Petition to ban fireworks “modernising our rules”

Green Party animal welfare spokesperson Gareth Hughes has accepted a the petition, Hughes said that the private sale of fireworks was dangerous.

Retweeted by Green co-leader @MaramaDavidson

I haven’t bought fireworks for a long time, possibly not in this century, so I have no personal interest in whether I can buy fireworks or not.

I’m aware of issues with personal harm risks and fire risks and adverse effects on pets and animals.

But I have concerns. ‘Modernising our rules’ is a euphemism for BAN – rules to restrict personal choice.

This is not the only fireworks petition on the go.

Petition of Chris Eichbaum – Cease retail sales of fireworks

Published date: 1 Nov 2018

Petition request

That the House of Representatives pass legislation to prohibit the retail sale of fireworks, and institute licensing arrangements for individuals or organisations to responsibly detonate fireworks in public displays approved by the relevant territorial local authority.

Petition reason

At present fireworks can be lawfully sold to any person over the age of 18 years. Accidents involving fireworks result in injuries to many, and to young people disproportionately. Domestic animals are often traumatised by fireworks and their retail sale is opposed by the NZ Veterinary Association that has repeatedly called for a ban. Legislation should facilitate public fireworks displays that are managed by licensed providers and approved by the relevant territorial local authority.


Petition of Melanie Lindstrom – Ban the private sale of fireworks and promote Matariki for public displays

Published date: 13 Nov 2018

Petition request

That the House of Representatives pass legislation banning the private sale of fireworks and urge the Government to promote Matariki, rather than Guy Fawkes, as a culturally significant occasion for public firework displays.

Petition reason

The private sale of fireworks at Guy Fawkes is a commercial enterprise that I believe harms New Zealand. We see distressed pets and wildlife, burn injuries, and multiple fire service callouts. We need to shake off our colonial overcoats and be more culturally responsive to our tangata whenua. Celebrating a failed gunpowder plot from England in 1605 makes no sense in 2018.

‘Guy Fawkes’ is not a ‘commercial enterprise’, it is an opportunity for free trade of goods for sale for entertainment purposes. There is very little celebration of the 1605 gunpowder plot in England.

Celebrating 2000 year old disputed history at Christmas makes no more sense, but some old traditions survive. An attempt to ban Christmas probably wouldn’t go down well (ditto Easter and even the recently adopted tradition Halloween).

But a good practical case can be made for moving fireworks use to Matariki, in the middle of winter when it is dark by 6 pm.  It is a long wait up for kids on 5 November with it not getting properly dark (in southern New Zealand at least) until 10 pm.

If fireworks are banned because they can cause harm what else could be petitioned? A ban on bikes, scooters and skateboards? Kids often get harmed when using them. Ban TV and computers and mobile phones? They have harmful effects.

Right To Vote For All petition

The petition:

Right to Vote for All

Dear Hon. Andrew Little,

We are calling on the Government to enshrine voting rights for all people who are incarcerated.

In 2010 National MP Paul Quinn introduced a Member’s Bill to Parliament that saw the complete removal of voting rights for prisoners, regardless of how long the sentence. Since then, the Supreme Court has upheld the High Court’s ruling that limiting the right to vote for prisoners is a breach of the Bill of Rights, section 12(a).

Voting must belong to all of us for the health of our democracy, and removing basic rights should never be used as a means to punish people We are proud of Aotearoa New Zealand’s history – where people have successfully campaigned for the right to vote for all Māori and women. That legacy should not be thrown away lightly.

That’s why we are calling on the Government to amend the Electoral Act of 1993 and ensure that all New Zealanders are able to determine who represents them, and who makes the laws that govern them.

Why is this important?

We believe that in a fair and democratic society all members should have the right to vote, and people living in prisons are part of our society. They are valued members of communities and families. To take away their right to vote is an unfair disenfranchisement

We all expect that people in prison have the opportunity to heal and learn so they can contribute to a thriving society when they return to their communities. By not allowing people to vote while in prison, we are removing their ability to invest in and contribute to society and our democratic process. It’s cruel and counter-productive.

When Parliament changed the law in 2010 they used voting rights as a form of punishment, and this breaches the Bill of Rights. As New Zealanders we seek fairness and community. If we reinstate voting rights for people serving time in prison, it means that come next election time, thousands more people would be able to participate in our democracy, and put their ballot in the box as an investment in their – and our – futures.

