National’s game of footsie increases Act’s chances in Epsom
ACT's future in Parliament looks more certain with prediction marketplace iPredict rating the chances of John Banks winning the Epsom seat at 68.7%.
The odds of ACT maintaining a parliamentary presence by winning the seat increased last week from 52.9% over the past week amidst speculation Prime Minister John Key will 'enjoy a cup of tea' with ACT candidate Mr Banks (a euphemism for endorsing him and tacitly instructing National voters to give Banks their electorate vote)
National Party candidate Paul Goldsmith’s chances of winning Epsom slumped over the same period to 28.2% from 43.4%.
With ACT polling well below 5% (iPredict estimates it will win only 3.7% of the party vote) winning an electoral seat appears crucial for their future.
National and the Green Party’s expected share of the party vote increased over the week, with the governing party now tipped to win 48.5% (up from 46.5%) and the Greens 11.3% (up from 11.1%).
Labour’s expected party vote share slumped this week to 28.5%, down from 31%.
If the iPredict results hold true, National would win 60 seats, Labour 25, Greens 13, ACT 5, the Maori Party 3, Mana 3 and United Future 1.
Such a result would allow National to govern with an agreement with any of the minor parties.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions20
Looks like Hooton is playing the markets once again and feeding this to the NBR
Goff will ask electors to back Goldsmith and party vote Labour. Sayonara Banks and the renewed Eastern Motorway. Both Parker and Goldsmith will get in on the list anyway.
but how many epsom voters would listen to goof anyway? lucky if he could count on any more than about 47 i reckon....hardly a game changer!
Does NZ Prime Minister John Key support 'ONE LAW FOR ALL' and criminal charges being laid by the Finance Markets Authority against Don Brash and John Banks, for allegedly misleading investors when former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd.?
Yesterday, Tuesday 8 November 2011, I, Penny Bright, as an Independent Candidate for Epsom, officially launched my election campaign when I formally requested that the Finance Markets Authority (FMA) initiate criminal proceedings against Don Brash and John Banks for misleading investors when former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd.
The KEY question is – how come ACT’s ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ doesn’t appear to apply to ACT’s Leader Don Brash, and the ACT candidate for Epsom – John Banks?
How come Don Brash and John Banks weren’t equally charged under the Securities Act 1978, along with former fellow Director of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Limited, Peter Huljich?
They were all equally Directors, and equally signed a Registered Prospectus for the ‘Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme’ dated 18 September 2009, which had untrue statements about the performance of the Huljich Kiwisaver Funds to other Kiwisaver funds from the start of Kiwisaver to 9 September 2009.
Therefore, under the Securities Act 1978 s58 (3), an offence was arguably equally committed by all three Directors.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1978/0103/latest/DLM29406.html?search=ts_act_Securities+Act+1978_resel&p=1#DLM29406
58 Criminal liability for misstatement in advertisement or registered prospectus
(3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, where a registered prospectus that includes an untrue statement is distributed, every person who signed the prospectus, or on whose behalf the registered prospectus was signed for the purposes of section 41(1)(b) of this Act, commits an offence.
(4) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (3) of this section if the person proves either that the statement was immaterial or that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe, and did, up to the time of the distribution of the prospectus, believe that the statement was true.
(5) Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment to—
(i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; or
(ii) a fine not exceeding $300,000 and, if the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence is continued; or
(b) on summary conviction to—
(i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months; or
(ii) a fine not exceeding $300,000 and, if the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence is continued. "
____________________________________________________________
I personally delivered a signed copy of a letter, forwarded to the CEO of the FINANCE MARKETS AUTHORITY (FMA), Sean Hughes.
My ‘OPEN LETTER/ REQUEST’ to the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes, stated:
“So – why were Donald Thomas Brash and John Archibald Banks, as fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Limited, who signed the same Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme ‘Registered Prospectus’, dated 18 September 2009 as Peter Karl Christopher Huljich, not equally charged, particularly given that it was in their supposedly astute business acumen, that the investing public were led to believe that they could have confidence?
Were Donald Thomas Brash, former Leader of the National Party and John Archibald Banks, former National Government Minister (of Police and Local Government), effectively protected from prosecution because of their political connections at the highest levels?
Because, quite frankly, in my considered opinion, that’s how it appears.
I look forward to your confirmation, in writing, within 7 days, that the same charges that were laid against Peter Karl Christopher Huljich by the former Securities Commission will be laid against Donald Thomas Brash and John Archibald Banks.
‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?
Or not?”
_________________________________
Penny Bright
Independent Candidate for Epsom
Campaigning against 'white collar' crime, corruption and corporate welfare.
waterpressure@gmail.com
That's an easy one Penny, it's because they did the secret Wagnerian/freemason handshake in the presence of the great Thoth on board the mothership with Elvis. The fact that they were also co-conspirators with the aliens in the planning of 9/11 & the global financial crisis is also well known among the other fruitcakes on the political left with no brains, ethics or morals.
And why was Helen Clark not charged for self-confessed acts of art forgery?
Presumably something of value had to be forged
National should compete in Epsom and win it. Surely by keeping ACT alive it is contrary to their anti MMP stance. Anyway they should keep ACT out. Both Banks and Brash use divisive politics and play to peoples prejudices. Not a good way to get things done.
Interesting comment by Penny Bright. My own experience as a self employed female in NZ suggests that there is no equal law here. Female business proprietors are treated with contempt by the banks and regulatory authorities, however well "qualified" academicaly. We will never get proportional representation on company boards because NZ has a "who you know" rather than "what you know" mentality!
I might be because you find Penny Bright's comments interesting, and that you are not so "academicaly" qualified.
Nothing Penny writes about is 'interesting' - I suggest you check the dictionary definition of the word
Penny, did the FMA respond? Send another letter asking who the 4th person is who has name suppression in the Dominion Finance criminal charges.
Interesting that Diligent Boardbooks shareprice has now recovered to nearly $2: a comeback from 10 cents a year or so ago. If the firm you are talking about had done nothing and left it, then they wouldn't need have got into the mess they have. Don and John probably didn't know what Peter was doing anyway. They accepted the board payments, but probably allowed Peter to do all the work and decision making. Is he still on the DIL board by the way??
Way to go Penny, if you cannot beat them in the polls put them in court. You have to laugh at the antics of those who wish to represent Epsom. Just for the hell of it all those who live in Epsom should vote for Mana, that would show banksie and Penniless just what a joke they are
To quote article" If the iPredict results hold true, National would win 60 seats, Labour 25, Greens 13, ACT 5, the Maori Party 3, Mana 3 and United Future 1"
I thought we had 120 in total. I would be happier with 90. But iPredict totals 110?
Perhaps I'm just behind the times.
What's the point of Epsom? It's just full of old codgers, boring golfers, dodgy developers, bigots and school mums in enormous Range Rovers. I reckon Epsom should be removed from the electoral map.
If Don Brash resigned immediately as top ACT chap, then the Epsom seat would be in the bag. But Epsom know they are electing BOTH John Banks and Brash to parliament. Brash is not acceptable. He should GO
Act won't get a look in from this Epsom voter and neither will Labour, Mana or Coon
Penny's going to do a special vote, because her mama always said she was special, in a special kind of way.
National needs Act in Epsom given Key's diminishing perception of performance , but interestingly, Labour party votes are deserting in droves to the Greens, especially the younger, less grisly Labour residents, the few that live in that electorate.
LET THE NATS RULE ,act has had its day no more double deals.