A lie

February 15th, 2013 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Adam Bennett at the NZ Herald reports:

But he [Prosser] hit out at leaders of other political parties who said he shouldn’t be in Parliament.

“Anyone can throw that mud and frankly many of the people throwing it shouldn’t be. You look at the likes of . He’s a man who campaigned on the basis of not supporting asset sales and now he’s supporting them and he’s not only in his own mind fit to be an MP but fit to be a Cabinet minister.

This is a lie. Peter Dunne explicitly said before the 2011 election:

In principle, UnitedFuture does not advocate selling state assets, but in the event National puts up its mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand we would be prepared to support that, provided the maximum was 49%, with a cap of 15% on any indivudual’s holdings. We would never support the sale of Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand or control of water assets.

The unions and Labour campaigned against Peter Dunne on the basis that he was going to vote for asset sales. Everyone knew this. People just like to repeat a lie, to try and make it stick.

A desperate attempt to deflect.

Tags: ,

34 Responses to “A lie”

  1. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    It’s possible that Prosser hasn’t deliberately lied, he may have just picked up on Labour lying about it, they’ve done that often enough.

    But it’s still attempting to deflect.

    And it’s ironic that Prosser is accusing other party leaders of lying, his own party leader is not exactly squeaky clean there.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Peter Dunne was the first person to propose 49% sale of public assets – it was back around 2005. His later policy tries to suggest that his party would moderate National Party plans to sell public assets to this 49% maximum, but the concept of selling this much was first proposed by himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    A minor correction – Peter Dunne proposed 40% (not 49) sale of SOE’s in the 2005 campaign – National led by Don Brash made no commitment to sell anything.

    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2011/12/15/gordon-campbell-on-peter-dunnes-casting-vote-on-asset-sales/

    Roger Kerr states United support for part-sale of SOE’s in the 2005 election and compares this National’s lack of any such programme.

    http://m.nbr.co.nz/article/privatisation-a-third-rail

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    “Brain explosion”, my ass it was a poorly written and ill conceived op ed

    He’s starting to grovel now – if he carries on like this within the week he will be getting circumcised.

    Wont do him any good though he’s toast

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Someone else has been perpetuating this same lie – Penny Bright:

    Got a couple of STUNNING new banners which will be unfurled today – first outside the offices of Mighty River Power, then outside the offices of Mercury Energy!

    Opposed to the sale of State Assets by this minority National Government (which only got 59 out of 121 MPs in the 2011 election?

    Remember – the vote on the Mixed Ownership Model Act was 61 – 60.

    National – who did campaign on asset sales – were dependent on the votes of dodgy John Banks – who arguably should NOT be an MP – let alone a Minister, and Peter Dunne – who DID NOT campaign on supporting State Asset sales.

    SO – WHERE’S THE ‘MANDATE’?

    Do the maths!

    NO MAJORITY – NO MANDATE!

    (In my considered opinion)

    She posted that here on GD two days ago (where she was puklled up on it) and at The Standard, where Penny was supported by a moderator versus a commenter:

    [RL: Penny has chosen to withhold paying her rates as a means of political protest; as distinct from avoiding an obligation to the Council. Your failure to mention this is of course a deliberate distortion. Virtually all protest involves some action which can be described as illegal at one level, while ethically justifiable at another. Your approach is here is not a discussion, it’s abuse. Don’t keep repeating it.]

    That’s ironic accusing someone else of “deliberate distortion” when that’s exactly what Penny was doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    So why no widespread polling support for perspicacious Peter?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Whenever Penny comments here, we must remember to provide a link to this

    http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/ratesvaluations/billingpayment/payingyourrates/Pages/home.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    So Dunne had principles, but if offered power had a different set of principles lined up ready to go. Efficient, if nothing else.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nick K (1,257 comments) says:

    Winston is teaching Prosser well.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Archer (215 comments) says:

    Disappointing that Herald journalists will outright lie in their articles. That is beyond sloppy. I think my list of hack Herald journalists to avoid would actually be shorter if I made a list of Herald journalists who write honest, well researched articles. In fact my list may even be blank.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    So Dunne had principles, but if offered power had a different set of principles lined up ready to go.

    No, he and UF were consistent from before the election to coalition negotiations to voting on the MOM bill, and he held National to account when they tried to sneak around the 51% minimum ownership clause (I know because I was involved in that).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Disappointing that Herald journalists will outright lie in their articles. That is beyond sloppy.

    No fan of the Herald but they aint lying, they are quoting a flailing and sinking politician

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. pq (728 comments) says:

    not sure if you can read obvious Farrar, NZ First 7%
    can you add

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (7,557 comments) says:

    Is that intended to be an English sentence?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Andrew M (51 comments) says:

    Archer, to be fair the Herald is quoting Prosser. In this instance he is the one lying, the Herald is merely reporting his quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. pq (728 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,209) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 6:42 pm
    Is that intended to be an English sentence?

