Quarter of the way there

66 comments on “Quarter of the way there ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BernyD 1

   17 June 2012 at 12:33 pm

   Here’s a thought.

   Could the NZ public not petition the Lawmakers of NZ to add accountablility into the ruling parties actions.

   If the Nats go ahead with the asset sales, regardless of public opinion, using the mandate of the last election as justification, could we not make them responsible and culpible of their actions on a personal level, assuming that the opposition gets the “Mandate” of winning the next election.

   If we did this, it would make them think twice before adding all the clauses about future re nationalisation, as they would actually be held liable for them at a personal level.

   The Law in NZ is for New Zealanders not the ruling party.

   As far as I can see we have two options to deal with the arrogance of the Nats …

   1. The whole country goes on strike until they resign.
   2. We pass laws that will keep them in check and add some mbalance to the three year term they are using to stand over us at the moment..
   • Matthew Whitehead 1.1

     17 June 2012 at 1:09 pm

     Generally, and unfortunately, the only legislative or executive changes we hold governments individually responsible for are crimes against humanity.
     • BernyD 1.1.1

       17 June 2012 at 1:13 pm

       This is my point, we need to change that.

       The Lawmakers are more than capable of building a Law that can deal with this.

       We just have to ask, it’d be a world wide first, and not unjustified
       • John M 1.1.1.1

         18 June 2012 at 2:40 pm

         “…could we not make them responsible and culpible of their actions on a personal level, assuming that the opposition gets the “Mandate” of winning the next election.”

         No, that isn’t possible. (Well, it’s technically possible, but the new parliament would have to pass a law saying so and then make it retrospective to boot, which would be beyond the constitutional pale to the point of absurdity, and not just because of the retrospectivity, so no – not possible.)

         On the brighter side, any talk by this government of preventing “re-nationalisation” is also bunkem because no parliament can bind a future parliament. So, what Labour and the Greens and other opposition parties could start saying is that if they’re elected to government they’d reverse the current proposal. They could even add that the price will be what they were sold for so as to avoid a repeat of the railways debacle. Strategically they’d need to carefully weigh things up before saying this and be prepared to follow through, but the option’s certainly there if things get so close there’s a need to scare off potential buyers. Guess it all comes down to how strongly people feel about keeping these assets in government hands and what means are justified to ensure this happens.
         • BernyD 1.1.1.1.1

           20 June 2012 at 8:16 pm

           Thanks
           Power too the People mun 😎
     • aerobubble 1.1.2

       18 June 2012 at 1:45 pm

       We need a upper chamber, to oversee and rework bad law.

       On the court report there was a case where the Minister decided that a marine reserve could not be allowed because it would harm recreational uses within its boundary. Making the abusive and absurd claim that the Minister believed she? did not need to understand why the reserve was needed in the first place, i.e to help protect fish spawning and increase fish stocks.

       But the National party are like that, they don’t like something, and since they have no institutional knowledge having stacked ranks with extremists like themselves, they simplistically concentrate only a partial part of the problem to get the outcome they like.

       Very much like Asset Sales performing so well, returning a nice stream of interest to the tax payer, suddenly being sold, limiting government ability to manage the power sector efficiently, trampling Maori water rights, and being fiscally stupid (if you can get them to take the blinkers off their heads).

       The Minister who stopped the marine reserve, and cost us all a court case, should resign for incompetence. Such ideologically driven government is bad economically and efficient use of government power. Any number of policies coming out of Key’s government are just wacky, like
       Charter schools…. …its a shame we don’t have any comics in Nz who can ridicule government out of office before their time is up.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1

         18 June 2012 at 1:55 pm

         We need a upper chamber, to oversee and rework bad law.

