case.

    National MP Tau Henare caused an online debate after he wrote on Twitter: “Why should the Govt pay a group to be critical of it? Pay them to help but don’t pay them to bag the hand that feeds.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    I’m not aware of Tau Henare having anything to do with the tender process. Dunne and the Ministry of Health have asserted that it was an MoH process only.

    What Henare tweeted was his opinion but it seems to be off the cuff, uninformed and irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Pete, not useful to the government or Peter Dunne sure. The government need only demonstrate that the process was fair and the decision was based on merit to dismiss any suspicion. In the absence of that though …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    ‘Judith’ / Ginny: PGF….. …tender offered the same services at those offered by the Salvation Army, but on a much larger scale.

    So you have seen the evaluation summary? And the evaluation criteria? Sure…. they called you to discuss??? :roll:

    Using your rationale – one could say that an organisation that deals specifically with the interests of problems gamblers, is beneficial to one that has interests in so many social areas, and has an overarching religious component.

    Whaaat? You should talk over your issues with a professional….. oh, wait! 8O

    I said in an earlier thread I believed the biggest bleats were coming from those with vested interests – including some who had fed at the trough (directly or indirectly) called the PGF.

    And it appears I wasn’t wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    Mallard’s and Roche’s and Stanfield’s comments have been far less helpful to the PGF’s cause. Rather than stick to specific reasons for concern they have made what seem to be off the mark accusations, they have been abusive, and the real issues have been lost behind the political onslaught.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Except for the pwc review spc?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Pete George (21,659 comments) says:
    March 25th, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    Given Dunne’s past relationship with members of the gaming/hospitality industry, he is the last person that could/should be involved in this issue. Dunne’s history regarding his conflicting support for problem gambling is NOT admirable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    As for vested interests I should declare that I have a TAB account (but have never used a pokie machine, not even those in the TAB outlets) and my investments show a 20% profit for the year (should my account level stay where it is).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Elaycee (3,947 comments) says:
    March 25th, 2014 at 7:16 pm

    And you have been told, I have no vested interest in the Problem Gambling Foundation – and yet, without proof, you continue to imply that I do.

    I have an interest in this topic because I’ve seen the social harm that it does. Of course, I do confess to being a person that is more concerned with harm, than dollars – unlike yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Judith: Once again showing your Labour affiliations, allowing them to cloud your reasoning, somewhat like all envious left seem to harbour. Best you get on your mobility scooter, ride off into the distance, and get a life.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Peter Dunne should be the minister for vice. A willing advocate for tobacco, liquor and gambling industry interests. And given his ability to work with any government that allows him to collect revenue from these vice activities – (now including prostitution) he is the ultimate grand-pimp of this country of ours.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Of course I have overlooked the regime for new drugs, such as lab produced marijuana substitutes, this was Dunne as world leader and prophet for Colorado making money out of marijuana sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    I’m not going to get into arguments about Dunne’s past, that’s got nothing to do with me. I’ve had no political involvement in anything to do with tobacco – which successive governments (involving Dunne) have significantly hammered with taxes – or with alcohol or gambling.

    But it’s not Dunne who has just been making false, over the top and unsubstantiated claims over the problem gambling tender. Trying to move the discussion to him is diverting from the current issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    Pete

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Pete, I was just noting his obvious consistency, it’s not even a criticism. If he was libertarian he would come out and be proud about who he is.

    But there are possibly appearance problems when he is the one awarding contracts for the management of services for harm mitigation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    Pete George: But it’s not Dunne who has just been making false, over the top and unsubstantiated claims over the problem gambling tender. Trying to move the discussion to him is diverting from the current issues.

    Touche.

    PS: No idea what happened a moment ago. Spooky….. 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    SPC – he wasn’t the one awarding the contracts. It was the Ministry of Health. That’s been pointed out a number of times. Have you got proof of anything to the contrary?