    You can see clearly Garrett that the idea of “read ‘ means here in this context “understand”,…. you do do you comprehend do, maybe not, thank God most of us do not think like you do, single handedly fucked the party you dog

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    pq , you are a nasty little ignorant fucker arnt you, calling anyone a dog is really really not a good thing to do

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. publicwatchdog (2,823 comments) says:

    Here you go Kiwibloggers – United Future 2011 election policy – straight from the mouth of man himself – Peter Dunne:

    http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/asset-sales-policy-announcement/

    Asset Sales Policy Announcement
    10 October 2011

    Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand and the water supply should be ruled out of any future asset sales programmes, UnitedFuture Leader Peter Dunne said today.

    Speaking to the Auckland Rotary Club, he said that given that National has a manifesto that includes asset sales, New Zealanders need to start a proper debate on the future limits of those sales.

    “To this point there has not been a proper national debate beyond National saying yes and Labour saying no.

    “We need a conversation that is more detailed and drills down into what New Zealanders really think are acceptable bottom lines,” he said.

    “New Zealanders, I believe, are not definitively pro-asset sales, but under certain conditions, it is no longer the bogeyman issue that Labour would have you believe.”

    Mr Dunne said UnitedFuture’s role as a support partner is not just to contribute its own policies, but to help keep a government to a reasonable, centrist path.

    “UnitedFuture says let’s start with three no-go areas where there would be no asset sales, not now, not ever:

    “They are Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand and the supply of water.

    “Kiwibank is in every sense now a national institution, whether you bank with it or not. And in a market full of Australian-owned banks, and an increasingly fraught and troubled globe, it is both a symbolic and practical statement of our economic sovereignty.

    “Collectively, it is ours pure and simple. It must stay that way.

    “Secondly, Radio New Zealand exists in an increasingly commercial media marketplace, and it is more important than ever to have a voice that does not bend to the dollar, to ratings, to external forces.

    “Every nation needs its own voice and we need to afford that voice our collective protection.

    “Thirdly, and one that I feel particularly deeply about, is water. I do not intend to wait until it is on the asset sales agenda.

    “I do not believe New Zealanders would ever – or should ever – accept a sell-off of the supply of the water, or any of the aspects around it.

    “Let no one claim for any price what is ours as of right. There needs to be a blanket and clear undertaking that this will never be on the agenda,” Mr Dunne said.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    That’s where I got my FACTS from.

    United Future’s “Asset Sales Policy Announcement”
    10 October 2011

    Anyone want to argue with THAT?

    This MINORITY National Government – which DID campaign on asset sales – has only 59 out of 121 MPs.

    I put it to you – that if the voting public of Ohariu relied on United Future’s above-mentioned “Asset Sales Policy Announcement” in order to cast an informed vote – they could have been led to believe that Peter Dunne was NOT campaigning for the ‘mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand’?

    It gets a bit deceptive and misleading, in my considered opinion, for politicians not to be upfront and consistent in their stated policies?

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    Auckland Mayoral Candidate 2013

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    pq – been on the turps again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Can we make an exception in Penny’s case PEB? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Penny, that’s consistent with UF policy and with what ended up happening, there is nothing in there that contradicts Dunne’s position and action before and after the election.

    Some have tried to quibble about the water aspect but supply of water is not being sold off and UF policy and statements clearly differentiated between partial sale of power generators and water supply. It’s all detailed here:
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/05/a_great_own_goal.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. publicwatchdog (2,823 comments) says:

    That is BULLSHIT Pete George.

    You can dance around on the head of a pin as long as you like – but if I were a member of the voting public in Ohariu and I wanted to know what Peter Dunne / United Future policy was on asset sales – I would head for the United Future ‘Asset Sales Policy Announcement’.

    Not some random debate on Kiwiblog…..

    Whereabouts on the above-mentioned ‘Asset Sales Policy Announcement’ does it state clearly for members of the voting public who want to cast an informed vote – that United Future and Peter Dunne were campaigning for the ‘mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand’?

    “Pete George (16,286) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 4:55 pm
    Someone else has been perpetuating this same lie – Penny Bright:”

    You had the temerity to effectively call ME a LIAR Pete George?

    I suggest you take a long, hard look in the mirror……………….

    Not impressed.

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    Auckland Mayoral Candidate 2013

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    Penny – I suggest you pay your rates……….

    Even less impressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    if I were a member of the voting public in Ohariu and I wanted to know what Peter Dunne / United Future policy was on asset sales – I would head for the United Future ‘Asset Sales Policy Announcement’.

    That would only tell you what UF policy was. Not National policy, nor what National policy UF acknowledged they would support as a major coalition partner.

    UF did not specifically campaign for the ‘mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand’ because it was not UF policy, it was National policy. But Dunne and other UF candidates, including myself, campaigned supporting National’s right as a major coalition partner to progress their number one policy.

    And UF did not campaign against National’s MOM policy either, because they didn’t oppose it.

