UPDATE: We've received an e-mail from the Green Party this afternoon which concludes:
Some of Cameron Slater's blogging comes from tips to his tip-line. We don't have a tip-line as such, but last night we got sent a very interesting morsel via social media.
Your informant has got their facts wrong, so it might be worth going back to them to check in on this.The Green Party is not using Engage NZ to employ paid collectors for our Spring Collection drive.It would be great if you could update the post to reflect this.RegardsAndrew CampbellGreen Party Communications Director
We're honourable bloggers, and take Andrew Campbell at his word. So if it is not the Green Party, then the question remains; who has contracted Ben Cumming from Engage NZ to place these advertisements on TradeMe and on Seek.co.nz? The plot thickens...
***************
Some of Cameron Slater's blogging comes from tips to his tip-line. We don't have a tip-line as such, but last night we got sent a very interesting morsel via social media.
An organisation by the name of Engage NZ has been running the advertisement below on TradeMe. Engage NZ is paying $4000 for five weeks work on "an exciting and lucrative campaign"; check out the details:
So what is this campaign, and who is Engage NZ? That's an excellent question, and we believe we have the answer.
If the information provided to us last night is correct (and we have no reason to suspect that it isn't), Engage NZ might not be too far removed from a certain political party. Because the purpose of this team flying around New Zealand engaging with people is a very political one. The "current affairs issue" being discussed is asset sales, and the "select target audience" with whom people are engaging is those who have not yet signed the petition for a Citizen Initiated Referendum.
Yes dear readers; the Green Party is at it again. The contract term began on Friday 31 August; the very day that the Greens and Labour launched their spring push to get to the required number of signatures. Our informant tells us that a friend applied and got the job, and in our informant's words "it is the Greens running it.".
The obvious question raised is this; who is funding this? Are the Greens using public money again in an attempt to re-litigate the 2011 General Election? We're not sure how many promotional staff have been employed, but at $800 per week for five weeks, with travel, accommodation and food paid for, it's a good gig if you can get it.
So today, we are calling on the Green Party to come clean; "confidentiality issues" will not cut it. We challenge Russel Norman or Metiria Turei to front up and confirm whether or not these allegations are true. We'd also like to know why the Green Party sees the need to hide behind a third party in the form of Engage NZ, and we'd like an assurance from the Greens that OUR taxes are not funding this devious manipulation of the CIR process.
53 comments:
Whoop de do! Even if this breathlessly reported "scoop" is true, they're simply spending appropriated money for the purpose for which it is appropriated. Why is that devious? Your source in the National Party Research Unit is giving this to you because its too embarrassing for them to have MPs use it. You just don't like it because it might mean the public having a say on a very unpopular policy from the Nats, which you hope will make you personally richer.
"Your source in the National Party Research Unit...
I almost lol'd at that Edward. If only I was so well connected...
Still, I'm guessing that you don't pay a lot of tax Edward, given your rather cavalier attitude to the expenditure of Other People's Money; the one thing at which the Left excels.
It was appropriated and is being spent in accordance with that. Why is it an outrage? The Nats are wasting $120m on PR and other activities to hock off the assets. Why aren't you bitching about that?
It's sweet that you think that being fed info from the research unit would make you well-connected.
If it's all fair and above board Edward, why are the Greens hiding behind a PR agency, and a very obscure advert with that "Due to confidentiality issues we cannot disclose any more information at this time" sentence? Is it because they were embarrassed to have been caught out in May when they advertised directly?
Edward, this looks like stink politics. Greens used to have pride in their political ethics. Now they are gaming the system with the worst of them.
Or do you think that buying petition signatures - with taxpayer money - is democratic?
http://yournz.org/2012/09/02/money-offered-for-asset-petition-signatures/
Dead right Pete; perception is everything, and the perception here is that the Greens not only have their snouts in the public trough, but also that they have gone to some lengths to hide their involvement.
Still, Edward doesn't see a problem with it, so it must all be ok.
"Or do you think that buying petition signatures - with taxpayer money - is democratic?"
Goodness me, what a slimy wee lie, George. Can you point to anyone who's been paid to sign, because that's what you've alleged?
Funds have been appropriated and are being spent. End of. Look, I understand why you're scared of the public having their say, it'll make you look bad. Deal with it.
"buying petition signatures - with taxpayer money"
Are you entirely unable to see, Pete, that every single person presented with the petition IS ABLE TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES to sign, not sign, sign for or against. Your (and Keeping Stock's, "buying signatures" claim is complete and utter bullshit, yet you and KS plug an and on with it, despite commenters explaining, patiently, to you, that you are failing to see and acknowledge the obvious.