         Doesn’t work
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     17 June 2012 at 1:22 pm

     I’ve been thinking about this and like the idea of any policy passed that is obviously detrimental to NZ before it passes is grounds for the charge of treason. Considering that the state assets sales that this government is passing will be detrimental to NZ that means that this entire government would end up in prison under such a law. The law would have to be entrenched and be an act of treason to remove it as well otherwise a government would get in, remove the law, and then do as they wished.
     • BernyD 1.2.1

       17 June 2012 at 1:32 pm

       I think it needs to be much more specific to the actions of individuals who are running the country.
       The problem is that there is no culpability about those actions, they effectively have 3 years to do anything they want if they have a majority in the house.
       It’s happened before and because they get away with it and then walk away it will happen again.
       We need to remove the “Personal” politics of the individual and enforce some kind responsibility when dealing with the Nations property, which includes Schools, Assets, Law, Welfare.
       Just because we give them the ability to drive our country doesn’t give them the right to sell it next week.
     • Gosman 1.2.2

       18 June 2012 at 9:22 am

       What a load of anti-democratic nonsense. At least your true totalitarian colurs are coming out DTB.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.1

         18 June 2012 at 1:52 pm

         What’s anti-democratic about preventing the elected representatives from damaging the society against the will of the people?
         • Gosman 1.2.2.1.1

           18 June 2012 at 1:59 pm

           This is a value judgement based on your ideological bias.

           I too could play that game and argue that people implementing left wing policies should be held to account because of the damage to the long term productive base of the economy as well as the onerous impositions placed on individual liberty and freedom.

           Heck, I could aslo argue that anyone who even advocates such hideous ideals as collectivism should be rounded up and put into re-education camps. However I’m smart enough to realise that doing so is hardly an example of pluralistic democracy in action.
           • felix 1.2.2.1.1.1

             18 June 2012 at 2:11 pm

             Who would run the camps?
             • Colonial Viper …

               18 June 2012 at 2:40 pm

               Brian Tamaki would, for a suitable fee.
           • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.1.1.2

             18 June 2012 at 4:10 pm

             This is a value judgement based on your ideological bias.

             No it’s not. The sale of the state assets really will leave NZ worse off as the Berl report shows. Hell, even the Treasury report shows that. The idiots in charge are still going ahead with this damaging policy and thus are being treasonous.
             • TheContrarian …

               18 June 2012 at 4:15 pm

               Possibly but the problem is it is a slippery slope. Who defines what is obviously detrimental? 

               Do you support decriminalization of Cannabis?  Who decides whether or not that is detrimental? You? Me? 
               • felix …

                 19 June 2012 at 9:12 am

                 There’s no “who”. There’s no opinion involved. It’s a numerical problem with a mathematical answer.

                 But apparently you think using mathematics to figure out numerical problems is a “slippery slope”.
                 • Gosman …

                   19 June 2012 at 11:55 am

                   Obviously felix has never understood the phrase ‘ Lies, damn lies, and statistics’.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 1.3

     18 June 2012 at 8:52 am

     I think there’s an easier way to address this: make the select committee process more robust. Professor Sir Peter Gluckman talks about the need to develop policy based on evidence, not advocacy or anecdotes. Parliament is sovereign, and as such has a right to determine its own procedures, but politicians aren’t entitled to their own facts.

     This would have the effect of making legal challenges to legislation reliant on a simple test: does the evidence presented in favour of doing this stack up?

     That way we confine policy debate to the genuine controversies.
2. Penny Bright 2

   17 June 2012 at 12:42 pm

   Ok folks – if you want to help STOP asset sales rather than just OPPOSE asset sales – then this next week is going to be pivotal in helping to create the public pressure to help force the resignation of ‘dodgy’ John Banks.

   It is the passage of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill which will enable the ‘partial-privatisation’ of OUR assets in order to benefit private investors, in whose interests NZ Prime Minister John Key is acting.

   Because National only received enough votes to get 59 out of 121 MPs – they cannot arguably claim a mandate for asset sales, because National do not have a majority of MPs.

   That’s why John Key is doing the indefensible and continuing to politically protect ‘dodgy’ John Banks – because he desperately needs his vote.

   It’s not really that complicated?

   Basic maths?

