Greens will continue to spam

The Green Party has been caught out spamming Environment Canterbury with submissions from people without their permission:

The Green Party has been accused of “subverting the democratic process” by lobbying Environment Canterbury (ECan) on behalf of individuals without their knowledge.

Four people were surprised to receive emails from ECan thanking them for their submission on the region’s proposed bus changes when they had not submitted.

A further 20 submissions, of the 165 submissions sent in by the Greens, were found to have incorrect email addresses.

ECan received 2357 submissions for its proposed bus changes.

All submissions from the Greens were a standard response asking for more investment in public transport and more services for elderly.

Emails given to The Press by ECan, with personal information removed, showed people were unimpressed.

“I nevet [sic] sent this email! How did this happen?” one said.

“I actually didn’t give permission for the Green Party to send that submission on my behalf,” another said.

Another questioned the ethics of the practice.

“It does not accurately represent my thoughts . . . I’m not sure I agree ethically with this practice.”

Green Party MP Eugenie Sage said it was an “attempt to engage the public that had gone wrong”.

According to the telephone script, those contacted were asked if their name could added to the Greens’ submission.

“Some people may not have been aware that there was a submission being sent in on their behalf after the phone conversation,” she said. . . .

Spamming submissions is bad enough, doing it without the permission of people purporting to be making them is even worse.

“We were using a new method of public engagement, having people call people on our database to alert them to the submission process,” she said.

It been abandoned in Christchurch because of the botch-up but would continue to be used elsewhere. . .

It isn’t clear whether they’ll seek people’s permission to use their names but it is clear they will continue to spam submissions.

33 Responses to Greens will continue to spam

  1. Mr E says:

    Is this not illegal? and ironic?

  2. Andrei says:

    The Greens like all politicians are essentially dishonest and deceptive in their dealings with the people.

  3. Marc Williams says:

    All politicians embellish the truth or sugar coat the hard news – however the Greens are the masters at shouting out how ethical and righteous only they are. They always claim it’s them, not us – look over there, nothing to see here. They are caught in the spotlight disproving their claims completely this time. How many of their anti-power company sell down petition signatures were fraud as well?

  4. Let’s see – the script being used by the those telephoning asks if the names of those on the other end of the telephone could be added to the Green’s submission. They were asked if that was okay, according to the script being followed by the callers.
    Some people didn’t pick up on that.
    Now, you are trying to paint the Greens with the same dirty brush that the National Party has daubed itself with over the past 6 years.
    Feeble.
    Here’s what Eugenie Sage said:

    “According to the telephone script, those contacted were asked if their name could added to the Greens’ submission.

    “Some people may not have been aware that there was a submission being sent in on their behalf after the phone conversation”

    Your attempts to smear the Greens gets, as Mr E is won’t to say, a FAIL.
    Andrei follows the Cameron Slater line and claims “all politicians are liars” – FAIL. Your world-view is jaundiced, Andrei, and sad, like that of Slater.
    Marc over-excites himself and claims there is deep corruption in the Green Party.
    FAIL.
    You people despise politicians and have no trust in them at all.
    I’m not surprised. Those you follow are rotten, as Hager’s book shows.
    What de-natured, joyless worlds you occupy.
    Vote Green!

  5. Mr E says:

    Robert,
    Smear? Where?

  6. Paranormal says:

    RG, in any other venture, other than politics that is, the misleading of the public in online or phone sales is actionable.

    The test as to whether it is misleading is not what the caller thinks, but what those that have been mislead think. The fact the Greens think this is ok, first by doing it and then by Sage coming out and saying its ok, speaks volumes about Greens lack of ethics.

    if this had been any other industry the Greens would be harping on about consumer protection and baying for blood. There’s a big H word you choose to ignore here.

  7. Andrei says:

    You people despise politicians and have no trust in them at all.
    I’m not surprised. Those you follow are rotten

    The one I follow is not rotten Robert Guyton

    3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

    4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

    5 Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God:

  8. Point taken, Andrei. I wonder, what would He make of Key/Collins/Slater/Ede and co?
    Not much at all, is my guess.
    You other two commenters have said nothing of substance, so I’ll not respond.

  9. Mr E says:

    Off Topic?

  10. Andrei says:

    Robert my friend how many Members of the New Zealand Parliament of 1922 can you name?