    So you are incorrect saying “let alone a Minister, and Peter Dunne – who DID NOT campaign on supporting State Asset sales.” He did campaign on supporting National’s MOM policy, as did I.

    I didn’t say you lied, I said you were “perpetuating this same lie”. Some have deliberately lied about it, others have repeated the lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Penny, if you are repeating the lie through ignorance, check this out:

    UnitedFuture on Asset Sales

    As a party we had therefore ruled out ever supporting any sales – partial or whole – of Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand or our water supplies.

    We further said (on 1 November 2011) that in the case of the four energy companies and Air New Zealand, which National was proposing to sell a portion of, that we believed the Government should retain a minimum of 51% control, and that there should be limits on the holdings able to be purchased by individuals or entities, and that New Zealand household investors be given preferential purchase rights at time of issue.
    (See http://www.united.future.org.nz/asset-sales-1/).

    UnitedFuture’s confidence and supply agreement, negotiated with National after the election, confirms all these points and is therefore consistent in every regard with our pre-election policy. That is why UnitedFuture will support the Government’s plans to introduce a mixed-ownership model for the four energy companies and Air New Zealand.

    http://yournz.org/2012/06/23/is-peter-dunne-breaking-a-promise-on-water-assets/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. pq (728 comments) says:

    we must have NZ Nat , and NZ Fist Government ,do you wish to win or not,

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. landoftime (36 comments) says:

    Just a pity United Future doesn’t support the sale of Kiwibank. That’s the only asset that should be sold – given that the government has no business whatsoever running a bank. Electricity – well, that’s an essential service. But banking? Nope – the private sector do that better than Kiwibank ever will.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    landoftime – National don’t support the sale of Kiwibank, neither do Labour or Greens, so United Future’s view on it is largely irrelevant.

    I’m happy for Kiwibank ownership to stay as it is, it is an effective competitive alternative to foreign owned banks.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. big bruv (14,160 comments) says:

    “I’m happy for Kiwibank ownership to stay as it is, it is an effective competitive alternative to foreign owned banks.”

    Kiwibank is for left wing losers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nothing2chere (1 comment) says:

    That’s not a quote from Prosser in the story.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. markm (114 comments) says:

    The rantings of Richard Prosser , backed up by the ramblings of PQ confirm the sad truth.
    Parties of the left struggle to find intelligent people , who share their views.

    Hence the dearth of talent on the lefts party lists , miud you a Reiki master probably has skills of value to the economic future and well being of this country

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    NZ Fist

    A freudian slip?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. publicwatchdog (2,823 comments) says:

    ” UF did not specifically campaign for the ‘mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand’ because it was not UF policy”

    [ Pete George (16,292) Says: February 15th, 2013 at 10:28 pm]

    Thank you Pete George, for confirming my point.

    In my considered opinion – the voting public of Ohariu were thus effectively misled by United Future and Peter Dunne on the issue of support for the ‘Mixed Ownership Model’ for State-Owned electricity assets and Air New Zealand.

    In my considered opinion, United Future and Peter Dunne SOLD OUT the voting public of Ohariu by voting in support of the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership) Amendment Act 2012.

    The final vote on the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act 2012, was 61 – 60

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/e/8/e/50HansD_20120626_00000012-State-Owned-Enterprises-Amendment-Bill-Public.htm

    A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

    Ayes 61
    New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
    Noes 60
    New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    I thus believe that I am absolutely correct in my statement that THERE IS NO MANDATE FOR ASSET SALES – given that this minority National Government (which DID campaign on asset sales) has only 59 out of 121 MPs.

    NO MAJORITY – NO MANDATE.

    In my considered opinion, Pete George, the one who is effectively LYING – is YOU.

    Even less impressed.

    When you’re in a hole, Pete George, turn off the keys to the ditchdigger?

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    Auckland Mayoral Candidate 2013

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    In my considered opinion, Pete George, the one who is effectively LYING – is YOU.

    Even less impressed.

    When you’re in a hole, Pete George, turn off the keys to the ditchdigger?

    The (large) hole seems to be in your understanding.

    UF and UF candidates did not specifically campaign for National policy, that’s right, but they did specifically acknowledge in campaigning that they would support National’s MOM policy. I’ve backed this up with evidence. The link DPF provides backs it up, including:

    The Dominion Post:
    To Peter Dunne, from Joe Brown: Will you say no to all state asset sales like Labour and Charles Chauvel have this year?

    Dunne Peter:
    In principle, UnitedFuture does not advocate selling state assets, but in the event National putst up its mixed ownership model for the electricity companies and Air New Zealand we would be prepared to support that, provided the maximum was 49%, with a cap of 15% on any indivudual’s holdings. We would never support the sale of Kiwibank, Radio New Zealand or control of water assets.

    Your’e about then only one still perpetuating this lie against Dunne, selecting information to support your campaign that doesn’t prove anything, and ignoring evidence that proves you are wrong.

    You may not be wilfully lying, but you appear to be wilfully ignoring evidence in perpetuating a lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote