The taxpayer purchased referendum
March 13th, 2013 at 1:11 pm by David FarrarA mole has leaked to me a couple of strategy documents from Labour and Greens on the referendum they have just purchased with our money. The documents are embedded below, and they show the extent of taxpayer resources used to purchase this referendum.
CIRs are meant to be about the public being able to send a message to MPs, not MPs using taxpayer funds to relitigate an election result. Some key revelations:
- They aimed for 400,000 signatures as they knew a fair proportion would be found to be invalid.
- At the 300,000 mark the Greens collected 150,000, Labour 105,000 and Unions 40,000. The Greens are the ones who used taxpayer funding to hire petition collectors.
- Labour pledged 30 hours per week staff time from their taxpayer funded budget
- Greens were using their permament taxpayer funded staff to co-ordinate
- The unions had a paid national co-ordinator
- They refer to unions gathering “car loads” of organisers and activists to travel to areas
- For their day of action, Greens said they will committ five full-time staff – presumably all taxpayer funded, if Labour does the same. That’s 10 taxpayer funded organisers.
- A list of unions to pressure to do more, including PPTA, NZEI, Nurses Organisation – minority shares in power companies of course being key education and health issues!
It is very clear that there has been very few ordinary citizens involved in this petition – mainly a legion of taxpayer funded staff and union staff.
Asset Sales Petition Strategy Docs
Related posts:
- The parliamentary purchased referendum achieved
- Referendum Timing
- Greens employing eight taxpayer funded staff to collect petition signatures
- Greens are using taxpayer funds for CIR petition
March 13th, 2013 at 1:12 pm
It’s like North Korea’s “spontaneous” shows of support for Dear Leader.
March 13th, 2013 at 1:14 pm
A motley array of Luddites, communists, socialists and overall, enemies of New Zealand.
Vote:Despicable comrades resorting to desperate tactics.
March 13th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
And what is the MSM’s approach to this rort?
Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Say no more.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
God it sickens me that they have used so much time and taxpayer funded resource to throw at something they already lost. Here’s a thought, why not look forward to the next election and try to be a valid potential government! How do they possibly think that this is going to win them the next election??
March 13th, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Does Parliamentary Services have no concerns about the people they pay to do parliamentary work doing so much political work?
March 13th, 2013 at 1:27 pm
An absolute disgrace, considering their response to the “CITIZENS” initiated referendum on the undemocratic anti-smacking law.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
No one had to sign the petition.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Roy Reid was the supposed organiser. But the petition address was not his.
The Keep Our Assets website says: Authorised by Roy Reid, Unit 5, 205 Great South Road, Papakura
The petition form says: Please return petition forms to Roy Reid, PO Box 27110, Wellington 6141
That appears to also be the PO Box of a property developer in Wellington.
Who was really organising the petition?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Attention the lawyers especially those versed in this area of law. What is the redress. Can a complaint be laid .If so with whom. Looks like a fraud on the public purse to me.
Taking money meant for one purpose and spending it on another purpose.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:34 pm
As Bill English said, it took a YEAR to collect 390000 signatures, it took a WEEK to get 290000 expressions of interest in Mighty River.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:36 pm
And Bin Man at Truth has claimed parliamentary staff have been busy keying in contact details to party databases.
Who owns the data and to what extent can it legitimately be used?
Asset petition a data source for political spam?
It was obvious from the start that the petition would be ignored by Government.
It was also obvious it was being used for party political purposes.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Yes alloytoo but I can’t help but wonder how many signatures the petition would have got if you were able to sign up online without any id verification and without $50k promotion limit.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Its not really interesting to point out that it takes some coordination to reach 400,000 people and give them the option of signing a petition. The reality is, as an unpaid volunteer and ‘citizen’, it was clear that there is high public opposition to the sale of assets. On the whole, I found most people very keen to state their opposition – I guess that’s why the right is so scared of this referendum…
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:49 pm
muzz (2) Says:
“I guess that’s why the right is so scared of this referendum…” Haha yeah I am sure National are shaking in their boots!! Actually the people most worried should be the Greens and Labour who are starting to get more and more criticism for persueing this lost cause. People see it for what it is – a pointless exercise and complete waste of taxpayer money. Also Shearer is now backed into a corner by not saying whether he will buy them back. I look forward to the heat being applied to him on this subject (and others) during the election campaign.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:51 pm
I think the petition was a good thing. I signed it. But not because I oppose the sale of assets, but because I don’t think a general election is, or should be used, as a particular indication of any such thing. It is not, and was not a referendum.