I don't doubt you'll both continue to post overheated 'scoops' built around your mistaken belief.
It's a little pathetic.
So we shouldn't see Edward complaining when Colin Craig pours money into opposing the marriage equality bill.
" Look, I understand why you're scared of the public having their say, it'll make you look bad."
I'm not scared of anything, least of all your attempts at trying to divert and make excuses for this rorting.
Who will look bad when the public realise they have been used as mugs in an ongoing political campaign?
You can't cover up this Green stink politics.
Except it's not rorting. Are you deliberately obtuse?
Colin Craig can spend as much as he likes opposing marriage equality. It will nicely demonstrate how silly he is.
I wonder what Peter Dunhill spends his parliamentary budget on...
Astonishing convolutions in thinking here on Keeping Stock.
National proposes to spend $120 million on big-noting the asset sales.
Not a word said by KS or Pete about that massive bribery.
The Greens use some small figure from their own funds to make a referrenda available to the public to enable New Zealanders to express their opinion about asset sales.
KS and Pete go feral on them for doing so, shrieking blue murder, screeching about rorts.
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, HYPOCRISY writ large here on Keeping Stock.
Funny as hell!
Have a week off Edward; your ad-homs have become a source of irritation. Play the ball and not the man.
Pete - over on Kiwiblog (I see you two are trying to broadcast your message over their on your Big Brother's blog), hj challenges you, quite rightly, about your own Peter Dunne and his bent ways. Good reading.
hj (2,805) Says:
September 2nd, 2012 at 8:36 am
At least the Greens aren’t in bed with Big Tobacco like Peter Dunne* (or Big Property Investor, Real estate agent etc).
*ref Lancet Screening for Ministerial appointments? Systems failure in Peter Dunne’s appointment as a New Zealand Revenue and Associate Health Minister
Seaweed Sam - you're the one being hypocritical if you think National is misspending but that justifies Greens misspending.
I haven't mentioned the costs involved in the share floats here because it is a separate topic.
Smoking Sam - trying to divert with completely unrelated attacks shows how sensitve you are to this?
Finding it hard to defend the indefensible? That's how it appears - and all you can do is try nasty diversions? That just highlights the deterioration in Green ethics.
Ele Luudman is pushing this non story as well I see. She says "I have no doubt it is in the rules".
She has no dout. She is right, it is "in the rules". All this squawking is because you fear the voice of the New Zealand public.
Mandate?
We'll see what mandate the New Zealand public gives the Government.
"All this squawking is because you fear the voice of the New Zealand public."
Seaweed Sam seems to be the one squawking here - fearing the voice of the New Zealand public if they knew what Greens are up to? That's how it appears.
There is a clear difference between the way the Greens operate and the way the National Party operates. The Greens are all about encouraging a participatory democracy and our MPS are always answerable to our membership and can't deviate from our policy (which is is developed through membership participation and research). A visit to the Green's website shows transparency of process and openness around campaigns. There is a focus on issues and opportunities to to become informed and have discussions around solutions: http://www.greens.org.nz/
A visit to the National Party Website reveals a much different and more autocratic culture. Participation isn't about engaging with issues but supporting the policy dictated from above. http://www.national.org.nz/
In many of your posts, KS, and in the comments from the likes of Pete George there seems to be a high level of anxiety around the Greens having any form of organised engagement with the public. There are wild claims that we are buying signatures and bullying the public.
The public are not so easily influenced, the Mormons have well organised campaigns to get new members but I don't see all of New Zealand being swayed by their messages.
The only way that the Greens can be successful is through credible leadership and a credible message. I have said before that I have no trouble getting signatures for the referendum, most new Zealanders want to see it happen.
If National is doing such a great job you should have the confidence to say "bring on the referendum". If National have led a reliable and honest government that has put people first and made a real difference in creating a strong economy then people will know. If the sale of State Assets will bring huge benefits and will prove to be a great decision over time then this should be easy to explain. So why the angst?
They got a mandate - last November
I didn't expect you to agree with me bsprout, and you didn't dissappoint. But where, ay I ask was the "participatory democracy" you refer to when Russel Norman leapfrogged Mike Ward and Catherine Delahunty after the retirement of Nandor Tanczoz. After all, as far as I was aware the Greens' membership ranked its party list.
Accept the truth; the Greens got caught with their hand in the till in May and were embarrassed. This time, they employed a PR compasny to do their bidding for them, but they have been busted again because of loose lips. The Greens are as venal as any other party at the trough, and they can no longer claim to be more highly principled than anyone else in the Parliament.
I like bsprout's rational approach. None of the oh! Oh! Gotcha! nonsense that other posters here revel in. Keeping Stock, why can't you do as bsprout does and discuss the issue straight on. Bsprout makes the comparisson between the Greens and National and it's clear to see he's right. National does want to avoid being served with the results of a referrendum on asset sales. The Greens do want to assist the public in having their opinions delivered officially to the Government. You are doing all you can to attack the Greens and yet you cannot show that they are breaching any rules other than those in your head. It smacks of desperation and doesn't do you any credit.
The Greens are of much cleaner than the rest of them that it makes you mad Keeping Stock. You try to say that now they are not, that they are just as bad as the rest but you have been saying that for years every time some weak excuse presents itself to you. This latest excuse is just as weak as every other one you've jumped on. The Green Party annoys the heck out of you because they are not like any other party and they are the very opposite of your party, national, and they make Key's team look sleazy. That's why you attack them whenever you can.
I agree with Fortuna and bsprout. The Greens have not broken any rules any more than John Banks did.
I agree with Fortuna and bsprout. The Greens have no more broken rules than John Banks did.
They are clean, ethical and transparent.
KS, I have listed a number of ethical concerns and dodgy deals that the National Government has been involved in over the last few years and yet you keep coming up with the story of Russel's entry into parliament as if it is the crime of the century.
Rather than a knives in the back and secret leadership coups to decide on a party leader, it is the Green membership that elects co-leaders. Every year our co-leaders are up for election and in 22 years we have had only four leaders and Russel and Metiria were elected after the death and retirement of the previous two (National, Labour and ACT have each had 5 leaders over the same time).
When two list candidates moved aside to allow Russel (as a newly elected co-leader) to enter parliament, some how this was anti democratic and dishonest? It was the party membership who creates the party list and the membership who elects each leader.
I have difficultly understanding your acceptance of actual dodgy stuff from National but Russel's entry into parliament is a potential lynching offense:
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/15-ethical-fails-under-national.html
How about a list of ethical fails and dodgy deals for the Govt between 1999 and 2008 bsprout; just for balance...
And by the way bsprout, you're unusually defensive today; embarrassed?
No embarrassment at all, KS, it's a damp day down south and I have the time to comment on some of the incredible stuff you are are posting.
Rather than explain the rationale behind your party's decisions your main form of defense seems to be:
"How about a list of ethical fails and dodgy deals for the Govt between 1999 and 2008"
or
"Russel Norman leapfrogged Mike Ward and Catherine Delahunty"
The claim that others have been naughty too is a fairly insubstantial argument and yet you ask if I'm embarrassed?
I see there's been a bit of a green brigade visiting.
"The Greens do want to assist the public in having their opinions delivered officially to the Government."
Sort of.
The Green Party has good internal democratic processes, but they seem to struggle more in the outside world.
Greens decide on policy positions democratically (as far as i know) - but they then do what they can to get support from the public, or use the system, to promote those policies. It is not so much going to the public and asking what they want, and more trying to use the public to promote their own views.
They are using the CIR becasue they think it will support their position - in contrast to the smacking CIR that didn't back their policy.
Actually bsprout; in case you hadn't noticed, this thread actually isn't about national at all; you're the one who's taken it off-topic.
It's actually a thread about the Green Party having again been outed for what is a very dodgy deal, even though they hid behind the skirts of a PR company.
Oh; and by the way, expect the media to be taking an interest tomorrow; that'll be fun, won't it.
You're right Pete; that alert system they have when there's adverse comment about the Greens in the blogosphere must have sent people over here today. It's good for my metrics though!
"Greens decide on policy positions democratically (as far as i know) - but they then do what they can to get support from the public, or use the system, to promote those policies. It is not so much going to the public and asking what they want, and more trying to use the public to promote their own views."
Pete George, if the public largely supports the Green point of view doesn't this mean that the Greens are able to present their views convincingly while the $120 million spent by the National led Government to present the opposite view has failed?
KS, I have tried to have a rational debate but this thread has become increasingly hysterical.
"...that alert system they have when there's adverse comment about the Greens in the blogosphere must have sent people over here today."
Do you really believe that?
@ bsprout - you keep banging on about "the public largely supporting the Green point of view". The plain and simple fact is this; at the only poll that matters (27/11/2011), the public did NOT support the Green (or Labour) point of view. And so far, less people have signed your precious petition in almost six months than voted for the Greens last year.
And you insist on going on about National spending money. At least they are being transparent, and not putting a layer of separation (Engage NZ) between themselves and a public which has a right to know how tax dollars are being spent by political parties other than the government.
bsprout: " if the public largely supports the Green point of view doesn't this mean that the Greens are able to present their views convincingly"
We don't know if the public largely supports the Green point of view. And if this was so clear what the need for a petition and referendum?
The means of soliticiting signatures significantly diminishes any degree of convincing.
"while the $120 million spent by the National led Government to present the opposite view has failed?"
They are not spending that to contest the Green petition. They have not done any promotion of any share floats yet.
If they were to use any of that money to campaign politically I'll be criticising them as I'm criticising Greens.
You and others seem to be claiming that if National can spend money promoting the sales it's fair game for Greens to use any taxpayer money to oppose them.
If National misuse taxpayer money that doesn't justify other parties misusing taxpayer money.
It also doesn't justify abusing the CIR process by hijacking it for what you seem to see as a counter campaign.
You're trying to compare quite different uses of money.
Re the $120m - you're trying to compare quite different uses of money.
If the share floats go ahead do you think they shouldn't do whatever is deemed necessary to optimise the success of the float?
If they don't prepare properly and if they don't promote adequately and then best price possible isn't attained then the country will lose out.
Green grizzling at the costs of share floating hightlights their business ignorance.
Your last comment is the most telling Pete, and was highlighted by Paula Bennett's plea to Metiria Turei last week to "just say yes" to something that the government was proposing to encourage job growth. The Greens clearly believe that it is the role of government to provide jobs and income for New Zealanders, whereas REAL job growth will come from the private sector, especially from small to medium employers such as myself (6 new jobs this year, in spite of the Greens!).
Pete George, you seem to continually forget that a referendum is just giving voters an opportunity to give a proper mandate to the government to sell State Assets, at the time of the election the details behind the sales were unclear. If most people support the Asset sales then victory is yours to claim.
KS, you must know that the Greens campaigned on job creation and supported small and medium sized businesses. "Buy Kiwi Made" was our idea and stopped by this government. We even recommended more favorable tax law for small businesses and had suggestions on how investment could be shifted into productive sectors rather than property. We presented the only fully costed job creation plan as well.
The fact that we have 28% of the workforce unemployed or underemployed is a terrible statistic and suggests failure in job creation. The government has relied on the success of the dairy industry and demand for coal and oil to lift the economy and has ignored the potential that exists elsewhere. We have under invested in R&D and not realized the economic potential in forestry, manufacturing, horticulture and education. We have a huge shortage of housing and Christchurch will soon be requiring a capable construction industry. Rather than growing capacity in this area our construction workforce has shrunk by 15% over the last few years and we are going to have to import workers.
The Greens are constantly suggesting sensible and viable ways of creating jobs and kick starting the economy, the government is taking a back seat and waiting for the market to find the solutions. This is not Governance, it's laziness!
"Pete George, you seem to continually forget that a referendum is just giving voters an opportunity to give a proper mandate to the government to sell State Assets, at the time of the election the details behind the sales were unclear. If most people support the Asset sales then victory is yours to claim."
"Keep forgetting"?
Ya reckon, bsprout?
I reckon different.
"Pete George, you seem to continually forget that a referendum is just giving voters an opportunity to give a proper mandate to the government to sell State Assets"
bsprout, you seem to continually that the MOM legilsation has passed through parliament and a referendum will be held next year at the earliest.
Non-binding referenda were never designed to give 'a proper mandate', nor used for that - remember the smacking bill and referendum?
If a Labour+Green+whoever coalition forms the next Government would you be happy to wait for the outcome of a referendum before progressing any Green policies? I suspect the Green Party vote will be nowhere near 50%, realitically it will be lucky to make 15%.
This is a serious question - you are claiming referenda are required to get a mandate.
"If most people support the Asset sales then victory is yours to claim."
I'm not arguing for or against asset sales here (in fact the MOM bill is for sales of less than 50% of shares only).
You seem to think politics is a battle of parties and policies and people are pawns. I think what we end up getting will neither be a victory nor a loss, it's much more complex than that.
I'm arguing about our democratic process.
The Green approach to CIR is highly contradictory when you compare the smacking CIR to the asset sales campaign.
Instead of falling back on snide attacks start by answering why this Green change of attitude towards CIR.