   A complaint has now been lodged with the NZ Police against the Minister for Regulatory Reform ‘dodgy’ John Banks, the ACT MP for Epsom, for alleged bribery and corruption.

   To read for yourselves a copy of the above-mentioned complaint – check out http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

   How come former NZ Labour Party MP, Taito Phillip Field was sentenced to six years jail for bribery and corruption for providing immigration assistance to Thai nationals in return for work on his properties, while John Banks, who provided immigration assistance and assistance to help a German/Finnish national (Kim Dotcom) purchase the Coatsville mansion after receiving $50,000 donated to his 2010 Auckland Mayoral campaign fund – gets political protection from the NZ Prime Minister ‘shonky’ John Key?

   (Who should arguably have to stand down while the OAG investigates the Sky City Convention deal, in which he as the Prime Minister / Minister of Tourism / Leader of the National Party (take your pick – it’s the SAME person) played such a central role?)

   To check out how we’re getting the message out to help force the resignation of ‘dodgy’ John Banks, upon whose pivotal vote the passage of the ‘Mixed Ownership Model’ (partial-privatisation of state assets) Bill, depends – check out http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com ‘Give a grrl a banner’ .

   If you want to help crank up the public political pressure to help force the resignation of ‘dodgy’ John Banks – contact me.

   (Contact details available on http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com – can’t leave email address on this post).

   Penny Bright
   ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
3. Robert Atack 3

   17 June 2012 at 2:16 pm

   Protesting against asset sales or being pro , are both examples of under education and denial, but most of you are just to dumb to understand this.
   • BernyD 3.1

     17 June 2012 at 2:20 pm

     A rather pompous statement, You obviously think you’re a “Smart” one, so give us your wisdom mighty brain.
     • yeshe 3.1.1

       17 June 2012 at 2:39 pm

       maybe he is talking through the ‘o’ omitted from his ‘to dumb’
       • BernyD 3.1.1.1

         17 June 2012 at 2:46 pm

         Indeed , Me thinks he is foisting his own psychosis onto others.
         Classic denial syndrome
   • Georgecom 3.2

     17 June 2012 at 7:16 pm

     Robert, working hard to keep state assets isn’t under educated or in denial.

     If you think people should curl up and die in the face of a resources constrained future, that is one view point.

     Keeping control of state assets, qallowing the state to keep command of important infrastructure, forms an important part of creating options for our future however.

     The ‘we are all fucked’ mantra doesn’t wash for me.

     I accept things may get rough in the coming decades. Society may well retrench. Providing a credible alternative to what we have now is important, the social wage will become very important. Maintaining basic services, including power generation, will become very important even if it costs a far greater % of national wealth than it does now.

     Following the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, did you see Cuba sell all its assets to foreign corporates?
     • Robert Atack 3.2.1

       18 June 2012 at 7:18 am

       George we face something a lot worse than what Cuba faced with the collapses of the Soviet Union, and it isn’t over for Cuba.
       What we face as a society is similar to what they faced on Easter Island, and retaining our assets is just like the Easter Islanders not selling their statues …. in the end our ‘statues’ will be just as useless, and the biggest one for most of you will be Kiwi Saver )
       We face a die off end of story
       • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1

         18 June 2012 at 1:58 pm

         There’s a significant difference between useless statues and power generation that keeps going even if we don’t have fossil oil.
         • Robert Atack 3.2.1.1.1

           18 June 2012 at 5:29 pm

           Again showing you just do not understand the situation we all face. first the life time of a dam is not limitless as they silt up, for one thing, and all the wingdings we need to generate electricity are mostly imported from a coal based (energy) manufacturing plant somewhere overseas, the grid is very dependent on computers, and bunker oil. Oh and a happy friendly society, with content fed workers, and law and order, no oil = a lot less of these. Oh and maybe the ability of the end user to be able to pay for the stuff.
       • tracey 3.2.1.2

         18 June 2012 at 5:07 pm

         you are saying assest sales will be the saving of nz. Is the sky blue on your planet?
         • Robert Atack 3.2.1.2.1

           18 June 2012 at 5:34 pm

           Not at all Tracy you are all wrong if you think selling or retaining shit is going to do squat for the long term survivability of you and your children (if you are unfortunate to have any).
           I couldn’t give a flying rats if the ‘ownership’ is NZ or USA, in the end an airport without avgas is a useless slab of concrete, and a power grid without the ability to move power is just a rather large and long clothesline.
           Planet reality looks just the same as the one you are on, just a lot less populated.
       • Georgecom 3.2.1.3

         18 June 2012 at 8:35 pm

         Robert. I share a number of the concerns you have regarding the general direction society might head in. I don’t share the actual depth of despair your prognosis may reach.

         You are correct that Cuba is still facing the effects of the Special Period. Whether we face something worse than their experience though is a moot point I think. 30% of your GDP and 80% of your trade wiped in 3 years is a daunting prospect. That is the best guide for the type of event you are contemplating.

         Maintaining a social wage and basic infrastructure will be a cornerstone of our reaction to a special period.
   • KJT 3.3

     18 June 2012 at 9:05 am

     Robert. You can curl up into a hole and die if you like. Some of us would rather be fighting.
     • Robert Atack 3.3.1

       18 June 2012 at 5:43 pm

       But fighting for what?
       Fighting to save something that is lost?
       Fighting to keep your head above water, while being trapped bellow decks?
       I thought fighting for some honesty from our scum politicians was worth a crack, but then I was a very naive young lad back in 1999, little did I understand that if a bunch of uneducated selfish humans vote, they are going to get exactly what they want, = a bunch of uneducated selfish leaders… and just look what we have.
       I’m not curling up into a hole, I’m enjoying sitting front and center watching this world go to crap, understanding it all just adds to the humor.
       Alas the children
4. twisted hive 4

   17 June 2012 at 4:12 pm

   Unfortunately I don’t hold out much hope for this referendum. It’s short-term thinking that came out of the last election.

   A better question (off the top of my head) to give a future government a mandate would’ve been “Do you support the government maintaining and re-acquring full ownership of all New Zealand’s strategic assets?”
5. Ad 5

   17 June 2012 at 6:33 pm

   Not always that easy to get reasonably poor people to see the point of this petition; how to translate it quickly into a dollars and sense issue not always easy. Wasn’t a deluge at the Avondale Markets today – though great to see a good number of both Labour and Greens out today.

   Anyone got any petition-holding friendly phrases to use – something that avoids it sounding like a bourgeoise conceit?
   • Georgecom 5.1

     17 June 2012 at 7:11 pm

     I wrote “Oppose sale of state assets? Sign the petition here” on 2 large pieces of cardboard, strung them together to make a rudimentary sandwich board and wore it at the local farmers market today. No great problem getting signatures.
     • freedom 5.1.1

       17 June 2012 at 9:53 pm

       a sincere and hearty ‘well done’ to that man
   • Bunji 5.2

     18 June 2012 at 2:16 pm

     Pointing out that their power bills are likely to rise (privately owned Contact is the most expensive; privately owned utilities charge more to pay profit to shareholders) is usually a fairly concrete message.
6. BernyD 6

   17 June 2012 at 6:37 pm

   I guess the real point is can we make them unsellable ?
   Paraphrasing Steven Joyce, but worthy.
   If NZ keeps saying we will take them back it’ll be a much harder sell.
7. Observer (Akl) 7

   17 June 2012 at 9:14 pm

   As I see it, the huge electricity assets are very valuable to New Zealand – to all the people. They should not be sold off to the wealthy few. It is a stripping of citizens that is breathtaking.

   According to the ConsumerOrg New Zealand (www.consumer.org.nz/reports/electricity-prices) power has risen dramatically in price, quote: “Since 2002 average residential electricity prices have risen by 4.7 percent a year in “real” terms (over and above the general rate of inflation). That’s a huge hike in costs to consumers over this period.”

   If this trend continues the Government will soon find it has to subsidise thousands and thousands of citizens so that they can afford to have hot water, hot food and heating. Just as they subsidise rents so that the same citizens can afford shelter. (Lack of jobs and low wages syndrome so beloved by the wealthy).

   But having sold the assets, the Government won’t have the funds to assist its citizens. So the taxpayer will have to meet the cost. The majoity of taxpayers are not wealthy.

   If we add the annual rate of inflation to electricity prices, and then take into consideration the profits shareholders and administrators of the sold assets will demand, the problem widens exponentially. For instance, Exporters will have increased costs – unnecessarily.

   Peter Dunne has the dubious right to make wealthy people wealthier; it is the platform he stands on. But he has no right to make ordinary people less wealthy or increase the cost of Welfare. Nor has he the right to enforce taxpayers to pay for his bad decisions.

   The issue is so big, that his reputation will suffer enormously if he goes meekly with Key and English. He will show himself as a denuder of NZ and an impoverisher. More importantly, he will show himself as a unable to think a simple thing through. That’s a shame and a waste of career.

   Lets hope he opts for the gratefulness of the New Zealand people and his own integrity.
8. Jimmie 8

   17 June 2012 at 10:40 pm

   80,000 signatures? Well if the Greens have spent $80K on the petition thats around $1 per signature – not quite value for money I would have thought – they need to drive their price per signature unit down.
   Pay their signature gatherers less, make them work more hours, pay them an incentive (5 cents per signature??)

   Yup now the greens have turned into dirty capitalists but at least they wear jandals…….
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     17 June 2012 at 10:43 pm

     Wow what a load of misdirection.
   • Murray Olsen 8.2

     18 June 2012 at 5:51 pm

     How have the Greens turned into capitalists? Are they expropriating surplus value from the labour power of the signature gatherers? Jimmie’s post is as stupid as saying that you become a capitalist by paying your doctor’s bill, but is about what I’ve some to expect on blogs.
   • Georgecom 8.3

     18 June 2012 at 8:37 pm

     Jim. Where does it state they have spent 80k on their signatures?

     Are you conflating the amount they have budgeted to spend with the amount of signatures gained to date?

     Rob
9. freedom 9

   18 June 2012 at 9:01 am

   btw,
   that ‘other petition’ has passed its target so now we wait to see it delivered to the PM.

   I sincerely hope Peter G, whoever he is, does go through with his promise and complete his publicity stunt that has potentially cost the Referendum effort thousands of signatures.
   • alex 9.1

     18 June 2012 at 11:40 am

     What ‘other petition?’ Avaaz? And if the referendum signature collectors are in any way competent they will be able to inform people of the need to sign the official petition, as well as any other petitions on the subject.
     • Te Reo Putake 9.1.1

       18 June 2012 at 12:05 pm

       Yes, Avaaz. The e-petition does not mention the physical petition and makes the claim that there is only a few days to sign up before asset sales are a done deal (ie. we can all give up now). It has the smell of a spoiler about it and there have been reports of people being asked to sign the physical petition and replying ‘I already have, on the net’.
        
       The ‘real’ internet site to go to is this one:
        
       http://keepourassets.org.nz/
       • freedom 9.1.1.1

         18 June 2012 at 12:29 pm

         and for updates on where you can sign the referendum petition the Greens* have a good list here
         http://www.greens.org.nz/koa scroll down for event notices

         * i am not affiliated with or a member of the Greens, it is just information sharing
       • alex 9.1.1.2

         18 June 2012 at 2:09 pm

         Very true, hence the need for competent signature collectors who can say “No you haven’t, you can’t sign the real one online.” All the people I’ve been collecting with have been saying that, so I would assume everyone collecting knows it.
10. Kevin 10