We believe a thriving society requires the voices of all it’s people in order to make decisions that elevate everyone. By including everyone’s voices we can have a truly representative democracy.

‘Axe the fuel tax’ petition just cynical politics

Another National barking at a passing (albeit more expensively fueled) car. This is a further devaluing of petitions that used to be a means of public pressure on governments. Weekly or monthly petitions render the democratic tool largely worthless.

Whenever I see a petition these days, if the political party or activist organisation behind it isn’t obvious I look to see who is doing it, and for what actual purpose.

Fuel taxes rose under the last National government. Fuel taxes have risen further under the current Labour-led government.

Adding to fuel pump fright now are increasing international prices of crude oil and the new Zealand exchange rate moving against imports.

National has already strongly and hypcocritically condemned the Government for adding additional taxes, and have now chosen to raise their opportunistic politicking further, launching a petition.

Axe the Tax

The Government is driving up the cost of petrol by imposing more and more new taxes on top of record petrol prices.

The average New Zealand household is now paying $200 a year more in petrol taxes than this time last year, with Auckland families paying $324 extra as a result of higher petrol prices and this Government’s decision to hike fuel taxes. It’s pricing Kiwis out of their cars and making it harder to get ahead.

This is not accurate. It is misleading.

They don’t say what ‘the average household’ equates too, but presumably means multiple cars per average household. I don’t have an average household.

We can’t be paying on average $200 a year on petrol taxes right now – sure i am paying higher prices every time I fill the tank, but it will take a year to to pay a year’s worth of taxes, nor what we will pay for fuel over the next year.

And the ‘$324 extra’ for Auckland families may be technically correct but in reality Auckland pays less per litre than many regions even with their additional regional tax.

It needs to stop. The Government should provide immediate relief to New Zealanders by cancelling the new fuel taxes it’s imposed and putting a stop to its plans to add more.

Add your name to stand with National and stop the new fuel taxes.

What this actually means is add your name and email address and phone number to National’s petition so they can add you to their political database. There is fine print at the bottom:

By adding your name, you agree to receive email updates from the National Party. Your contact details may be used to keep you up to date with other policies and local campaigns.

The petition is more a means of duping people into signing up to be pestered by direct political marketing.

Greens and Labour did this a lot when in opposition. National have done it before and this is simply a new attempt at harvesting contact information disguised as a petition.

As well as being hypocritical and blatant harvesting, this is ridiculous.

What Government is going to start taking off taxes when presented with a petition? It would be nuts to start reacting to every increase in costs by taking off taxes. What happens if the international price of oil increases further as predicted? Another petition to reduce taxes further?

Did National ever do anything this stupid?

I doubt it. Instead they have launched about as many petitions as the Government has inquiries.

If National win the next election will they reduce every tax that has increased under the current Government – and under the last government? Will they adjust taxes down every time the price of oil goes up or the NZ exchange rate goes down?

The way National have been using petitions they are just becoming more barking at each passing car.

The use of petitions as a political weapon and method of marketing has largely made petitions useless as a legitimate way of pressuring for change.

It has become ‘just another petition’, which is just another party posturing. Parties have largely taken over and trivialised what used to be one of the means of the public pressuring the Government.

Government actively considering whether to decide on oil exploration

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern personally received a Greenpeace petition calling foe an end to oil exploration at Parliament today, and said that the Government was actively considering what to do, but didn’t give any more specifics.

Stuff:  Ardern says Government ‘actively considering’ call to end oil exploration

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has delayed attending a state visit to personally receive a Greenpeace petition calling for the end of oil exploration.

Greenpeace said the petition was signed by 45,000 people, including Dame Jane Campion, Taika Waititi and actor Lucy Lawless.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Kate Simcock said Ardern had won praise for describing climate change as New Zealand’s “nuclear free moment” but now had to put the words into action.

Standing in front of a series of posters of Labour leaders which had made high profile environmental decisions, Ardern said her Government was “actively considering” the issue.

Although her statement was light on details and Ardern has previously refused to rule out ending offering new exploration blocks, the decision to walk to the front of Parliament was highly symbolic.

“We’re working hard on this issue and we know that it’s one that we can’t afford to spend much time on,” Ardern said at the Greenpeace rally.

“But we are actively considering it now and we are considering all of these issues in mind and with this government’s pledge that we will be carbon neutral by 2050, that’s not in question.

“But these are the intermediate decisions that we have to make in between. So while I ask for time, I’m not asking for much. But just enough that we can make sure that we factor in everything that you would ask us to factor in,” Ardern said, including “grave environmental concerns”.