If you can't do that it's hard to see the current campaign as anything other than cynical abuse when it suits. Both times.
Pete George, the smacking bill referendum petition was unsuccessful because most parties supported the change to Section 59 and the statement on the petition was too vague to give clear direction. John Key himself was involved in getting a compromise to allow the controversial legislation to go through.
The referendum process is expensive and it is clearly not sensible to use it often. Occasionally there are issues that demand this approach and this sale of state assets is one. Voters never had enough information to understand the intent or ramifications of the asset sales, the election did not provide a mandate for the government on this issue. The election was largely personality based, not policy. In this instance a referendum is necessary.
Even Matthew Hooton agrees that there is no economic advantage in selling the assets and that National hasn't explained it well (just heard him say this on National Radio).
If the Greens are as inconsequential as you claim, why the angst and panic?
"Occasionally there are issues that demand this approach and this sale of state assets is one. "
That's what you say, what Greens say and what Labour says, but it's hard to see it as anything other than political gamesmanship - and in my opinion an abuse of the intent of CIR. I don't support any parties using CIR for policies they select as important.
I think that something that demands a public mandate is the use of referenda in the operation of parliament - would you support that being decided be referendum?
"If the Greens are as inconsequential as you claim, why the angst and panic? "
Who's angsting and panicing? I'm not desperately tring to influence legislation passed by parliament.
I'm not desperately trying to defend the Greens employing people to solicit signatures.
The Green swarm yesterday showed a lot more angst on assets than I every have.
"the smacking bill referendum petition was unsuccessful because most parties supported the change to Section 59 and the statement on the petition was too vague to give clear direction."
It was unsuccessful because politicans chose to ignore the sentiments being expressed.
Many people were very upset about being ignored over that. Many are still annoyed.
As it happens I agree that parliament should have been able to override what people were saying.
As it happens I agreed with some of the sentiments behind smacking law changes (but I think the end result was less than ideal).
And as it happens I agree that the statement on the petition was too vague. That is a fundamental problem with CIR.
The wording of the asset CIR is also to simplistic for the complexities of parliamentary policy.
For example, it doesn't allow for people to say if they agree with some floats and not others. And it doesn't allow for people to say that they don't agree now but would when the market looks better.
"The Green swarm"; I like it Pete; it may even catch on.
As I said to bsprout in my first comment this morning (5.38am; far to early for any sane person to be up!), the Greens and Labour have already lost this debate twice; at last year's election, and when the MOM legislation was debated in Parliament. But they are like a puppy chasing its tail in the vain hope that one day they might get a result to their liking. In doing so however, they are paying scant respect to the democratic process which rendered them two-time losers.
"Even Matthew Hooton agrees that there is no economic advantage in selling the assets.."
Game over.
You should have played this card before the Elections.
Green swarm - you're joking, Pete. There was bsprout and me under various names. You and your 'issue' are inconsequential.
"Green Swarm" - hilarious!
Can't wait for the movie, starring Pete George and Keeping Stock, wearing their undies outside of their trousers, saving their world from the "Green Swarm".
Is that the same Mathew Hooten who brokered David Shearer's ascent to the Labour Party leadership at a BBQ on the day after last year's election?
Goodness; another Robert Guyton imitator, who admits to posting under multiple identities. How principled these Green Party people are!
No one cares about this non-issue. Whale Oil floated it, so did Luudman, so did you, Farrar too, probably. Pete George too, I have to guess. Nothing came of it, nothing will come of it. It was fun to play, but you are too, too sincere about breaking the Green's "Shield of Integrity" - you won't, you can't. They built a real one, not a hollow one, like Key. You'll not even dent it, rant and rave as much as you like.
Get your facts right Every Blue Man; you read about this one here first! For once, we had the scoop on WhaleOil and other blogs.
But I'm told there are several political journalists sniffing around the story now too, so let's just see where it goes...
Principled! That's a funny one from you Keeping Stock. Your party has none at all and have proved it over and over. Banks, Bennett, Collins, Joyce, Brownlee, Tolley, Key, English!
Principles!
Save me from such fools as these!
Seaweed Sam - have you also posted here as:
- Smoking Sam?
- Edward the Confessor?
- Fortuna?
- rgeen rgass?
- Every Green man?
KS, Are you seriously suggesting that the passing of the MOM legislation vindicates the decision to sell the assets? The 61/60 vote was dependent on one John Banks and (especially with your questioning of Russel's legitimacy) to claim another mandate based on this result is tenuous at best.
Post a Comment