I voted, as did many other people on a variety of issues that impact my life – I don’t know one person that voted on the asset sale issue.
I signed the petition because I want to see clarification on this issue. Regardless of how the petition was put together etc, there appears to be significant numbers of people for and against. A referendum would clarify the issue, and make any decisions ‘safe’.
I’d like to know what John Key is scared of – if he is convinced he is right, he has no worries. Put it to the people – unless of course Key already knows what the answer will be, in which case, he doesn’t want to ask the question.
March 13th, 2013 at 1:55 pm
The only people criticising it are the right. They were always going to do that – even if it had been about providing elephants with tap shoes. There are many, both left and right that signed that petition – the day I signed it, the four people with me were all national voters, who like myself seek clarification on the issue. None of them want to purchase shares if there is going to be a ‘buy back’ and other such issues. We want to know what the electorate thinks, without the political hype and exaggeration we get from the ‘party faithfuls’ who pollute the media and cyberworld with their ‘exaggerations and biased/selective comments.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Judith (1,737) Says:
“I voted, as did many other people on a variety of issues that impact my life – I don’t know one person that voted on the asset sale issue. ” yes but people voted on policies RELIANT on the funding from partial asset sales. Should those people be ignored? You can’t pick and choose. It’s not the way it works.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
How would it clarify the issue when it is so murked in political agenda. Greens in particular and also Labour will pour resources (funded by us) into getting the result they want from the referendum.
National and most of the general population will shrug and see it as futile, especially as share floats go ahead anyway. The result will be the nmost meaingless of any referendum.
Labour stalwart IrishBill said:
It’s been a Green snake oil petition and campaign – the Greens have always known they can’t deliver on their promise to stop asset sales, they are simply oiling the Green Political Machine, drilling in to taxpayer resources.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Judith,
I don’t think you understand how a parliamentary democracy works. We don’t operate a system of half-democracy here.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Why would anyone think “the right” (or John Key) are scared of this referendum?
Vote:Firstly, MRP shares are going to be sold before the referendum even takes place, so we’ll have real data about how that went.
Second, as we saw from the ‘anti-smacking’ referendum (and several referendums before that), they’re all bark and no bite.
Third, the chances of a majority (of total possible votes) being against asset sales is pretty unlikely.
Remember that every non-vote will be considered to support asset sales (again as we saw from the ‘anti-smacking’ referendum, and supported by all those saying that National got only a third of possible votes in 2011).
March 13th, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Cunninghamat 1:24 pm – “Here’s a thought, why not look forward to the next election…”
Thats exactly what the Greens are doing, taxpayer provided campaign funds throughout the term. What do you think they want all those email addresses and phone numbers they have harvested for?
I’m not sure that Labour realise how much they’ve been used by the Greens over this.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:22 pm
The National Government should ask the Speaker, or office responsible, to confirm this is indeed a Citizens’ Initiated Referendum, not a Political Party Initiated Referendum, which may make the above documents, which David has, essential evidence.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Judith said
Not so Judith; read this piece from Lew at Kiwipolitico:
http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2013/03/the-lefts-lose-lose-soe-strategy/
FYI, Kiwipolitico describes its authorship thus:
Hardly a right-wing think tank, wouldn’t you agree?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Judith: “…the day I signed it, the four people with me were all national voters, who like myself seek clarification on the issue. None of them want to purchase shares if there is going to be a ‘buy back’ and other such issues.”
I also would like the opposition parties to make binding declarations about their intentions prior to the share issue.