    What do their lasting achievements amount to?

  11. Along the line, Andrei, there are good politicians who contribute positively to the country and the well-being of the people. To think otherwise would make you impossibly cynical. I don’t buy the “all politicians are corrupt” line at all. Many of those named in Hager’s book are. The ones you study may be. The ones I choose to associate with are not. That said, I’d watch them all like hawks as they climb higher and higher up the ladder to power. It’s the responsibility of every conscious citizen. Not voting, Andrei, is capitulation.

  12. TraceyS says:

    Making a submission such as this is involving oneself in a public affair. That is not a decision to be made lightly. I have not done it very often and have thought extremely carefully about it each time, because every time, it removes a little more privacy over the views I hold. One question I always ask myself is “do I believe in this with all my heart?” and another is “am I prepared to publicly defend my written statement(s) in front of a hearing; in front of the media; in front of the public at large?”.

    Councils warn people that their name and submission will be made publicly available. I wonder if the Green callers did this? If not, they would be depriving people of very important information. People vary in the amount of public exposure they are prepared to tolerate as we saw recently when Dave Kennedy expressed his upset at a Govt Minister commenting publicly on a letter he was involved with. Yet here his party goes riding roughshod over people’s right to not get involved at a public level. The term “using people” comes to mind.

    The script should have included something along the lines of:

    “Privacy: Please note that submissions are public. Your name and submission will be included in papers that are available to the media and the public.”

    That would be the decent thing to do. (I wouldn’t mind betting it didn’t)

  13. Paranormal says:

    Lets see if I’ve got you right RG – the Greens are shown to be at best duplicitous in their standards. You consider that to be nothing of substance?

    Phone canvassing must be at the highest standard to ensure members of the public are not compromised. And yet it seems the Greens just don’t care about those standards – How is it possible that: “Some people may not have been aware that there was a submission being sent in on their behalf after the phone conversation”?

    No matter how you look at it – trying to square that with the high esteem you hold the Green Party in – it just doesn’t gel. This is dirty politics at it’s best.

  14. Mr E says:

    No Tracey, that is not the decent thing to do. A lobby group providing resources for submissions for 3rd parties is inappropriate, in my opinion.

    The decent thing is allow public interest to fuel submissions. In this example the Greens appear to be using hype, deception and resources to fuel submission.

    I’m less concerned with hype, more concerned with the apparent deception and resource use.

    Greens promote their principles, but in instance they appear to fall short by a country mile. They need to get off their high horse, front up and take responsibility for their actions. Deception is inappropriate and an apology to the public is the bare minimum in my opinion.

  15. Hilarious! National is revealed as having run a dirty black ops campaign for years where they enable, immorally and illegally, their grubby hit-men to smear politicians from the Left, and you good folk see nutting’, nutting’ at all !!
    Now, your peckers are up because, THE GREENS, THE GREENS!!
    Yeah.

    Right.

    Not believable, #teamkey.

    Not believable.

  16. “This is dirty politics at it’s best.”

    How does it compare with, say, a Justice Minister providing the name of a public servant to a smear-blogger and causing that (innocent) person to receive death threats?

    Hmmmmmm?

    Your moral compass is shattered and rusted beyond repair.

  17. TraceyS says:

    Paranormal – Robert doesn’t get the difference between public and private information. He previously expressed that it was justified to take certain emails if the taker deemed it in the public interest.

    If that is OK, which it is not (Justice Fogarty says “[t]he common law knows no justification for breaking the law”), then how far does this extend? A public interest does not justify the taking of private information and making it public. If it did, the public interest would also justify the taking of all sorts of other privately held things – such as new inventions or technologies.

    No doubt the Greens think their submission was made in the public interest. That does not mean that people can rightfully be dorked into making their private details public.

  18. Paranormal says:

    You’ve got it Tracey. Collectivism at its best I suppose.

    RG – it is your moral compass that is shattered if you can’t see the Greens hypocrisy in this. Mr E is right on the button that if the Greens want to live by their own standards they need to front up and accept they’ve done wrong. Otherwise they are behaving in exactly the way they accuse National of operating.

  19. Tracey – compare and contrast:
    -The Green’s EC lobbying
    – Judith Collin’s release of private details of a public servant that resulted in death threats to himself and his family.
    (Looking forward to your response)

    Cheers.

    Robert

  20. “if the Greens want to live by their own standards they need to front up and accept they’ve done wrong.”

    Good grief, you people, can’t you read?

    “Green Party MP Eugenie Sage said it was an “attempt to engage the public that had gone wrong”.

    According to the telephone script, those contacted were asked if their name could added to the Greens’ submission.

    “Some people may not have been aware that there was a submission being sent in on their behalf after the phone conversation,” she said. . . .”

  21. Carry on alone, you excitable Righties. I have apple trees to prune. I’ll be back in later though, so do try to come up with something a bit more challenging than the pap you’ve offered so far.

  22. Bingo Bob says:

    And yes Robert we can see a contrived excuse when we see it!
    Your beloved Greens are looking for a hole to escape out of. They found one into the lions den. This will end badly for them. It is underhand.

  23. Southern says:

    “attempt to engage the public that had gone wrong” and sending in submissions under someone elses name are so far apart its not even reasonable to think they are close, but then so is the word reasonable and bOb, so far apart that is. Waste of a comment really, wait for it…………..here comes bOb

  24. murray grimwood says:

    I’m not a Green member, nor supporter – they don’t go far enough, and ‘a little bit unsustainable’ is just ‘sustainable’ but slower.

    But

    National removed democracy completely from Canterbury. Just because decisions made – democratic decisions, that is – didn’t suit those who would enrich themselves by comandeering the Commons, including finite resources.

    Compared to that, the Green errring is somewhat inconsequential.

    And the attacks above, just look unbalanced. You have to ignore (that quashed democracy) to be ignorant. Funny to watch. Totally pointless debate, given zero interest rates, post-peak oil, and the inability to cease ‘quantitive easing’. Any of you actually know what that is, and why it was needed, and why they can wean?

    Work that out, and be scared. Very scared. What? They didn’t tell you? Really? Well I never.

  25. “inconsequential”

    Indeed, Murray.

    Hey, Bingo! On the topic of “underhand”, what do you make of this Pacific Island Nat candidate,who claims to be “matai”.
    Seems her claim is “inaccurate”.
    Not a good look when one of your candidates claims to be a chief, but ain’t!

  26. ploughboy says:

    what i want to know why were they ringing people to ask if there names could be added to a submission.
    where did they get the phone numbers from,could it be from a referendum from ealier in the year?

  27. Mr E says:

    I agree with Robert on the matter that it was a communication that went wrong. And that wrong appears to be deception. Deception that requires an apology IMO.

  28. YO is no reason to do anything at all, Mr E, being that of a no-name non-person and all. Were you a real, bona fide named human, then, YO would be of value and interest, perhaps.

  29. Mr E says:

    “No-name” FAIL
    “Non-person” FAIL

    You are sounding like Colin Craig more and more each day.

    What a strong arguement you are providing Robert. It is not deception because you don’t know me. Wow powerful stuff.

  30. JC says:

    “Mr E, being that of a no-name non-person and all. Were you a real, bona fide named human, then, YO would be of value and interest, perhaps.”

    So why do you use pseudonyms on other blogs?

    JC

  31. TraceyS says:

    Robert, given Ele’s recent statements on the subject, I am keen to stay “on topic”.

    So, on topic, I refer to the Southland Regional Council’s Submission Guide which states “NOTE: Your submission will become part of a public record of Council documents. This means your name, address and contact details will be searchable by other persons.”

    http://www.es.govt.nz/media/18975/rps-submission-guide.pdf

    That’s your council isn’t it.

    You don’t think that people should have a very clear choice in the matter of becoming part of the public record and actually sign their acceptance rather just say “yes” to what is effectively a telemarketer at the end of the phone asking for their support?

    I do.

  32. Don’t you value peoples’ word, Tracey?
    Saying “yes” should be enough. In this case, as Eugenie Sage said, it was an “attempt to engage the public that had gone wrong”.
    It must really annoy you that the Greens are open about this, immediately owning the problem. Contrast that with Key’s repeated denials around the “dirty politics” accusations, where he “can’t remember”, “wasn’t aware” or otherwise flatly denied the obvious. The difference couldn’t be more striking. Why are you going into bat for the team that plays dirty, Tracey? Ever asked yourself that question?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: