Asset sales petition has more work to do

Written By: - Date published: 2:41 pm, May 7th, 2013 - 142 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.

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

  1. King Kong 1

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

    • fambo 1.1

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

    • r0b 1.2

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

      • Egalitarian 1.2.1

        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

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

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.3.1

        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

    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

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

  3. HG 3

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

    • r0b 3.1

      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

        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

          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

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

      • Sassy 3.1.2

        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

    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

    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

      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

        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

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

    • Anne 5.3

      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

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

        • Puddleglum 5.3.1.1

          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

            @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

              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

              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

        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

          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

            Perhaps they were checking your signature on the petition?

            • karol 5.3.2.1.1.1

              You think? I hope so.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead

                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

    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

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

  7. Santi 7

    Embarrasing and farcical. What happened?

  8. Enough is Enough 8

    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

    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

    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

    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

      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

        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

          Classic!

        • Ed 11.1.1.2

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

          • Murray Olsen 11.1.1.2.1

            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

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

            • Saccharomyces 11.1.1.2.1.2

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

    • Grantoc 11.2

      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

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

  13. shorts 13

    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

      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

        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

          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

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

  14. Wayne (a different one) 14

    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

      Do they have a mandate for Charter Schools too?

      • Blue 14.1.1

        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

    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. 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

      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

    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

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

      • Colonial Viper 17.1.1

        Yeah I wondered…Gos gave some good advice there…

        • Gosman 17.1.1.1

          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

            dude, you’re scaring me now.

            • QoT 17.1.1.1.1.1

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

              • felix

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

  18. Rich the other 18

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

    Leaches.

    • Ross 18.1

      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

        $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

          Where did you hear that, Rich?

        • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.2

          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

      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

      How much was spent on Mighty Power adverts?

      • felix 18.3.1

        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

          Wasn’t there own money.

          • Colonial Viper 18.3.1.1.1

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

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 18.3.1.1.2

            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

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

    • Shona 18.4

      Leeches

  19. Santi 19

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

    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      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

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

      • Colonial Viper 19.2.1

        It’s looking pretty crispy now.

        • The Al1en 19.2.1.1

          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

            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

            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

              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

        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

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

  20. emergency mike 20

    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

    Is there a redirect from Kiwiblog today?

    Loving the upsurge in wingnuts.

  22. Plan B 22

    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

    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

      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

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

    • karol 23.3

      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

        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

        I was wondering the same thing.

        • karol 23.3.2.1

          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

    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

      mad much?

      The Greens shafted themselves.

    • johnm 24.2

      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

      +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. 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

      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

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

  26. xtasy 26

    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

    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

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

  29. Egalitarian 29

    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

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

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • National out of touch over immigration
    National’s abrupt backflip on their recently-announced changes to immigration shows they never understood the problem and just came up with a confused knee jerk response, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “Regional communities and businesses were quite right to ...
    6 hours ago
  • English out of touch on homelessness
    Bill English’s comments that he doesn’t know why people are complaining about the blowout in the number of homeless families the government is putting up in motels just shows how tired and out of touch National is after nine years, ...
    9 hours ago
  • All Kiwis to have same standard of cancer care
    Labour is promising that all New Zealanders will have access to the same level of cancer care no matter where they live in the country, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.   “As someone who has survived cancer I ...
    1 day ago
  • Infrastructure announcement too long coming
    “What took you so long?” is Labour’s response to the Government’s announcement of a new infrastructure investment vehicle. Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesperson Phil Twyford says Labour announced its policy in 2015 to debt-finance infrastructure and service that debt with targeted ...
    1 day ago
  • Time for a breather on immigration
    National has no idea how to house the record number of people entering New Zealand, let alone cope with the pressure on health, education, and transport from this record population growth, says Labour’s Immigration spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway. ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour to invest $4 billion in education
    Labour’s Education Manifesto will bring positive change across the education sector and is backed by a massive investment, says Labour’s Education Spokesperson Chris Hipkins.  “Labour’s plan will see an extra $4 billion invested over the next four years. It’s organised ...
    3 days ago
  • National’s shame: worst homelessness in the OECD
    National’s legacy is a housing crisis that has given New Zealand the worst homeless rate in the developed world, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour taking action on school donations
    Labour will end so-called voluntary school donations for the majority of parents across the country under its $4 billion plan to revitalise the education sector, says Labour Leader Andrew Little. “Labour has always been committed to a world-class free education ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour to work with Queenstown to build more houses
    Labour will work with Queenstown-Lakes District Council, iwi, and the Community Housing Trust to build the modern, affordable housing Queenstown desperately needs, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    4 days ago
  • Nats blow the Budget on motels after bowling state houses
    National is spending $140,000 a day putting homeless families in motels, the legacy of nine years of selling off and knocking down state houses, says Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    4 days ago
  • New revelations in Joanne Harrison report
    The State Services Commission’s report into the treatment of whistle-blowers by Joanne Harrison has revealed new accusations against the convicted fraudster, says Labour MP Sue Moroney.  “The report found that four staff inside the Ministry of Transport who had raised ...
    4 days ago
  • Snafu at Princess Margaret
    Jonathan Coleman has to stop the stalling over a new building for mental health services in Christchurch to replace the quake damaged Princess Margaret Hospital, says Labour’s Health spokesperson David Clark. “The Government must accept that Christchurch is still recovering ...
    5 days ago
  • Labour’s fiscal plan to build a fairer New Zealand
    Labour will re-build our housing, health and education while responsibly managing New Zealand’s finances, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.  “Under Labour’s Fiscal Plan we will deliver big investments in the services we all need and care about, invest ...
    5 days ago
  • Nats show they’re the tax dodgers’ best friends
    The government is taking the knife to IRD at a time when we need a highly skilled department to ensure that multinationals and speculators don’t get away with dodging tax, says Labour’s Revenue spokesperson Michael Wood. ...
    5 days ago
  • Labour secures the future for NZ Super
    A Labour Government will secure the future for New Zealand Superannuation so we can continue to provide superannuation to those retiring at age 65, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “One of the first things a Labour-led Government will ...
    6 days ago
  • Multinationals must pay fair share of tax
    A Labour Government will crack down on multinational companies that are dodging paying their fair share of tax, says Labour Leader Andrew Little. “New Zealanders are missing out by hundreds of millions according to the IRD because multinational companies can ...
    6 days ago
  • ACT’s approach to children backward and ill informed
    Act’s new deputy leader’s claim that Labour’s support for families could “extend the misery of child poverty and even child abuse” is ill informed and offensive, says Labour’s Deputy Leader Jacinda Ardern. ...
    1 week ago
  • Canterbury hatchet job a disgrace
    The Government’s glib acceptance of advice that the Canterbury District Health Board doesn’t need more money is a hatchet job and a disgrace, says Labour’s Health Spokesperson David Clark. “To claim that the DHB was using tactics to leverage more ...
    1 week ago
  • Quality for Kiwi kids at ECE
    After more than a decade of rapid growth in the number of children participating in Early Childhood Education (ECE), it’s time to take stock and map out a clear plan for the future, says Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins. ...
    1 week ago
  • Labour to boost ECE quality
    Labour will ensure kids get the best start in life by boosting funding for Early Childhood Centres to employ 100 per cent qualified and registered teachers, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    1 week ago
  • Labour will stump up a million dollars for Maniototo Hospital
    A Labour led Government will make a million dollars available to rebuild the Maniototo Base hospital in Ranfurly, says the Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.  “This will be a much needed boost for a long overdue rebuild that has ...
    2 weeks ago
  • No vision for the West Coast
    The West Coast welcomes any Government investment in our region but the lack of any real alternative vision for the West Coast’s economy is disappointing, says Damien O’Connor Labour’s West Coast-Tasman MP.  “The establishment of a Mining Research Unit will ...
    2 weeks ago
  • National’s youth work scheme too little too late
    After nine years, National’s belated attempt to provide work opportunities for unemployed youth should be seen for what it is, a half-hearted, election gimmick from a party that’s ignored the problem till now, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Kiwis won’t fall for Joyce’s spin
    Steven Joyce’s embarrassingly obvious spin on Labour’s Families Package won’t fool anyone, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour prioritises families and public services
    Labour’s Families Package delivers a bigger income boost to more than 70 per cent of families with children than Budget 2017. By not spending $1.5 billion a year on tax cuts, Labour is able to do more for lower and ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Kiwis can’t sleep in your ghost houses, Nick
    The Government’s housing infrastructure announcement is another Nick Smith special – over-promising with no detail on delivery, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour helps older New Zealanders and low income families with winter heating bills
    Labour will further boost its commitment to warm, healthy housing with a Winter Energy Payment for superannuitants and people receiving main benefits, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “Everyone deserves a warm, healthy home to live in. But that’s ...
    2 weeks ago
  • National must rule out retrospective override for Ruataniwha
    National must categorically rule out using retrospective legislation to override the Supreme Court’s decision that the land swap of conservation land flooded by the proposed Ruataniwha Dam was illegal, says Labour’s Shadow Attorney General David Parker. “Having not got their ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Flavell’s failure a win for Māori landowners
    The Māori Development Minister’s admission that his unpopular Ture Whenua Māori Bill won’t pass into law prior to the election is a victory for Māori landowners, but only a change of government will keep the Bill gone for good, says ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Stats confirm growing housing shortfall
    National’s failure to fix the housing shortage has been starkly illustrated by new statistics, says Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Systemic abuse of kids in state care
    After admitting there was systemic abuse of children in State care the Government must do the right thing and launch an independent inquiry, says Labour’s Deputy Leader Jacinda Ardern. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Migrant worker exploitation needs sharper focus
    The astonishing number of employers found guilty of exploiting migrants shows that migrant exploitation is a serious problem in New Zealand, says Labour Workplace Relations and Safety spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway. “A total of 53 companies have been banned from recruiting ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Minister faces questions over dam debacle
    Today’s Supreme Court ruling dismissing an appeal to allow a land swap for the controversial Ruataniwha Dam is a victory for our conservation estate and Hawke’s Bay ratepayers, but leaves the Conservation Minister with serious questions to answer, says Ikaroa-Rāwhiti ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Too little too late on Wellington housing
    The announcement today on social housing in Wellington by the National Government is a pitiful and cynical election ploy, says Labour’s Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson. “In 2012 Housing New Zealand emptied out the Gordon Wilson Flats, taking 130 places ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Foreign trusts wilt in the sunlight, but more transparency needed
    The fact that the numbers of foreign trusts registered in New Zealand has plummeted after the Government’s belated and reluctant imposition of a new reporting regime, in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal, shows the need for a transparent, ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Speech by Grant Robertson: The Future of Work and Labour’s Economic Vision
    At the election in September voters will face a choice between a government led by Andrew Little with a fresh approach to give every New Zealander a fair share in prosperity or the continuation of a tired government, out of ...
    3 weeks ago