It is exactly like being robbed, and then sworn to silence by the robber. Vote NO.

Vote NO in the referendum

Gordon Campbell sorts out the thinking:



"As in other citizens initiated referenda (CIR), the result will not be binding on the government. It does however, give us an opportunity to tell the government (and each other) what we think of a process that has steadily eroded any sales mandate that the Key government might try to claim it got from National’s election victory in 2011. Was there truth in packaging ? Hardly. Back then, the political salesmen for the asset sales programme were promising returns of between $5-7 billion, predicting high levels of participation from ordinary “ Mum and Dad “ investors, and asserting that these partial sales made more economic sense than taking on a similar amount of debt. None of these claims have turned out to be true. Oh, and the political salesmen in 2011 never mentioned the massive transaction costs the asset sales process would entail.

In other words, it is simply not credible to claim that Election Day 2011 settled the asset sales issue once and for all -regardless of what has come to light afterwards, and despite the extra costs and subsidies that have emerged from under the rug. Besides, having 327,774 people (in a country of little over four million) sign a petition in a short space of time is pretty compelling evidence that significant opposition exists to the selldown. The reality is that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers object to the ownership rights of their assets being altered so that only a fortunate few can make a killing. The process also involves generational theft, in that future generations will be denied the full benefits of the assets they inherit from us. With that in mind, the claim that we have no right to revisit this matter between elections is pretty outrageous. ( It is exactly like being robbed, and then sworn to silence by the robber.)"