Which didn’t really say a lot, but Ardern has already walked back on this.

By 4pm Ardern appeared to walk back the comments, saying consideration of what to do with the process under which areas are offered for oil exploration was something that “every government does around this time of year”.

So they are “actively considering” something that “every government does around this time of year”

Ardern is going to have to start delivering on some of her implied support or she will disillusion people and groups.


National harvested email addresses via petitions

The National Party has apologised for using ‘issue’ petitions to harvest email addresses, then putting the respondents in their database and soliciting for donations.

This is not the first time a party has used petitions to build a contact database. Both Labour and Greens often used petitions and campaigns to gather contact information. They generally committed to just contacting people on the issue they had signed up for – I don’t know whether it went any further than that, or how long the contact data was retained.

This time it is National exposed for using bogus campaigns (petitions are usually of little ort no influence) to harvest contact data.

RNZ:  National apologises for mass database sign-up

The National Party has been forced to apologise to potentially thousands of people after accidentally signing them up to the party database.

Accidentally? Yeah, right.

People who signed up to join two petitions – against scrapping flights to Kāpiti Airport and one to save the Lumsden Maternity Centre in Southland – started also receiving emails from National asking for money to fight the government.

National would not say how many people were added to their database, but thousands signed signed the two petitions started by National MPs.

Neither petition stated that an email address would be added to the party’s mailing list.

Ms Dacombe is now hesitant to sign any more National sponsored petitions in the future.

“Not impressed. I signed the petition to support a local project, not for my email address to be used for another political purpose,” one person wrote.

Another woman said she “was seriously disgusted, & felt seriously insulted, when I received the begging letter from Simon Bridges”.

Another person said the petition was “just a way to collect data to bombard your inbox with National Party propaganda”.

This may be a big backfire for National – people generally don’t like being sucked in and then targeted by politicians.

I don’t think National’s excuses are credible. They tried an old trick and got found out. They deserve the bad publicity for their dishonesty.

Online petitions organised by political parties should be viewed with suspicion.

Two years ago, Labour had to defend its use of a “baby number” widget which offered people the chance to find out what number baby they are, in exchange for giving the party their email address.

That’s just one other example.

And it’s not just petitions obviously linked to an organisation – it is simple and I think probably common for proxy people or groups to be used to run petitions and online campaigns.

Dishonest political parties should be despised and avoided, but it’s hard to know who is the least dishonest when it comes to data gathering and campaigning.

Anti-free speech litigation versus anti-free speech petition

Last week Bob Jones included some inflammatory comments in an NBR article. As a result of reaction NBR pulled the column and said they would no longer publish columns from Jones.

In reaction Renae Maihi started a petition asking that the Prime Minister strip Jones of his knighthood, calling the column ‘a vile racist rant’.

Stuff: Tens of thousands sign petition to strip Sir Bob Jones of his knighthood

Acclaimed film-maker Renae Maihi started the petition on Thursday morning. “There is public support for this, somebody can’t get away with hate speech like that and not be held to account,” she said.

Maihi is upset by what Jones wrote in his regular National Business Review column last week, under the title ‘Time for a Troll’. He said a new public holiday should be introduced called Māori Gratitude Day instead of Waitangi Day.

“I have in mind a public holiday where Maoris bring us breakfast in bed or weed our gardens, wash & polish our cars & so on, out of gratitude for existing.” Jones also commented on children, blood quantum and suicide.

“I think he went beyond trolling, it’s hate speech,” Maihi said.

Maihi admits it’s unlikely Jones will lose his knighthood but will continue to collect signatures and approach the Prime Minister formally at a later date.

“He’s been honoured amongst a group of people that are meant to inspire and I just don’t think he’s very inspirational at all with those extreme racist comments. I just don’t think he deserves to be called a Sir anymore.”

Obviously Maihi had a right to criticise Jones, but I criticised her attempt to punish Jones for exercising his right to free speech. See Anti-Jones petition worse than inflammatory column.

Now Jones is threatening to punish Maihi for what she said about him through the courts.

Newshub: Sir Bob Jones threatens legal action against anti-racist petition

Sir Bob Jones has threatened legal action against filmmaker Renae Maihi, after she started a petition to have him stripped of his knighthood.

Sir Bob told RadioLIVE’s Ryan Bridge that his column was clearly satirical and he would sue Ms Maihi for defamation.

“For God’s sake, if anyone can take that literally, they’ve got serious problems,” he said. “It’s basically a mickey-take on issues of the day.

“I will be issuing proceedings against this woman for defamation, because I take particular exception when she uses the word ‘hate’. I don’t hate anyone.”

That seems like a heavy handed anti-free speech act that only someone with a lot of money could afford to do.

An over the top reaction to an over the top petition in reaction to over the top comments in a column.

Maihi remains staunch – for now: Film-maker stands her ground over petition against Sir Bob Jones

The woman behind a petition to strip Sir Bob Jones of his knighthood is standing her ground, despite the threat of being sued by the property magnate.

In a statement, Maihi told Fairfax she would not be taking down the petition, which had received more than 49,700 signatures by 5.40pm today.

“People like Bob Jones need to understand that the privilege they have in society also comes with a responsibility, and at a bare minimum that includes not writing flagrant hate speech in the media,” the statement reads.

Just yesterday she wrote on her Facebook page that she welcomed further support.

“Support welcome, I’ll need it – clearly he’s one of the wealthiest men in this country and I am not,” the post reads.

“I will always stand up for the mana of our children.”

A later update on the Facebook page showed she had been offered assistance from lawyers.

Sir Bob told One News earlier this week that the column was a “p*sstake” and that he took exception to it being called hate speech.

“I won’t sue her for a lot because that would seem like I’m bullying her,” he said.

Both he and Maihi are taking excessive action in response to the speech of others.

Perhaps Jones’ threat is just another piss-take.

Anti-Jones petition worse than inflammatory column

Bob Jones wrote a racially inflammatory column for NBR, which was pased by at least one editor who added a subheading ‘Time for a Troll’.

There was an uproar on social media, and NBR likely received some scathing criticism directly. So the column was taken down from the NBR sitre and they decided to dispense with any Jones’ writings, as they have a right to choose to do.

See ‘Māori Appreciation Day’ not appreciated.

But it hasn’t ended there. Someone has started a petition demanding that Jones be stripped of his knighthood.  Strip racist “Sir” Bob Jones of his Knighthood – Read his vile rant here.

Renae Maihi started this petition to Rt. Hon. Jacinda Ardern

On Waitangi Day 2018 the NBR published a vile racist rant by “Sir” Bob Jones on their website. You can read it for yourself below. This pitiful & severely uneducated attack is not to be tolerated in New Zealand, Aotearoa: a country founded on a partnership between 2 peoples. We are better than that. I know we are.

Bob Jones no longer deserves to carry the title of “Sir.” He does not represent us. Our children do not need to read or hear such things. Times up Dinosaur. You are the minority.

In signing this petition we urge you, our Prime Minister the Rt. Hon. Jacinda Ardern to take his Knighthood away from him. It is in your power. Set a precedent for the country & a message that this will not be tolerated & hate speech of this type is not welcome here.  Kia kaha tātou.

Jones’ ‘rant’ was then quoted in full.

What Maihi has done, along those indignant protesters on social media who revived and circulated his column after NBR took it down, is give it a far bigger audience than it would have had with just the NBR paying audience. It went from a limited paywalled audience to anyone who wanted to be offended. It made the six o’clock news via the petition.

Petitions are simple to set up online, you only need to type and click (unless you’re Labour or the Greens or National who set up petitions as a means of harvesting contact information). As a result there are a multitude of pointless petitions. Despite offering the opportunity to run a petition I doubt many of any change much if anything.

The petition comments were people having their say.Like:

Horrible man inciting racism.

Fair enough. But some were at least as bad as what Jones wrote.

Free speech does not give you the right to spew hate. Strip this awful man of whatever honours this country bestowed on him in error. Hes scum!

People like this do not deserve to live in this country…. or at all #OnlyAmericaIsRacist

I don’t feel any affinity for the title, but I’m sure it would piss BJ off immensely to be stripped of it, so let’s make it happen.

bob is an egg. Who is he anyway..??.does he pay his fair share of tax… he is a bigot and probably going senile, at least his pic makes him look 100+. I might start a petition to legalise involuntary euthenasia to deal with these demented types…who are a threat to society….put them out their misery…clearly i jest. He likely has some Maori rellies…they should rally together and go rough him up a bit…just enough to give him a stroke and then he can live out the rest of his amazing life as a cucumber…for now he should remove the one thats deeply wedged up his arse and thank his lucky stars that his ancestors were blessed enough to avoid the buffet …back in the day when much of Polynesia had a penchant for pickled pakeha and missionary mornay…tastes like chicken I hear.

This is an absolute disgrace & should not be tolerated!

There is growing intolerance of people saying controversial things.

This petition is worse than futile – it is another example of an insidious trend, to punish people who say things that others don’t like.

Jones was free to write something inflammatory and stupid. NBR was free to publish it, as they were free to unpublish the online version. And anyone that didn’t like it was free to criticise it and heap scorn on Jones.

But trying to punish Jones by stripping him of his knighthood is worse than writing something stupid, much worse. It is anti-free speech, and deserves scorn and condemnation.

If course Maihi was free to express herself via the petition. I disagree with her aim, strongly, even though I can’t understand why Jones got a knighthood in the first place, that deserves scorn as well. Knighthoods seem to be a dime a dozen for rich people.

This is disgusting. Someone who promotes such abhorrent discrimination should never hold a title that warrants such respect and prestige.

I disagree in part, I don’t think titles hold much respect or prestige.

I might start a petition to call for a ban on stupid petitions. Especially insidious anti-free speech petitions.

He is not a knight or role model for our tamariki, mokopuna from Aotearoa. Go back to where ever you came from.

As far as I know Jones comes from New Zealand, just like Bridget. At least he doesn’t (as far as I know) tell people to piss off out of the country if he disagrees with them.

Nikki is unwittingly contradictory:

I really hope my daughter didn’t read this. I hope this is not the reason she decided to stay home all day on Waitangi Day. All children deserve to live in a world without prejudice, a world where all people feel accepted, where rave, gender, gender identity, sexuality, and any other reason that makes up a human bi, is not used to exclude. We should be practising inclusiveness. Sir belongs to someone who is honourable and honours our country. It doesn’t belong to him.

Inclusiveness surely means accepting that some people should be able to say things you don’t like.

I suspect there is a typo – “a world where all people feel accepted, where rave…is not used to exclude”.

Who has raved and tried to exclude the most – Jones or the petitioners?

Petition to ‘save’ road of ‘national importance’

The Opposition has started early this year with two National MPs launching a petition in a purported “bid to save road of national significance”.

The Greens especially and also Labour used petitions as an Opposition tactic last term.

Press release from the National Party: MPs launch bid to save road of national significance

National MPs Todd Muller, MP for Bay of Plenty and Scott Simpson, MP for Coromandel have today launched a campaign to ensure the Katikati to Tauranga four-lane Road of National Significance proceeds as planned by the previous National Government.

“The previous National-led Government had committed to a large number of important regional highway projects right around New Zealand, including the delivery of not only the Tauranga Northern Link (TNL) and the Katikati bypass, but also a full four-lane motorway from Tauranga to Katikati,” Mr Simpson says.
“These projects would greatly improve safety and travel times, better connect our regions and boost regional economic growth. However, the new Minister of Transport, Phil Twyford, has now indicated a number of these projects are under review.

“The by-pass of Katikati was warmly welcomed locally and this critical investment must go ahead with construction of the TNL beginning this year as planned. The road must also go all the way to Tauranga because that stretch of highway is currently one of the most dangerous in the country.”

“The Road of National Significance that includes the TNL would see a continuous four-lane State Highway with wide lanes, grade separated intersections and other safety measures stretching from Tauranga to Katikati,” Mr Muller says.

“I am particularly focused on ensuring our Omokoroa community is provided with a grade separated connection onto State Highway 2, and the work has to start immediately.
“This investment is critically important for Tauranga and the wider Bay of Plenty region and the Government has wrongly thrown the project into uncertainty.
“Our local National team will be pushing the Government to commit to the project and we encourage the public to show their support and ensure our region’s voice is heard loud and clear through signing this petition.”

The petition can be found here.

The petition states:

Support the Katikati to Tauranga Road of National Significance

The Katikati to Tauranga Road of National Significance is needed to greatly improve safety, shorten travel times, better connect our regions and boost economic development.

State Highway 2 is one of the most dangerous stretched of road in the country, however the new Transport Minister is failing to commit to the project.

Add your name, and let Phil Twyford know that he needs to back our regions.

Twyford is the new Minister of Transport.

Like Green and Labour ‘petitions’ this one seems to be an attempt to harvest contact information. It insists on email address, first and last name, and also prompts for Mobile phone number, and defaults to ticking ‘Send me text message updates’.

Most people are likely to have there things on things other than Katikati to Tauranga roading at this time of year.