    Would a libertarian keep making shit up?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Seriously though PG. What are you going to do this election? Surely not stand on the old discredited UF ticket? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    I’m going to be an interested observer. Holding politicians to account for what they say. And looking at how to promote positive politics. Back to where I started.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    I shall read your blog with interest then Pete! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Why is Dunne fronting the issue as Associate Health Minister if this was a Health Ministry decision that did not go to any of the Ministers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    I presume because he’s been asked about it and political accusations have been made. I haven’t seen anything that links him to the decision, and both he and the MoH say it was solely a MoH decision.

    For someone who earlier kept making assertions your actual knowledge of it seems very sparse SPC.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    The lack of public knowledge of why the decision that was made was made that is the issue.

    We do know that the Sallies have been given a contract for more than they tendered for and this is all that I asserted/claimed based on reports in the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    SPC – We do not know that the Sallies were awarded a contract for more than they tendered, that is something that was made up by a Greens politician. You can’t make it true just by endlessly repeating it.

    As for Judith – sometimes contracts need to go out to tender even if the incumbent is meeting performance targets. That is part of good contract management. And sometimes another party will get awarded a contract instead of a well performing incumbent, since another provider offered a better deal. And that is business, too bad. It seems that there was independant oversight of this process by PWC, so it will be unlikely that a court challenge will be successful.

    The PGF should go and find another revenue stream instead of whynging about all their work being given to someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    gazzamaniac

    We do know and the person who tendered for the work has said so

    ———————————————————————————————

    National manager of addictions Captain Gerry Walker said he had not yet been shown a contract and “did not know what the situation is”.

    His organisation had applied for its usual amount of funding for gambling addiction services – between $1 million and $2 million.

    Instead, the ministry decided that it would take over as the national provider.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11224123

    Mr Walker said the Salvation Army did not yet know what services the ministry wanted it to take over.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11225568

    If Walker did not know what services the ministry wanted it to take over, I guess it must be more than they tendered for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    So what you are saying is that the ministry is going to do some stuff in house and it’s getting rid of the contractors who were doing it before, and getting another contractor to do the stuff that the ministry doesn’t want to do because they put in a better bid?

    If there is provision for that in the contract (and I assume there is, it’s fairly standard) then what exactly is wrong with that?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. greenjacket (466 comments) says:

    SPC – you’ve been caught out lying. Probably a good idea to slither away and not waste your time commenting here, coz you are only going to do your cause harm.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    gazzamaniac, clearly its not what I am saying, that you see the need to invent this spin to explain Walker’s comments indicates you appreciate that the facts are inconvenient. The Sallies are to get work they did not tender for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    greenjacket, what lie? What cause? Questioning a government acting in the interest of a vested interest/industry rather than the wider public good?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    what exactly is wrong with that?

    They can’t use taxpayer money for anti-govt propaganda anymore gazz. Why it’s as disgraceful as not being allowed to train their hatchlings in the Student Unions through compulsory donations anymore.

    I mean where else are lefties going to gorge themselves on taxpayer blood? It’s a rapidly diminishing pool and some of the animals will die off and may even go extinct.

    It’s a twagedy inside a twavesty wapped in a calamity.

    you appreciate that the facts are inconvenient

    So give us the evidence then SPC. Where oh where is EVIDENCE that the sally tender wasn’t for the whole shebang. Note that their head of addiction services said ONLY that the tender they submitted didn’t describe themselves as offering a national service, that’s not the same thing as evidence that the tender wasn’t for precisely that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (890 comments) says:

    “Green Party gambling spokesperson Denise Roche says serious questions need to be asked about the ministry’s decision”. When a man of Denise’s calibre raises an issue, you folks better take it seriously….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Reid, there is no evidence that money provided for services has been used for advocacy.

    But as you and Henare infer there may be more to this decision than service provision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    Green Party gambling spokesperson Denise Roche says serious questions need to be asked about the ministry’s decision”. When a man of Denise’s calibre raises an issue, you folks better take it seriously….

    Der. The Sallie’s Head of Addiction Services SAID SHE WAS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Than (475 comments) says:

    Reid, there is no evidence that money provided for services has been used for advocacy.

    But as you and Henare infer there may be more to this decision than service provision.

    SPC, your statements are contradictory.

    In your first sentence you say this money isn’t used for advocacy. If that’s true then the government switching providers will do nothing to stop the PGF continuing their advocacy work, since they aren’t relying on government money. But with your next sentence you imply this is a government ploy to prevent the PGF speaking out. You cannot have it both ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Than, there is no evidence that money given for delivery of services was used for advocacy, this is a fact.

    Henare said he did not want a group that criticised the government to get a government contract, and the industry complained that the group that was funded to help victims was also criticising them.

    Both those who want to punish those who criticised the government and those who wanted criticism of their industry to come at a cost would be happy that PGF lost funding to provide services.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    At 9:06 SPC said:

    gazzamaniac, clearly its not what I am saying, that you see the need to invent this spin to explain Walker’s comments indicates you appreciate that the facts are inconvenient. The Sallies are to get work they did not tender for.

    OK let’s break your 8:48 comment down.

    National manager of addictions Captain Gerry Walker said he had not yet been shown a contract and “did not know what the situation is”.

    Translation: They haven’t finalised the contract yet. It’s probably commercial-in-confidence until they do, and he’s not able to talk about it.

    His organisation had applied for its usual amount of funding for gambling addiction services – between $1 million and $2 million.

    They did that and they tendered for more. See your 6:55:

    Salvation Army addictions director Captain Gerry Walker said he was also unaware that the foundation had lost its main contract until he read news reports on Friday, but confirmed the army tendered to provide “more than we currently deliver”.

    So the Sallies tendered for more than they were currently providing. Using evidence taken from your own posts. Again, the tender process is probably commercial-in-confidence and he can’t talk too many specifics at this stage.

    Instead, the ministry decided that it would take over as the national provider.

    In other words they decided to do some stuff in house. Just like I said.

    Mr Walker said the Salvation Army did not yet know what services the ministry wanted it to take over.

    Translation: The Salvation Army are going to do the bits that the ministry doesn’t want to do in-house, but they haven’t finalised the contract yet. Presumably that is because they had a better bid in the tender process.

    If Walker did not know what services the ministry wanted it to take over, I guess it must be more than they tendered for.

    Or perhaps they haven’t finalised the contract yet.

    Compare that to what I posted at 9:01:

    So what you are saying is that the ministry is going to do some stuff in house and it’s getting rid of the contractors who were doing it before, and getting another contractor to do the stuff that the ministry doesn’t want to do because they put in a better bid?

    My comment at 9:01 shows that in fact I did understand exactly what you were trying to say and I was not trying to “invent this spin.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    gazzamaniac, the work done by PGF and the Sallies in the past by contract was being offered again by tender.

    There was no work done in house by the MOH involved in the process. The work that the Sallies had not tendered for and has now been awarded was formerly done by PGF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    gazzamaniac, you read this “the ministry decided that it would take over as the national provider” as the MOH doing the work in house, I read it as the “it” being the Sallies as the main national provider in place of the PGF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Than (475 comments) says:

    Than, there is no evidence that money given for delivery of services was used for advocacy, this is a fact.

    There are two possible cases;

    Case 1, no government money was used for advocacy. In which case PGF will be able to carry on it’s advocacy work unaffected, and all the claims of the government trying to silence them are meaningless.

    Case 2, government money was used for advocacy. Which is illegal, and if it was the case it would be quite appropriate for the government to put a stop to it.

    By simple formal logic it must be one of these two situations. Pick one.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    SPC said:

    There was no work done in house by the MOH involved in the process. The work that the Sallies had not tendered for and has now been awarded was formerly done by PGF.

    Your own words:

    Instead, the ministry decided that it would take over as the national provider.

    Using your OWN WORDS the MINISTRY decided that it would BECOME THE NATIONAL PROVIDER.
    NOT the Salvation Army. They are doing some stuff in-house that used to be done by a contractor.

    Either you are trying to spin one way for one argument and another way for another argument (yeah, nah) or you are stupid. Given that I am happy to assume incompetence ahead of malice, I assume you are the latter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote