Asset sales petition has more work to do

Written By: - Date published: 2:41 pm, May 7th, 2013 - 143 comments
Categories: activism, Privatisation - Tags: , , ,

Breaking – The asset sales referendum petition has collected 292,000 valid signatures. It needs 16,500 more (about another 5%) to reach the threshold. The Keep Our Assets Coalition has 2 months to get the remainder – and says it will get them…

Update – now reported on line here.

143 comments on “Asset sales petition has more work to do ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. King Kong 1
    7 May 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Very embarrassing.
    Should have spent more taxpayers money on it.

    • fambo 1.1
      7 May 2013 at 3:14 pm

      I would have thought being caught out lying repeatedly to the public would be more embarrassing but apparently not

    • r0b 1.2
      7 May 2013 at 3:14 pm

      Yeah – just imagine if they could have spent as much taxpayers’ money as the Nats spent advertising the sales…

      • Egalitarian 1.2.1
        8 May 2013 at 10:07 am

        So I’m not the only one finding the government going on about the opposition using tax payer money totally disingenuous! They themselves are using $100 million of tax payer money to sell these assets (far and away more than the opposition). They are also rorting us on a much bigger scale by selling our assets to prop up their budget figures. But this is a fraudulent one time hit, once they are gone future governments won’t be able to resort to this cheap trick. What National are doing is akin to selling a kidney to make a quick buck in the short term rather than knuckling down and doing the real work required to bring our country back to surplus by more honest means.

    • alwyn 1.3
      7 May 2013 at 3:14 pm

      Don’t worry KK. They will, they will.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.3.1
        7 May 2013 at 3:31 pm

        As a taxpayer, I vote for undermining the National Party and its overseas clients by any means possible, from referenda to the GCSB.

  2. Rich 2
    7 May 2013 at 3:27 pm

    Funny how nobody notices how MRP, Genesis and Solid Energy are pumping taxpayers money into National Party propaganda outlet Business New Zealand.

    • Gosman 2.1
      7 May 2013 at 5:18 pm

      How much money are you suggesting they are putting in to this organisation.

  3. HG 3
    7 May 2013 at 3:47 pm

    What an abject failure, especially as the deadline had not been reached when the petition was submitted.

    • r0b 3.1
      7 May 2013 at 3:53 pm

      Steady on HG – all recent CIRs didn’t reach their target on the first go, and did in the 2 month follow up period.

      The main problem seems to have been folk not supplying enough address details to verify them.

      • King Kong 3.1.1
        7 May 2013 at 4:02 pm

        If you are going to pay people to collect signatures you would at least think they would get those signing to fill out the form properly.

        • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1.1
          7 May 2013 at 4:16 pm

          I imagine they did, Kong. It was more likely ‘amateurs’ like me who didn’t check or emphasise the need for accuracy enough. But, never mind, I’ll fix that over the next few weekends. Key will be shitting himself, especially after crowing about the number of people who registered for a look see at the prospectus. Going to be embarrassing if more people signed the petition than actually bought shares, eh what?

        • Jester 3.1.1.2
          7 May 2013 at 5:54 pm

          Maybe they should have put their paid petition gatherers on performance pay!

      • Sassy 3.1.2
        7 May 2013 at 10:21 pm

        r0b, this referendum should not be compared with the previous ones. This one had wider and deeper public appeal that others.

        This is an unnecessary set-back.

        The campaign was poorly designed
        -too long a collection period, it lost focus and momentum
        -poor title, ASSETS is not a daily user term of most of the public.
        -confusing messaging when dim Hipkins mudied the waters

        Labour should have driven a sharper, faster and better branded, multi media campaign. There was enough support from many of the signatories to make contributions for a better campaign a possibility.

        We will do the renewed campaign any smarter than the last one r0b? The Labour Party should fund and run a new campaign to make a huge splash, not just a creeep past the post.

  4. DTH 4
    7 May 2013 at 4:03 pm

    I have wanted to sign the petition from the time it started but have never seen anyone collecting signatures. Does anyone know if I can do this online?

  5. just saying 5
    7 May 2013 at 4:03 pm

    Is there access to the names and (scant) contact info of the disqualified petitioners?
    I’m assuming most of these people want to sign but filled in their details inadequately. I’d be prepared to take a few from my home town and try to track them down to re-sign.

    The only people I know who didn’t sign but might be persuaded to, live hundreds of miles away.

    • Jane 5.1
      7 May 2013 at 4:10 pm

      As it is ‘sampled’ then I guess not, brings up an interesting point, I signed it and think it was legible, should I sign again in case mine was one that was discounted or stay away for fear of being a duplicate at the recount?

      • King Kong 5.1.1
        7 May 2013 at 4:12 pm

        Yes, everyone who signed should call the Greens head office 04 817 6700
        in order to check if their signature was valid or not. This should be done between the hours of 9am – 5pm tommorow and Friday.

    • Lightly 5.2
      7 May 2013 at 4:27 pm

      No. privacy reasons why there’s no list. Also, they only sample the petition.

    • Anne 5.3
      7 May 2013 at 5:11 pm

      It sounds to me the electoral office was rather harsh in its decision making. For example there were many people who signed that petition in good faith, but had shifted since election day and they put their new address in ‘address’ column. You know, when a form asks for your address do you put your previous address on the form? No, you assume (wrongly in this case) they want your current address.

      I should have thought that the onus in this instance was on the electoral office to check them out and subsequently count them. After all, they fulfilled the over-riding criteria which is: they were on the electoral roll!

      edit: reply to ‘just saying’ at 5

      • Populuxe1 5.3.1
        7 May 2013 at 6:31 pm

        Because “close enough” should work for elections, too?

        • Puddleglum 5.3.1.1
          7 May 2013 at 7:41 pm

          Democratic processes should be maximally straightforward and equitable.

          There are many examples of complicated or punitive democratic processes that reduced such things as voting (e.g., the regulations around voting in various states in the United States).

          The balance is usually between arguments about voter fraud and arguments about voter suppression. In the context of the petition, the downside of any supposed fraud is that a referendum would be held at a certain cost. Presumably, the actual vote in the referendum would not be susceptible to such fraud (anymore than a general election).

          If the electoral office is simply sampling the total number of names in the petition, I would have thought that contacting people with seemingly incorrect addresses through phone numbers or email to check would be reasonable assurance. That number would be a sub-set of the sample – in this case it would, at a maximum be about 25-27% of the sample of the signatures since the overall shortfall is about that percentage (398,000 signatures offered and about 290,000 claimed ‘ok’) – further, presumably some were discounted for reasons other than an incorrect address.

          [As an aside, 25% seems like a very high rejection rate – presumably people who were not registered to vote would have formed a chunk of these – about 7% if they signed in proportion to their non-registration rate. New Zealand, however, has a highly residentially mobile population. This from Saville-Smith and James (2003, p.2 – Building Attachment in Families & Communities Affected by Transience & Residential Mobility: New Research Programme):

          “New Zealanders have high levels of residential mobility. Between 1986 and 1991, more than half the population aged 5 years or more moved at least once. A similar proportion moved between 1991 and 1996. Between 1996 and 2001, 49 percent of the population moved at least once. At the 2001 census, 23 percent of people had lived at their address less than a year. ”

          Anne’s fear may well be well-founded.]

          I don’t know what sampling process the government statistician went through, but given that there are clear statistical rules for calculating various error ranges at various confidence intervals (e.g., national polls of over 3 million eligible voters tend to be around 1000 sample size and + or – 3% margin of error with 95% confidence) I don’t imagine that the overall sample size would need to be enormous. The number of signatures that had incorrect addresses would be something less than 25% (probably considerably less) of even that sample.

          For a relatively small fee, a polling company or call centre operator could check those in a day or two, I’d imagine – maybe less.

          It could be argued that the cost should fall on those trying to initiate a referendum, but as I said initially, surely the principle should be to make democratic participation as straightforward (and equitable) as possible?

          • Anne 5.3.1.1.1
            7 May 2013 at 7:57 pm

            @puddleglum
            I was given to understand by a fellow petitioner (who seemed to be knowledgeable on the subject) that if the address on the petition form is different to the electoral roll then the signature is automatically rejected. I don’t know for sure if this is correct but if so… that is appalling. Democracy? Hell no.

            • Puddleglum 5.3.1.1.1.1
              7 May 2013 at 10:47 pm

              Hi Anne,

              It’s hard to tell just what sample size and criteria are used. Here’s an extract from the (highly technical) ‘Petition Estimators and Their Variance‘ working paper from Statistics New Zealand:

              “This paper looks at methods for determining the number of registered electors who have signed a petition, based on a sample of lines from the petition. A petition has one signature per line. Before the sample is taken, each line of the petition is checked to see the other legally required details have been supplied.
              Suppose that, after that check, M lines of signatures are left in the petition.
              The sample is a systematic one, from these M lines. For the purposes of estimation we will
              treat it as a simple random sample without replacement.
              Let the sample size be m.              “

            • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.1.1.2
              7 May 2013 at 10:59 pm

              It looks like too many of the signature taking volunteers were insufficiently trained to ask people signing the right questions.

              It’ll be upsetting if this avoidable error was a major factor. It better be corrected.

      • Saccharomyces 5.3.2
        8 May 2013 at 10:58 am

        It’s pretty easy to update your details on the electoral roll, http://www.elections.org.nz/voters/enrol-check-or-update-now ….. it’s just something that you do when you shift house, you know, like sorting out mail redirection, updating your details with your bank etc….. there’s no reason for you not to have your current address on the electoral roll.

        • karol 5.3.2.1
          8 May 2013 at 11:09 am

          You are making the wrong assumptions.

          I immediately posted off an electoral role form when I moved, including my change of addresses: PO Box & residential.

          A little while later I got a letter from the electoral office saying I’d recently changed my address & asking to confirm the new address. I assumed that this had crossed with my form in the post. I had got a similar form from the electoral office when I last moved before I attempted to update my details.

          Then a couple of weeks ago, I got an “urgent reminder” from the electoral office to confirm my new address. My response was WTF? But I filled out the form they sent and posted it off. Since then I haven’t heard back from them. So I have no confidence I am now registered on the role under my new address.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.3.2.1.1
            8 May 2013 at 11:18 am

            Perhaps they were checking your signature on the petition?

            • karol 5.3.2.1.1.1
              8 May 2013 at 11:28 am

              You think? I hope so.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                8 May 2013 at 11:32 am

                I dunno: it seems unlikely that the National Party would leave a vital part of our democracy with enough resources to check things properly.

  6. Jane 6
    7 May 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Sigh, I remember commenting that the timing of when it was submitted was a wasted opportunity, and now a free wack to the NATZ with it coming up short. Didn’t it have an extra 70k safety net? Does that mean 90k were disallowed? 30%?

    • Anne 6.1
      7 May 2013 at 5:12 pm

      See my comment above Jane. It sounds to me they were overly harsh. I wonder why?

  7. Santi 7
    7 May 2013 at 4:08 pm

    Embarrasing and farcical. What happened?

  8. Enough is Enough 8
    7 May 2013 at 4:12 pm

    What a balls up.

    Rememeber the great march on parliament to present the petition.

    Seriously embarrassing because now we get this thrown in our faces by those gloating as they sell off our assets to foreigners.

  9. tamati 9
    7 May 2013 at 4:16 pm

    I remember seeing a petition at an op shop on Dominion road. Was just sitting on the counter, with nobody actually supervising. Saw a bunch of girls in school uniform sign up, and nobody seemed to know this was wrong!

  10. Rich the other 10
    7 May 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Typical, the green/labour opposition must be red faced.

    They have given the govt plenty to crow about and have highlighted their incompetence .
    On a brighter note, many who signed in good faith must be wondering about the competence of green/labour.

  11. tarkwin 11
    7 May 2013 at 4:29 pm

    There were over 100,000 signatures disallowed. That isn’t bad luck it’s fraud. And now I see Martyn Bradbury is trying to blame Labour! That is just sad. Labour should distance themselves from the Greens while they still can.

    • framu 11.1
      7 May 2013 at 4:37 pm

      oh shut up –
      how many champions like KK rock up and deliberately sign things like this falsely?
      how many people sign it thinking theyre doing the right thing but fill it out wrong?
      How many people sign it but are under voting age?

      have you ever tried to collect signatures and at the same time inspected each and everyone and asked for proof of ID?

      its not fraud, you, KK and Ritch the other one are behaving like children

      • King Kong 11.1.1
        7 May 2013 at 4:49 pm

        By the sounds of it most of the people who signed the petition weren’t behaving like children, they actually were children.

        • Gosman 11.1.1.1
          7 May 2013 at 5:23 pm

          Classic!

        • Ed 11.1.1.2
          7 May 2013 at 5:32 pm

          Did you sign it lots of times under pretend names then, King King?

          • Murray Olsen 11.1.1.2.1
            7 May 2013 at 8:36 pm

            The knuckle draggers were boasting on Whale Spew how they’d repeatedly signed using ridiculous names such as Mickey Mouse and Aaron Gilmore. I don’t know how true their boasts may have been, because it would have required getting away from their keyboards, and maybe even taking some basic precautions as to personal hygiene.

            The embarrassing thing is not that the petition doesn’t have quite the number of signatures required yet, it is that more than 1% of the population see wholesale theft of our assets as a good thing. I cannot understand why so many of us can be so stupid and let ourselves be led by the nose by slimy liars who make used car salespeople look ethical.

            • felix 11.1.1.2.1.1
              7 May 2013 at 9:21 pm

              The knuckle-draggers were boasting that here as well. They’re all oddly silent about it now.

            • Saccharomyces 11.1.1.2.1.2
              8 May 2013 at 11:01 am

              Lol, no-one would’ve signed as Aaron Gilmoure, until last week no-one knew who he was!

    • Grantoc 11.2
      7 May 2013 at 9:37 pm

      Good point Tarkwin

      Like the recently announced power policy, Shearer and Labour are simply been led by the nose like compliant poodles by Norman and the Greens,

      The more Shearer and Labour cosy up to the Greens and their policy positions, the less attractive they become to the voting public.

  12. Private Baldric 12
    7 May 2013 at 4:34 pm

    I’ll get my turnip’s family on to it.

  13. shorts 13
    7 May 2013 at 4:58 pm

    I wonder how many are disallowed due to them not being on the electoral role – given over a million eligible voters didn’t vote last election, one could surmise there’s a lot of young people whom may have signed simply not on the roll?

    whatever the reason – thankfully there is still time to collect the needed signatures

    • Puddleglum 13.1
      7 May 2013 at 8:02 pm

      I think residential mobility (and, therefore, moving to an address that is not on the electoral roll) would explain a lot of it.

      I quoted from a study, above (comment 5.3.1.1), about the high mobility rates in NZ. In the 2001 census about 23% of people had changed addresses in the previous year. If you had moved since the 2011 election, putting down your current address on the petition may well have invalidated your signature. Also, about 7% of eligible voters had not registered by the 2011 election date. If they signed, their signatures would have been invalid.

      • mickysavage 13.1.1
        7 May 2013 at 9:59 pm

        Yep as someone who spent a lot of time collecting signatures the number of people who had changed addresses were significant. And without a date of birth date the chances of identifying them on the roll would have been very poor.

        I am actually not surprised at this problem. It is just what happens when you have volunteers talking to ordinary people and collecting signatures without the benefit of electoral rolls being on hand.

        • Jim Nald 13.1.1.1
          7 May 2013 at 11:34 pm

          Hmm … an interesting point there.
          For the near future, with modern, portable wee devices, there should be a way to have a digital electoral roll handy to refer to when an individual is about to sign so that the name, etc can be checked?
          There should be a much more efficient, speedy way to run referenda and for eligible individuals to sign on their support and get things done right once and for all.

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1
            7 May 2013 at 11:58 pm

            They don’t do this because of the possibility for massive abuse of the information.

  14. Wayne (a different one) 14
    7 May 2013 at 4:58 pm

    Pathetic – slap in the face for the left. The National Party got a mandate for asset sales at the last election and, this just proves it!

    All the rhetoric and handwringing was just BS!

    • Paul 14.1
      7 May 2013 at 6:45 pm

      Do they have a mandate for Charter Schools too?

      • Blue 14.1.1
        7 May 2013 at 9:04 pm

        No more and no less than the Labour Govt had when implementing NZ First Policy in coalition, or Jim bin Andertons “progressive” policies. That’s the MMP world, you have to make compromises to govern. To think otherwise is naive, idiotic or both.

  15. Rich the other 15
    7 May 2013 at 5:07 pm

    I recon all the boxes of signatures should be placed on the steps of parliament and those who placed them there be asked to take them away.

    I can see the greens walking backwards (the way they think) down the steps carrying them away , don’t ya love the humiliation.
    Oh joy.

  16. The Al1en 16
    7 May 2013 at 5:24 pm

    I signed the petition in the Labour party Hamilton office in Te Rapa.
    I was told to only sign my name and date of birth.
    And they want to run the country when they can’t even get a form filled out properly.
    Good work, front desk nobody.

    • The Al1en 16.1
      7 May 2013 at 6:02 pm

      With consideration, I remember I queried it at the time and did put my name down, but I do recall seeing a lot of just names and birth dates. Hope that page wan’t pulled out for a scan by the clerk.

  17. Gosman 17
    7 May 2013 at 5:26 pm

    I’m sure the petition organisers can get the extra signatures however it does make them look foolish especially as they were very confident they had the required numbers. It would have been better to position the original presentation as just the first stage in the process.

    • felix 17.1
      7 May 2013 at 6:45 pm

      Are you not feeling well today Gos? Have you checked your temperature?

      • Colonial Viper 17.1.1
        7 May 2013 at 6:46 pm

        Yeah I wondered…Gos gave some good advice there…

        • Gosman 17.1.1.1
          7 May 2013 at 6:54 pm

          Thanks for that. It means a lot.

          But seriously, in my view the whole Anti-asset sales petition is a political game by the opposition, which they are entitled to carry out. However in doing so it is more a PR exercise than one that will make a jot of difference to Government policy in the short term.

          If you take this route you have to make sure you control the PR environment. In this regard it is a huge fail for the left even if they do eventually get the required signatures. It is not a good look that almost a third of signatures get invalidated.

          Did you see what I did there? I spun this to make it look even worse than it is. This is something the organisers of the petition should have worked to avoid people like me from doing.

          • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1.1
            7 May 2013 at 8:41 pm

            dude, you’re scaring me now.

            • QoT 17.1.1.1.1.1
              7 May 2013 at 9:12 pm

              Don’t worry, he’s been venting his spleen at hungry children over on TDB, it must mellow him out.

              • felix …
                7 May 2013 at 9:19 pm

                Let me guess, hungry children have no right to his hard-earned money amirite?

  18. Rich the other 18
    7 May 2013 at 6:14 pm

    Just heard,
    The greens spent $91000 of tax payers money on this petition.

    Leaches.

    • Ross 18.1
      7 May 2013 at 6:18 pm

      A drop in the bucket when compared to the more than $100 million of taxpayers’ money spent on advertising and handling the asset sales programme. But that’s different, eh.

      • Rich the other 18.1.1
        7 May 2013 at 6:39 pm

        $100 mill investment will return a substantial benefit.
        $91000 knowingly wasted.
        That’s the difference.
        green logic , norman for finance minister yeah rite.

        • felix 18.1.1.1
          7 May 2013 at 6:46 pm

          Where did you hear that, Rich?

        • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.2
          7 May 2013 at 6:47 pm

          Remember, Rich only counts benefits for the Rich

          Extras like running a democracy and a society are “wasted” to him unless the Rich can get their hands on it too

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 18.2
      7 May 2013 at 6:26 pm

      Good, I’m glad they spent my tax dollars wisely. I hope they spend some more getting over the thresh-hold. Anything to frustrate Tory scum.

    • Paul 18.3
      7 May 2013 at 6:44 pm

      How much was spent on Mighty Power adverts?

      • felix 18.3.1
        7 May 2013 at 6:50 pm

        National spent more on it’s PR consultants and paid bloggers to bleat about the Greens spending their own money from their leader’s budget collecting signatures than the Greens actually spent.

        • Rich the other 18.3.1.1
          7 May 2013 at 6:51 pm

          Wasn’t there own money.

          • Colonial Viper 18.3.1.1.1
            7 May 2013 at 7:03 pm

            National is going to try to outspend their way to victory next year. They will fail.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 18.3.1.1.2
            7 May 2013 at 7:21 pm

            Yes, it was *their* own – by law. You remember the law, don’t you? It’s that thing you pay lip service to when it suits you.

          • felix 18.3.1.1.3
            7 May 2013 at 7:40 pm

            Of course it was their money, Rich. It came from their Leader’s Budget.

    • Shona 18.4
      7 May 2013 at 7:49 pm

      Leeches

  19. Santi 19
    7 May 2013 at 6:34 pm

    Labour is tainted by its closeness to the Greens. Shearer (where is he?) must be fuming.
    Robertson must depose him.

    • Colonial Viper 19.1
      7 May 2013 at 6:52 pm

      Shit that’s some dense meme work there.

      Next time work in a random comment on Cunliffe and UN bank accounts as well and you’ll get the trifecta

    • Belladonna 19.2
      7 May 2013 at 6:54 pm

      Robertson would be no better than Shearer. Still would prefer Cunliffe. Labour will be toast without him.

      • Colonial Viper 19.2.1
        7 May 2013 at 7:04 pm

        It’s looking pretty crispy now.

        • The Al1en 19.2.1.1
          7 May 2013 at 7:15 pm

          And burnt and twisted at the edges because it’s made of that plastic bread they sell at the dairy, eight loaves for a dollar, that’s all ready stale the day you buy into the bargain. 😆

          • Colonial Viper 19.2.1.1.1
            7 May 2013 at 7:21 pm

            Hmmmm probably still not as bad as the bread with sawdust and clay they were handing out in Leningrad…

          • felix 19.2.1.1.2
            7 May 2013 at 7:43 pm

            Hey The Al1en, on this planet we take the bread out of the plastic bag before we toast it.

            • The Al1en 19.2.1.1.2.1
              7 May 2013 at 7:48 pm

              Mate, go buy the cheapest bread at the dairy, the stuff the poor people have to eat, and truthfully, hand on heart, it makes no difference, either way.
              Sad, but true, even without the metaphor.

      • Sassy 19.2.2
        7 May 2013 at 10:43 pm

        Robertson is the problem and definitely not the solution.
        He is a crap politician.
        His life is only about a narrow Wellington parliamentary community perspective.
        Shearer was a mistake. Robertson would be a disaster.

        • Hami Shearlie 19.2.2.1
          7 May 2013 at 11:20 pm

          Agreed Sassy! Robertson isn’t even popular in his own electorate. He came third in the party vote there!

  20. emergency mike 20
    7 May 2013 at 7:05 pm

    Don’t you mean they sacrificed funds from their fair and square allotment of tax $$$ that they can choose to spend however they want?

  21. Kevin Welsh 21
    7 May 2013 at 8:08 pm

    Is there a redirect from Kiwiblog today?

    Loving the upsurge in wingnuts.

  22. Plan B 22
    7 May 2013 at 8:36 pm

    Message to King Kong
    When push comes to shove
    When the lines are down, and the rivers are up
    When the rain is so hard you can’t see your hand
    When the ground shakes
    When…stuff happens
    remember
    Goldman Sachs will not be there, Craigs Investment Partners will not be there.

    Your fellow New Zealanders will be.

    Try and be the best New Zealander you can be. Even here post nonsense on a blog

  23. Rodel 23
    7 May 2013 at 8:45 pm

    Disallowing so many signatures sounds suspiciously like vote rigging in some other countries. I just don’t believe that 100,000 are invalid. Something stinks here.

    • Colonial Viper 23.1
      7 May 2013 at 8:48 pm

      The analyses will be permitted to be independently audited by the parties involved, I’m pretty sure. If it hasn’t been already.

    • Blue 23.2
      7 May 2013 at 9:09 pm

      Being Greens and Labour supporters maybe they spelled their names incorrectly? 🙂

    • karol 23.3
      7 May 2013 at 9:21 pm

      I’m still concerned about the fact that I moved since I signed the petition – wonder if that makes my signature invalid.

      • ianmac 23.3.1
        7 May 2013 at 9:56 pm

        How would we know if our contributions were valid or not?

        And are the organisers able to find out which ones were disallowed? 100,000 is a huge number, unless there was an organised campaign to sabotage with deliberately fraudulent entries??? Surely not. Who would do that?

      • lprent 23.3.2
        8 May 2013 at 7:19 am

        I was wondering the same thing.

        • karol 23.3.2.1
          8 May 2013 at 8:48 am

          Agreed. I’m just hearing Turei say on RNZ that one of the causes of invalid signatures is the high number of people who have changed address in the last year.

          So I want to know if I should re-sign the petition using my current address?

          Also I need to check if my current adress has been confirmed on the electoral role.

  24. vto 24
    7 May 2013 at 10:01 pm

    How does that percentage of failed signatures compare to the usual percentage of failed signatures with petitions? Such as the fire service one some time ago.

    It has been rigged by the right wing liars and cheats.

    Just like they did with the register for shares in the MRP float, putting in David Shearer’s name and loads of other false ones just to get the numbers up.

    The Greens have been shafted by the dishonesty of the right on this.

    Remember left, the right does not hesitate to lie and commit fraud to achieve its ends. Look at John Key for just one example.

    They are dirty and you cannot trust them. They laugh when the poor suffer wage drops. They smite the workers with their arrogance (aaron gilmore). They push to give themselves tax breaks and put up electricity costs to enhance their share prices. They complain about $30m pa in dole fraud but try to become part of the $6,000m pa in tax fraud. They push for cuts to public education and increases to private education. They give money to finance companies and take money off DOC. They beat their chests to give $60million to Hollywood while at the same time complaining there is no money for new mothers.

    They are in fact pieces of shit for people. They are nasty. They are greedy. They only care for themselves. They are rude arrogant dickheads. The fucking lot of them.

    Their mothers would be disgusted at them.

    I fucking hate living in the same street as them. Wankers arseholes is all they are.

    • infused 24.1
      7 May 2013 at 10:30 pm

      mad much?

      The Greens shafted themselves.

    • johnm 24.2
      7 May 2013 at 11:32 pm

      VTO
      100% right. Disgusting to see their lust to privatise for their own gain and their mates’ public assets that belong to all New Zealanders.

    • Murray Olsen 24.3
      8 May 2013 at 7:25 pm

      +1
      Tories are scum. There are two types – honest ones who are rich and act in their narrow class interest, and dishonest fools who think they’ll be welcomed to the trough one day.

  25. Puddleglum 25
    7 May 2013 at 10:38 pm

    And Key says this:

    Key said the petition should be withdrawn because the organisers had misled the public.

    ““They have essentially rorted the system and presented a petition with 101,000 bogus signatures; either people that don’t exist, made-up people, children, people not on the register,” he said.”

    I wonder if he said the same about the Section 51 petition? (which fell short by 15,500 signatures)

    • infused 25.1
      7 May 2013 at 10:42 pm

      Well if you’re going to play the pr game, what do you expect?

      I’d bet $100 Labour/Greens would be saying similar stupid shit if this had actually passed today.

    • framu 25.2
      8 May 2013 at 7:24 am

      by accusing the greens of doing it deliberately hes engaging in defamation – and hes doing it outside the house

  26. xtasy 26
    8 May 2013 at 1:15 am

    What an utter embarrasment for Labour and the Greens.

    But I said it before, the Greens are all good with their ideas, intentions, ideals and some smart, sustainable policies, but they still have to learn a fair bit, and one thing that is: To organise and collect petition or referendum signatures efficiently, effectively and meticulously, to avoid doubling up of signatures, poor signatures, lack of details and so forth.

    They are too “light weight” to really deal with this government.

    And do not get me started on Labour and their leader again!

    Shearer is less than lack-luster, absent so much, because he fears the media and to stuff up again, and he has zilch in needed leadership skills.

    Also Labour is poor in organising, and they must have pissed off a lot of their former supporters, so they have to rely on any one they can get, to go out and collect signatures.

    So all this much talk about referendum, the assurances they had the numbers, it has all turned to shite.

    This will tell most people, they are “useless” and cannot even organise a piss-up in a brewery. Hence they will NOT get the votes they need to win in 2014.

    Now, what did Trotter say? Was it him or someone else not so long ago?

    Shearer must go by June this year, for Labour to get a leader that can turn the ship around and perhaps lead Labour to victory (with the Greens).

    Get the message there, Pink Nats in Wellington???

  27. xtasy 27
    8 May 2013 at 1:21 am

    Getting the still needed signatures will only be a limp face-saving exercise now, as the horse has bolted, as shares will already be sold in MRP by the time the next count will happen.

    And Key and the Nats will not give a damn about a referendum anyway, as they said.

    But Key is a jerk again, to go on about the opposition misleading the public and so. Handing in forms with insufficient details and perhaps doubled up names is a sign of perhaps lack of time to check details, perhaps negligence and in the worst case incompetence. It is not misleading or “fraud” at all.

    So yesterday they all held their little speeches of respect for Horomia in Parliament, but right after that they all start ripping into each other again. So much for “respect”, moral and ethics in politics. There is NONE!

  28. Santi 28
    8 May 2013 at 9:13 am

    Shearer first, Robertson second, and Cunliffe a distant third is the ideal order to lead Labour.

  29. Egalitarian 29
    8 May 2013 at 9:56 am

    Congratulations all my fellow volunteers who collected signatures for the Keep Our Assets team. 292,000 valid signatures while not what we expected or hoped for in the first round is impressive work. The National Party is working it’s way through $100 million of tax payers money to sell these assets. Polls constantly show that a clear majority of New Zealanders are opposed to this policy. The signatures we have collected are to give the majority of Kiwi’s a voice on this issue. Looking at the pace that signatures were collected, and even allowing the same rejection rate as we have just seen it is pretty easy to see that we will reach our target. Underneath the glee the government and it’s supporters are feeling at the moment is the stark realisation that we are on track to get the numbers we need.

    • Murray Olsen 29.1
      8 May 2013 at 7:33 pm

      Thanks for collecting, Egalitarian. All I can do is offer moral support from across the ditch.

Links to post