It’s debatable whether the road being petitioned for is of ‘national importance’ but it is of National (Party, the Opposition) importance.

I’m not sure how much political petitions have had on public opinion, opinion polls or elections, but I doubt if it’s much.


National-Green government?

There has been a lot of suggestions that National and Greens should at least consider a governing arrangement.

This would provide an alternative to NZ First calling all the shots, but it won’t happen because too many Greens supporters would rather not do anything about the climate, the rivers or inequality rather than try to achieve something with National. So they are left hoping for to pick up crumbs from a Labour-NZ First arrangement, or get nothing.

Talk of Greens working with National seems to have touched a few raw nerves, because their is a lot of defensiveness and angst expressed when it comes up.

This hastn’t stoped it being talked about.

Stuff Editorial: Grand opportunity for Greens to grow

…would the Greens be happy to remain hidden in the dense, verdant bush of the foothills or should they instead push on to the rarefied air of the government benches?

There are reasons why they might not: political militancy operates like muscle memory within the party and green and blue do not appear to mix as well as green and red.

But there are also good reasons why National and the Greens getting together makes sense – for both parties.

The latter only just survived this election, but their brand was damaged, not helped by their continual denial of Turei’s role in their near-downfall.

They have three years to rebuild. Those three years might be spent in relative obscurity on the opposition benches waiting for the tide to turn red in 2020. Or they could be three years on the front foot, implementing an agenda that has so far been kept at a safe political distance by others.

A Green Party with the environment portfolio and a few runs on the board might not only survive but thrive ahead of the next election, picking up the people who deserted them in the previous cycle, and potentially others who have toyed with support in the past but ultimately been turned off by their lack of pragmatism and inability to compromise.

Lance Wiggs:  John – the real issue here is results, not dance partners

John Hart has written a series of tweets about why a Blue Green coalition wold not work.

That saddens me. It’s the politics of can’t, or lack of hope. A smart party would be working all sides of a deal to find the bet path forward for their policies.

Eric Crampton (Offsetting Behaviour): For a teal coalition

So. All of Left-Twitter figures that anyone wanting a blue-green coalition are either shills for National who want to destroy the Greens, because coalition would destroy the Greens, or useful idiots for those shills.

Count me as one of the idiots then, because some of the objections just aren’t making sense to me – or if they are right, they perhaps don’t work in the way that’s being suggested.

Received Wisdom from Twitter-Left is that if James Shaw were to bring a substantive environmental policy offer to his party’s members for approval, the act of doing so would destroy the Greens by bringing to the fore an internal schism between the Greens’ social and economic left, and the Greens’ environmentalists.

Count me as one of the honest idiots in this mess. It’s all wheels within wheels, and the whole thing has a bit of a tar-baby feel to it: “No, National, please don’t make us a very sound policy offer with lots of environmental concessions in it. That’s the last thing we’d want! It would destroy us if you did it. Please don’t do it!” And where Shaw has spent the last few years developing an immunity to Iocane powder, who knows what level anybody’s playing this game at.

If an offer to the Greens skews things against a coalition with Winston, that makes things more complicated – though I don’t know why he should be the only one able to play both sides. Leaving that to one side, I still think National should offer a sincere strong environmental policy bundle to the Greens.

And for what it’s worth, this is not the first time such a coalition has here been proposed:

And here’s an old TVHE post arguing for the same thing.

It’s an idea that has long been suggested, and devoutly ruled out by the Greens who are too afraid of failing to try something with National.

They would rather have a 100% of bugger all rather than trying for 10-15% of Government.

A petition has been started: Show your support for the idea of a National/Green govt.

That current has 3,752 supporters (one of whom is me).

Water petition

Petition have been frequently used to promote or oppose various issues, and many seem to have been organised by the same activist group or groups.

But this one is coming from a different angle – like most of the others it’s unlikely to make much if any difference, but it’s an interesting shift in target for a politicallu motivated petition.


We don’t support your water tax because:

  1. You can’t tell us what the impact of the tax will be on food producers, jobs, communities & food prices
  2. You are only taxing some users of water – you need to treat all commercial users the same
  3. Our least swimmable rivers will receive minimal funding
  4. You don’t know how much of the tax will actually go to rivers
  5. You don’t have a plan showing how you will spend the tax or how it will help rivers
  6. The tax will divide communities – when we all need to work together to make our rivers ‘swimmable’
This petition will be delivered to:

  • New Zealand Labour Party
    Jacinda Ardern – Labour Party Leader