From the better-late-than-never department, the Herald reports:
The Green Party has used $75,000 of taxpayer money to pay signature-collectors for a referendum opposing asset sales.The party has used its Leader's Office fund to hire the equivalent of eight fulltime staff members in an attempt to force a citizens-initiated referendum before the Government begins to sell state-owned power companies.The payments were permitted under parliamentary rules, but it was believed to be the first time the fund has been used to gather support for a party policy.The Greens spent $47,000 of their annual leader's fund to pay signature collectors in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, and planned to spend around $76,000 in total.Communications director Andrew Campbell said the party was proud to spend part of its $1.3 million leader's budget to fight asset sales, and would consider the strategy again.
This is, of course, Rent-a-Petition. We believe that we were the first bloggers to break this story, which we did on Tuesday 29th May 2012; three weeks ago!It would appear that the anti-asset sales petition is not going to produce a Citizens Initiated Referendum as much as a taxpayer funded-Green-and-Labour-Party-initiated variant.
Just yesterday, Fairfax in Australia announced wholesale job losses; a desperate measure to try and make their newspapers competitive. Whilst APN in New Zealand (the owners of the Herald) haven't yet gone that far, it is likely that Granny Herald will appear in tabloid format before too much longer.
9 comments:
from adamsmith1922 - blogger not registering who I am
Why would we expect the Greens to play by the rules, rules are for other people
Why the hell though as a taxpayer should I pay for a CIR initiative which I disagree with.
The Greens are misusing taxpayer money in my view and should be pilloried for so doing.
They have descended to the same moral plateau populated by other sleaze politicians and those who fail to account for their funs
"The Green Party has used $75,000 of taxpayer money to pay signature-collectors for a referendum opposing asset sales."
Boo hoo! Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo!
Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo!
It's so unfair!!!
Old news about what everyone agrees is a perfectly legal, permissible action, which many of us support (just as we dislike our tax money being paid to consultants to privatise what we own already, at a lousy time for such sales).
I hope somebody TELLS on them!!!
Boo hoo hoo hoo!
"But when the news in that august newspaper is three weeks old, who really wants to read it?"
No one but a couple of partisan hacks was interested when it was "fresh", because it wasn't news then either.
I don't understand your reasoning here, KS, when National used the Party letterhead on material sent to parents to inform them about National Standards yet accused opposition to the standards as political in nature. National is also spending $120 million on promoting and progressing the asset sales.
I'll quote Julie Anne Genter's response to a question about this spending as she explains it well:
"It's a totally legitimate use of parliamentary funds to support democratic engagement, which is what a CIR is. (Not advancement of party policy, but an opportunity for NZers to have a say on specific Govt policy). Most people aren't independently wealthy, so they don't have unlimited time to volunteer, but that said, we have at least 100 volunteers signed up for every paid contractor, who's job is essentially volunteer support and coordination. Also note, the money we are spending is less than 0.001% of what the Govt is going to spend, i.e. $120m of taxpayers money, on selling them.... I'm proud we have chosen to use our limited budget in a way that will help ordinary NZers have a say on a very important issue. This Govt systematically transfers power and money from the public, to private interests. And that's not democratic, nor is it even good for the economy or the well being of the country."
@ bsprout - CIR's are so named because they are intended to be CITIZEN Initiated Referenda - an opportunity for an individual like Norm Withers to send a message to the government of the day. It was never the intention that they would be captured by political parties to re-litigate issues that have already been contested in an election campaign.
At last the Greens are facing some critical media and commentary. It will be interesting to see how they respond.
It wasn't critical.
The smacking referendum had pollies all over it (Larry Baldock and the family fist nutters). You liked that one though, so it's different. Anyway, as usual you're completely wrong. The referendum is initiated by citizens signing a petition. Where do you get the silly idea that this isn't the case here?
Post a Comment