Vote:But I don’t see what that has to do with a referendum that won’t be held until after the share issue.
March 13th, 2013 at 2:30 pm
I’d be keen to know this; how many trees does it take to produce enough pieces of paper to collect over 390,000 signatures? Silly me; I thought the Greens were all about SAVING the planet, not deforesting it
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Irishbill seems to be realising that the greens are the cockoo in the nest.
Watch the fur fly on the left as labour and the greens go at each other.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Shearer was reported today saying he would give no clarity on any possible buy-back until after the election. He seems to think that getting elected will give him a mandate to do anything he likes regardless of whether he has campaigned on it or not.
Shear Shearer hypocrisy on asset mandate
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 2:36 pm
And how many air miles (and hotel nights) have they clocked up at our expense to pursue signatures around the country?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Green Party NZ @NZGreens
Video – From the bottom of our hearts: Thank you for standing up against asset sales and signing the Ke… http://www.greens.org.nz/video/bottom-our-hearts-thank-you-standing-against-asset-sales-and-signing-keep-our-assets-petition
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Quite so Pete (2.36pm). And as the Bin Man notes weekly, the number of penguins killed as a result of a certain MP’s travel habits.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Pete George – Labour stalwart IrishBill said:The Greens have used this as an opportunity to build a significant campaign machine and to break into Auckland in a way that will give them an extra couple of percent at least. Anyone who fails to understand that, fails to understand organising, and with it, fails to understand politics.
Green involvement –
to look good
to procure email addresses for the next election campaign
plus David’s documents above, outlining the organisation by Labour, the Greens and the unions to collect signatures, using taxpayer money
So how is this a CITIZENS’ INITIATED referendum request?
Vote:National should challenge its validity if only to publicize the dirty play
March 13th, 2013 at 3:47 pm
I just love how DPF subtly changes the meaning of legislation to suit his point of view…
Clearly a citizens initiated referendum can be started, staffed, presented by any citizen of NZ.
It’s a pretty clear cut definition. But thats not good enough for DPF..oh no!
In his book they have to be ‘ordinary’ citizens and what are they? well we have to completely rely on David’s definition for that. He rules out anyone involved in politics or unions. I gather lobby groups like family first are still ok though.
It is interesting to note MP’s were not barred from organizing CIR so reguardless of what David ‘thinks’ CIR should be about, as far as the intent of the legislation he is quite wrong.
Finally tax payer funding… its fine to use it to pay a polling company to ask peoples opinion on assett sales but it is quite wrong to spend money on getting people to sign something to the same effect.
I swear your increased fitness is also increasing you flexibility with spin.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 3:57 pm
I found it interesting how labour and greens are treated as comparable equals in strength when it comes to organising in this document.
The decline of labour and the rise of the greens?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 4:00 pm
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbnat/67925771-sign-up-for-mighty-river-power-shares-underway
The hypocricy of the communists is astonishing, but not unexpected.
This quote is from a leader of a party which used taxpayers money in a propaganda campaign to try and convince its taxpayer supporters privatisation is a bad idea, and to communicate with them about that; AND to force a referendum on the issue.
The more I hear of that snivelling, hypocrite commie Russell, the more I despise him.
Has there ever been a worse case of hypocricy from the communists?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Labour stalwart IrishBill said:The Greens have used this as an opportunity to build a significant campaign machine and to break into Auckland in a way that will give them an extra couple of percent at least. Anyone who fails to understand that, fails to understand organising, and with it, fails to understand politics.
=============
Too true, and worth repeating! Greens will have used this disguise of “CIR” to build up a big political machine and have fooled ordinary citizens who signed up to become a cog in it.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
Yes. George Darroch was boasting about it at the Standard some months ago. They are using this to get a database for the next election; to write to; and to campaign to etc. They always were in favour of state-funded elections and are doing just that: Using our money to pay for their campaigning.
They. Are. Thieves.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 4:49 pm
George?? Oh… I know him well.
Vote:I’d be curious to read it, got a link?
March 13th, 2013 at 4:53 pm
I was asked to sign the petition .. I was at the Wanganui markets when approached by a wee Green Party supporter (she was wearing a badge). I told her I wouldn’t sign and the sooner the partial sale went ahead the better. Here is a kicker. She suggested that because I was against the petition, I should sign to have a referendum to back my stance. It almost made sense. I suggest that many were conned to sign on that argument.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 5:07 pm
George D
26 November 2012 at 5:28 pm
Lynn, if you come on board as a member we can show you our shiny vote-targeting efforts
We have sophisticated models which worked rather well for us a year ago…
There are still deficiencies in our planning and effort, but we’re working on those. The asset-sales referendum is important in its own right, but it’s certainly an excellent mobilisation tool and chance to build a few other things.
http://thestandard.org.nz/why-i-will-party-vote-for-the-greens/#comment-554877
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Now remind me, were unions specifically exempted from the EFA? Anyone who tries to claim their interests lie solely in representing workers should be made to read this document aloud to everyone they’re trying to convince.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 6:34 pm
DPF,
How does the use of taxpayer funds negate the hundreds of thousands of signatures acquired? FFS we already have a rigged system where taxpayer funds are handed out so National and Labour have an advantage in election campaigns. But in the words of the great Jean Luc Picard “The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!”.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 6:36 pm
Makes you wonder why we don’t vote on line instead of getting out in the street and trudging along to a polling booth.
Id like to express an expression of interest in selecting the next govt online and then just watch the youth vote bounce the team blue chumps back to the kerb!
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Black with whatever,
Vote:I prefer the polling booth – then you can see who the cork soaking lefties are. And I add, many are the chardonay socialists!
Lend me your ears – wow I have 4 ears
March 13th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
I can’t think of a better use of my tax dollars than the people I elected to represent me using it to campaign for my interests. Those of you calling this a horrible use of tax dollars seem to have a constantly shifting line in the sand at what can be funded by taxpayer money and what can’t. All our MP’s are taxpayer funded – why then is it suddenly irresponsible if their political actions are also funded?
The cost shouldn’t even be an issue, the greens and labour want to hold on to the assets, assets which bring in a couple hundred million annually in revenue for our country. A referendum that costs maybe $100,000 – $200,000 in campaign funds? maybe even a few million when it’s all said and done? Just about any sane cost would be worth it if it meant we could hold on to the shares for a few more years. Those of you who feel it’s a lost cause, perhaps you should move to a country more accommodating to a deficit in morale. Perhaps Russia?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Well let’s spend a million on an ad campaign to get expressions of interest to change how we vote and see if there’s more like me than you Steve.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
IrishBill has posted a major swipe at DPF, including accusations…
…and a challenge.
Perhaps IrishBill could put his money where his mouth, follow his own example of transparency and let us know how much parliamentary funding including wages he or any of The Standard authors have been paid over the years they have been blogging at The Standard.
He could also check out DPF’s disclosure statement but he’s probably already aware of that and is simply being dishonest.
He could also point out his own disclosure statement.
I would put this directly to IrishBill but he supports a blog culture where people who point out uncomfortable facts get banned – he himself is been known to be a bit loose with banning, someone had the guts to take him to task for that recently.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Ive noticed of late that this blog has turned into more of a shrill anti opposition soapbox than a shill championing of govt policy…getting in early on framing the election for next year.?
Timely spin in desperate times?
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 8:56 pm
Thanks Pete. I would have spent an eternity finding it.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 9:09 pm
The cheek and the hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me. Helen Clark indicted she would not support anti-smacking legislation prior to it being introduced. People voluntarily collect signatures to have a referendum. 87% voted against it in the referendum. However the left and the far left were quite happy for these good people to be ignore and we are seeing some of the results of that law change now and it will get worse.
We have legislation legalizing homosexual marriage and adoption and if and amendment is moved for a referendum all the left will oppose it.