    18 June 2012 at 11:56 am

    For the petition to have any chance of success it needs to have the overwhelming support of a large number of New Zealanders to get any traction at the political level.
    Unfortunately the 80,000 signatures already collected is not enough to have any impact, and organisers need to ratchet up their support to make more of an impression on the general populace.
    As an aside, it is moments like these when the non voters at the last General Election have an impact, their lack of interest in the future of this country is at best sad and at worst despicable. If more energy was devoted to getting those people to use their legal mandate and vote an entirely different proposition would be discussed today.
    • Gosman 10.1

      18 June 2012 at 1:48 pm

      You seem to be making rather a big assumption that they would be sympathetic to the left of the political spectrum. Another example of the arrogance of certain left wing thinking me thinks.
      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1

        18 June 2012 at 2:02 pm

        Not arrogance gooseman, just simple fact. Research has shown time and again that the majority of the people who don’t vote are of the left.
        • Gosman 10.1.1.1

          18 June 2012 at 2:18 pm

          If that is true, (and I have yet to see persuassive evidence supporting this), then it is an indictment on the parties on the left of the political spectrum then that they can’t motivate their potential support base to the degree to actually getting them to vote.
          • Uturn 10.1.1.1.1

            18 June 2012 at 3:02 pm

            If that is true, (and I have yet to see persuassive evidence supporting this), then it is an indictment on the parties on the right of the political spectrum then that they can’t convince their potential support to the degree of actually getting non-voters to vote for them. I mean, capitalism etc. is a natural law, isn’t it?

            Must we play this game long? You must be down to a couple hundred brain cells, max, by now.
            • Gosman 10.1.1.1.1.1

              19 June 2012 at 8:50 am

              The parties of the right don’t need to convince non-voters if they are overwhelmingly left leaning. Try and keep up Uturn.
              • felix …

                19 June 2012 at 9:33 am

                But you don’t believe that’s true, Gos. You described it as an arrogant assumption.

                Which is it?
                • Gosman …

                  19 June 2012 at 11:57 am

                  Ummmm… if you will note I stated if it is true. Not whether I believe it or not.
                  • McFlock …

                    19 June 2012 at 1:35 pm

                    So you’re saying you might actually believe something even if you have not seen “persuassive evidence supporting” it?
                            
                    Big surprise. 
          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1.2

            18 June 2012 at 4:13 pm

            That’s what happens when the parties of the “left” go hard right.
    • Georgecom 10.2

      18 June 2012 at 8:43 pm

      Kevin

      80,000 signatures to date. Heaps more to get mate and we will get the required numbers (prob about 350,000 to be safe to initiate a referendum).

      Just keep going out time and time again and the signatures will come. Keep promoting the petition on an ongoing basis and the numbers will be gathered.

      Whether the referendum will have an impact on the Nats reversing their privatisation agenda I don’t know. It will have an impact on their total vote at the next election however.

      The way I see it, the petition is a tool to build opposition to a particularly nasty part of the neo-liberal agenda, transferring public goods into the hands of private individuals to make profit. Come next election the hard work will still be there to un do the damage of the Nats privatisation agenda.
11. freedom 11

    18 June 2012 at 4:45 pm

    The target total on the Avaaz No Asset Sales Petition has been changed to 30,000.

    I noticed it earlier today but being tired, I waited for confirmation from two other sources to confirm they also have noticed the change in target total, before going ahead as perhaps i was just having more ‘website hallucinations’ .. ..

    I then checked the wording in the petition text and it still clearly states 25,000 signatures was the target. This proves that the page has recently been edited and again raises the suspicion that the author has no intention of presenting the Petition to the PM. The wording of the page is still exactly the same with no reference to the original target being reached or when the presentation to the PM will occur.

    IMHO There is no way this petition can be seen as anything other than a diversion from the main Referendum Petition and that supports my original suspicion that this is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the referendum process.
    • Rebecca 11.1

      18 June 2012 at 6:14 pm

      I agree that the Avaaz petition is completely unhelpful. And the NZ promoter of the petition? one Pete George from Dunedin….

      [lprent: Pete George has explicitly stated on this site that he was not the Peter G who is listed on the Avaaz petition. Given that he has a rather pedestrian name that at least hundreds (probably thousands) of other people throughout NZ probably share the same last initial of, I think that it is a rather extensive jump from Peter G to a specific Pete George just because both have their names on websites. ]
12. Paul 12

    18 June 2012 at 8:41 pm

    So we go to the streets.
    Let’s all give 2 hours in the next 2 weeks to get those signatures.
13. Karl Sinclair 13

    18 June 2012 at 10:37 pm

    Surely with computer technology, biometrics etc we are at the tipping point from representative to participative democracy whereby we can vote on the ‘key’ issues online and not rely on some mutant dictator to rely on some bs election to get his money for the boyz agenda through? When 70% of the people don’t want assets sales, they don’t want it, period.

    So why signatures in the 21st century…

    I can’t believe a system that can tax the living crap out of you, come up with biometric technology on ya freaken passport just can’t magically develop a system whereby the citizens can vote in real time on the major issues rather than rely on the old bs about having a majority, and mumzy and dadz investors……

    Oh thats right we use antiquated systems to slow the real possibility of a democracy down….

    We don’t need you anymore National Gov… maybe you could clean the toilets on minimum wage…

    God National are average…

    I am soooo bored with them….

    Just one wee sample off the old internet:
    Commercial electronic voting systems have experienced
    many high-profile software, hardware, and usability failures
    in real elections. While it is tempting to abandon
    electronic voting altogether, we show how a careful application
    of distributed systems and cryptographic techniques
    can yield voting systems that surpass current systems
    and their analog forebears in trustworthiness and usability.
    We have developed the VoteBox, a complete electronic
    voting system that combines several recent e-voting
    research results into a coherent whole that can provide
    strong end-to-end security guarantees to voters. VoteBox
    machines are locally networked and all critical election
    events are broadcast and recorded by every machine on
    the network. VoteBox network data, including encrypted
    votes, can be safely relayed to the outside world in real
    time, allowing independent observers with personal computers
    to validate the system as it is running. We also
    allow any voter to challenge a VoteBox, while the election
    is ongoing, to produce proof that ballots are cast as intended.
    The VoteBox design offers a number of pragmatic
    benefits that can help reduce the frequency and impact of
    poll worker or voter errors.
14. Penny Bright 14

    19 June 2012 at 1:54 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/7124255/Protesters-sit-in-at-Banks-office

    This is the first time any MSM have mentioned the ‘bribery and corruption’ complaint and the difference between the treatment of Taito Phillip Field and John Banks.

    For copies of the formal complaint to Police alleging ‘bribery and corruption’ against DODGY John Banks – check out http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    I was arrested for trespass after refusing to leave John Banks electorate office after being served a 2 year trespass order.

    Spent about an hour in the cells at Auckland Central.

    Have Court appearance this Friday 22 June 2012 at 9am.

    Did this to help prove how quickly the Police can ACT.

    We’re still waiting to hear what the Police are doing about the electoral fraud complaints.

    This should hopefully give politicians inside the House some ‘ammo’ to use?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
15. Penny Bright 15

    19 June 2012 at 3:03 am

    WHY ACTION AGAINST JOHN BANKS AND PETER DUNNE IS SO IMPORTANT IF YOU WANT TO STOP THE MIXED OWNERSHIP MODEL BILL!

    Info directly from source – Parliament:

    “You requested the who voted for and against the Mixed Ownership Bill. Here is the vote as recorded on Hansard

    · The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.
    A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be agreed to.

    Ayes 61
    New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
    Noes 59
    New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
    Question agreed to.

    A party vote was called for on the question, That the Mixed Ownership Model Bill be now read a second time.

    Ayes 61
    New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
    Noes 59
    New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
    Bill read a second time.

    Here is the Hansard link to the debate

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/7/3/3/50HansD_20120614_00000016-Mixed-Ownership-Model-Bill-Second-Reading.htm ”

    _________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS