Asset Sales delay?

Written By: - Date published: 11:11 pm, February 14th, 2013 - 42 comments
Categories: Privatisation - Tags: ,

The Herald reports that the Supreme Court will not meet the Government’s timetable for its decision on the Maori Council’s challenge to Asset Sales.

It may only delay things a couple of weeks, but it all adds pressure to the Government’s timeline – every little might help save a power company before the next election.

In the meantime there’s still one final push this weekend for Asset Sales signatures.  They have 370,000, and in theory only need 310,000 – but analysis by Labour of the number that aren’t on the role / duplicates / other invalids means that likely 400,000 will be needed.  That could be one big weekend – this weekend – so if you’re going to any events, take a petition with you.  If your family or friends haven’t signed – shove a petition under their nose.  Even if you’re just going to the supermarket or the kids’ sports – take a petition.

The sooner we get this petition validated, the better.  Hopefully it can be combined with the local government election at the end of the year to get a serious response to how much the country disagrees with the Nats.

42 comments on “Asset Sales delay? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Richard 1
    14 February 2013 at 11:33 pm

    You mean save a *minority interest in* a power company, although I guess that lacks the power of the deceptive rhetoric.

    Also, it doesn’t say a lot for how much NZers actually care that the petition is still struggling to reach the numbers it needs, even after all this time. Apparently NZers care substantially less about this than they did about the “right” (yuck) to physically abuse their children.

    Not that the left cared about that petition. Goose. Gander. Etc.

    • QoT 1.1
      14 February 2013 at 11:35 pm

      Sadly, the leftwing lacks nice big institutions with buildings and the social pressure to show up and listen to the dude at the front every Sunday to prove you’re a good person.

      • Richard 1.1.1
        14 February 2013 at 11:40 pm

        Ratana.

        The Pacific Island religious communities of South Auckland.

        The Salvation Army.

        • QoT 1.1.1.1
          14 February 2013 at 11:48 pm

          Ooooh, you got me, there are some religious institutions which could also be termed vaguely left-leaning, and I’m sure you can give us a citation any second now for their organised campaigns to trick people into signing the asset sales petition by using deliberately-confusing language.

          • Richard 1.1.1.1.1
            15 February 2013 at 12:23 am

            Here’s an example.

            “Strong endorsements have been received from the New Zealand Labour Party, the Mana Movement, the Green Party, New Zealand First, the Alliance, the Council of Trade Unions, the CTU Runanga Kaimahi Maori, the Unite Union, MUNZ, the Working Womens Resource Centre, We are the University, the Tamaki Housing Action Group, ***Kia Maia Ratana Church***, Climate Justice Aotearoa, the Migrant Workers Association and Socialist Aotearoa. Members of these groups are encouraged to attend with friends and supporters.”

            I’m sure Ratana’s support at no point amounted to endorsing the petition to their congregation, since churches using their moral sway to dictate political action is a terrible abuse of their position.

            I dislike religious organisations endorsing political positions generally. This is no different.

            • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.1
              15 February 2013 at 12:29 am

              since churches using their moral sway to dictate political action is a terrible abuse of their position.

              Disagree. To make that statement you must think that churches have no relevant role or interest in the broad direction of society. However, the history of the church is steeped in politics and in the guidance of societal direction…the Vatican still demonstrates this amply in the modern day.

              • McFlock …
                15 February 2013 at 12:47 am

                well, to be consistent it would be wrong for political institutions to comment on morality.

                Like, say, calling the sick and needy “bludgers”, or calling taxation “theft”, or opposing same-sex marriage.

            • AmaKiwi 1.1.1.1.1.2
              15 February 2013 at 2:57 am

              “churches using their moral sway to dictate political action is a terrible abuse of their position.”

              Churches help people find meaning and purpose in life. If you find a purpose in life and are committed to it, you act on it.

              Democracy is one of my core religious ideals. I arrived at through my church. I act it out through my church and my political action.

              I read a lot of shallow thinking on TS. Some comments are nothing more than “us versus them.” And “they” are always greedy, thoughtless, less than human. That’s not a political philosophy to be proud of.

              • RedLogix …
                15 February 2013 at 10:39 am

                I largely agree with your view myself.

                However history has shown that religious institutions themselves can become a very powerful and reactionary source of political power.

                For instance; no-one had much problem with Jim Bolger being a Catholic to the extent that his belief may have informed his values and purpose … but what about the Catholic Church itself having the power (either through formal constitutional power, or some other indirect means) of dictating to government?

                There is a reason why we have separated the powers in the West.

              • Rogue Trooper …
                15 February 2013 at 4:39 pm

                i sorta fit between you two AK & RL

            • Dr Terry 1.1.1.1.1.3
              15 February 2013 at 11:01 am

              Richard – religious organisations should not, indeed, endorse political positions, as it were. On the other hand, religious organisations are shirking their duty if they fail to question “political policies”, that is, of any party.

        • risildo 1.1.1.2
          15 February 2013 at 12:55 pm

          You forgot the exclusive brethren backing National

    • Bunji 1.2
      15 February 2013 at 10:48 am

      They’re going to take about the same amount of time to gather signatures I think. So I don’t know that NZers care “substantially” less about this.

      Adn that’s with a whole bunch of people saying that it’s too late, the legislation’s passed, they won’t listen etc, and not bothering signing…

  2. tamati 2
    15 February 2013 at 2:08 am

    Can someone in the know fill me in on the process of auditing the petition?

    Surely they don’t go through every signature and check that they are on the electoral roll?

    I’m guessing they take a random sample, (e.g. every 23rd signature) and check it corresponds to an enrolled voter, then multiply the proportion on valid signatures by the total number of signatures?

    The reason I ask is that I have seen several examples where the signatures would certainly be illegible, the person is under 18 and have had a few die hard friends sign twice because they feel so pationate.

    • Te Reo Putake 2.1
      15 February 2013 at 8:02 am

      Every signature is checked, tamati. Duplicates, illegibles and non enrolled are removed. Hence the need to get a few thousand more to get over the line.

      • Lightly 2.1.1
        15 February 2013 at 9:51 am

        Nah, they check about 10% and from that they apply an algorithm that tells them to very tight confidence how many of the total are likely to be invalid.

    • Fortran 2.2
      15 February 2013 at 10:25 am

      Tamati

      I have “friends” who have signed many times, including under the names of M Mouse and D Duck.
      They cannot all be checked – only a sample surely.

      • Hayden 2.2.1
        15 February 2013 at 1:16 pm

        Your “friends” are arseholes.

        • georgecom 2.2.1.1
          15 February 2013 at 9:53 pm

          I guess that will explain:

          1. The types of people who vote for National
          2. Why Key is still quite popular in polls
          3. The background of much of National Party economic thinking. Chief economic advisers D. Duck and M. Mouse.

          Do you and your mates also make up fictitious voters at election time?

          • georgecom 2.2.1.1.1
            15 February 2013 at 10:09 pm

            and by the way, we will get the 400,000 signatures. I know of 4 petition sheets going to Wellington this week. I will be out collecting some signatures. Not hundreds but it will be a contribution.

            We will then have the referendum. Either you righties will have to spin things like never before to make asset sales palatable to the voting public or Key will have to start preparing his many excuses to ignore the petition results.

  3. AmaKiwi 3
    15 February 2013 at 3:07 am

    If this were Switzerland, we would need 25,000 signatures, not 310,000.

    With 25,000 Swiss signatures the referendum would be binding, not some piece of b.s. the government will ignore.

    I want democracy, not parliamentary dictatorship.

    • Akldnut 3.1
      15 February 2013 at 8:23 am

      +1
      There should be motion on the table to make these petitions binding if the number of signatures collected surpasses or equals the number required.

    • Lanthanide 3.2
      15 February 2013 at 9:24 am

      Then you could say goodbye to the “anti-smacking” legislation, and we’d also have 99 MPs in parliament.

    • Shane Gallagher 3.3
      15 February 2013 at 10:29 am

      You would probably get the death penalty back quick smart as well… It would also mean that a relatively small but dedicated minority could have a lot of power… 🙂

    • RedLogix 3.4
      15 February 2013 at 10:34 am

      You can have binding CIR’s … but you have to makes some other changes at the same time. For instance consider how in the USA simple sane gun control laws have been completely hijacked by a minority NRA.

      Consider how easy it would be to find 25,000 signatures in this country to bring about all manner of reactionary laws. I’d suggest you could easily find that many to bring back stoning of fornicators.

      • Colonial Viper 3.4.1
        15 February 2013 at 11:07 am

        With a fornicator defined as anyone having had sex outside of marriage…

        • NoseViper (The Nose knows) 3.4.1.1
          15 February 2013 at 11:23 am

          CV Ooer!! If they included that in the Olympics NZ would probably get a gold medal. I think our stats for short pregnancies for newly married couples used to be second to that other country, the bulwark of HMO or high moral outrage, the USA.

  4. Rich 4
    15 February 2013 at 10:10 am

    I don’t think combining with the local government referenda is a good idea. Firstly, I don’t think the poll can be combined – the rolls are different for one thing. Secondly, council election turnouts (and postal votes in general) are usually low, creating more of an excuse to ignore the thing. Not to mention that postal votes are a bad thing in general as they negate the principle of a secret ballot.

    National will probably try and make this a postal vote if possible.

    Before the next election would be ideal (which would have to be the case if the petition is filed before this November). That would maximise the indignation at the vote being ignored, which is the whole point of the exercise.

  5. Fortran 5
    15 February 2013 at 10:27 am

    The Nacts will ignore the petition anyway.

    • mac1 5.1
      15 February 2013 at 11:05 am

      Fortran, if they do, they risk a backlash from voters in 2013. For example, we Grey Power members approximately 100,000 strong are enough to tip a government in an election. The Grey Power movement is opposed to asset sales. No asset sales is core policy. Its advice to member voters would be pretty clear.

      It will be argued that voters whose petition signatures were raised by Green, Labour or Union efforts will not hugely support the government. But remember that opposition to asset sales runs in the order of 70%. There must be a number of National voters in that figure. How deeply would they feel about this issue? Enough to stay away as they did in 1999 after three terms of National and the dominant issue of the Max Bradford ‘reforms’?

  6. tamati 6
    15 February 2013 at 11:15 am

    I’ve had conflicting answers to my question. So nobody knows for sure?

    • One Tāne Huna 6.1
      15 February 2013 at 11:28 am

      Not you, that’s for sure. Luckily there’s an amazing site called Google, and I used it to discover the answer to your question in less than a minute.

  7. mac1 7
    15 February 2013 at 11:31 am

    tamati, I googled the question and got this from msn.co.nz

    “The Greens and their allies are close to collecting 400,000 signatures on a petition to force a citizens-initiated referendum on asset sales……………. a party spokesman told NZ Newswire……..

    The petition will be handed to the Clerk of Parliament when the 400,000 mark is reached, and officials will check every signature before the referendum gets the green light.”

  8. swan 8
    15 February 2013 at 9:31 pm

    Cant wait to get my tranch, have put aside 10k for MRP. Hopefully it wont get delayed too much longer.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.