However, they expect National to take notice of this referendum when the voters gave National a clear mandate at the election.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 9:17 pm
For fuck’s sake…
Voters didn’t give anyone a clear mandate on anything at the election Chuck. Least of all National and especially since they had to cobble together a disparate faction of self serving charlatans to form a government with a majority of one.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 9:38 pm
Crap pollywog & there is a double crap. The double crap is that on every poll since the election, the Gnats have polled at or almost above their election result. And that is while promoting this policy. If the voters were concerned at asset sales the polls would represent it. But they don’t.
But of course we know the polls are wrong because they don’t phone cellphones.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 9:42 pm
@pollywog, people knew National was going to implement partial asset sales before the election unlike when Labour came to power.
No political party has all the policies anyone likes. They know for sure if they voted National, Act or United Future those parties would support the partial asset sales they said they would before the election.
However, they did not know that Key would be driving this homosexual marriage as hard as he has been. If they had they may have voted differently.
If people were so strongly opposed to partial asset sales they could have voted for a party that opposed such a policy.
I hope National amends the the CIR legislation to prevent any political party from abusing the intent of this legislation. MPs have a lot of power. They have to give up some when they are an MP. You and I can criticise a judges ruling within reason. An MP should not. We can call talk back and express our private views. New MPs soon learn that.
Vote:March 13th, 2013 at 10:46 pm
and they show the extent of taxpayer resources used to purchase this referendum…
50,000 versus 1,000,000 (not including 1000′s for SOE staff bonuses or the combined time of politicans yadda yadda yadda)
20x the cost to the taxpayer for starters.
Really, we’re talking about peanuts. Good thing you pointed them out. The extent of the peanut resources is diabolical. They’re everywhere. Help me. Save me from the peanuts. Nuts.
Vote:March 14th, 2013 at 12:18 am
You would hope that those organising the sale of MRP make it very clear to potential investors that they face the very real threat of having their shares compulsorily nationalised with compensation being at best the amount they paid for them.
Undermining the security and sovereignty of this country by flogging off strategic assets is an act of treachery that should not go unchallenged by any truly patriotic Kiwi, something the quislings of foreign corporate imperialism populating this blog struggle to comprehend.
As for the dubious ‘mandate’, getting 47% of the 74% of those eligible to vote is a feeble foundation from which to make such a claim.
Vote:March 14th, 2013 at 5:41 am
“50,000 versus 1,000,000″
This a common but misguided argument.
A major share float is always promoted in order to maximise the return, something that advertising is commonly used for. It’s likley that the 1,000,000 will be returned many times over.
The 50,000 plus all the expenses raises questionmarks about appropriate use of parliamentary funds – that are not supposed to be used for party political campaigning.
And the use if taxpayer (people’s) provided funds to abuse one of the few means of the people telling politicians what they think on issues is a major issue of concern – or it should be to anyone valuing the little power people have between elections.
Vote:March 14th, 2013 at 6:58 am
Yoza said
You are hoist by your own petard Yoza. You and your leftie mates voted to change our system of democracy to MMP in the 1993 binding referendum, and to keep MMP in 2011. And the basic tenet of MMP is that the party who gets the most votes gets the first bite of the cherry in terms of forming a government. The moment that Key could rock up to Sir Jerry Mateparae and tell him that he had the numbers to govern was the moment he had a mandate.
That’s our system of parliamentary democracy for you. If the more than a quarter of New Zealanders who didn’t care enough to cast a vote had exercised their democratic right, we might have had a different outcome. But they didn’t, so we didn’t, and there endeth the lesson.
Vote:March 14th, 2013 at 7:54 am
IrishBill’s attack on DPF has provided a good opportunity to address the hypocrisy and bullshit of those pretending the referendum is democratic and matters.
Fisking IrishBill’s leprechaun
Vote:March 14th, 2013 at 10:26 am
I think it’s time that we abolished the CIR Act 1993 before it does any more harm. I oppose the Labour/Green referendum on asset sales because I think that it is causing the centre-left to neglect the vitally important work of crafting detailed alternative policy around their proposed capital gains tax as a meaningful alternative to asset sales. It’s all very well to run a negative campaign, but what about positive alternatives?
Vote: