In Parliament as the election loomed John Key and Bill English frequently told us that “Mum and Dad investors would be at the front of the queue” and that 85-90% of the assets would stay in New Zealand hands. I can remember asking (well, shouting) as to how they could guarantee this, what were they going to do to make it happen.
It seems now that despite saying, as Tony Ryall did that “all the advice” is that this can be done, they did not actually ask their economic advisors in Treasury. Instead they relied on the advice of Ministerial advisors and some mates in the financial sector.
Now we only know this morsel of information because the Ombudsmen forced the National Party to release it. TVNZ has been fighting since August to get this information released. What the Ombudsmen has not done is force them to release the five briefing papers that they do have around the planned asset sales.
There are always judgement calls about releasing this kind of information. But the public interest in the days leading up to the election should dictate that the information is released. John Key has said he will take the election result as a mandate to sell our assets. Asset sales are the defining issue of this election, and the public of New Zealand deserve to have all the information when they make their decision.
Grant Please only use positive messages. This negative attack stuff loses us votes. Too many negative posts. We are better than that.
Asset sales information the public should have.
2) A competent diatribe from an economically literate leader of the opposition.
Phils back on radio LIVE spouting about a 17% return on the assets.
At a best estimate by national of $7b thats a return of $1.19b for the 49%.
my understanding is the return on the 100% of the asset has been around $400m p.a.
Does Phil have any economic literacy and why dosent Cunliffe or Parker stop him making a fool of himself?
John Key knows as well as you and I know
that information is power …
his tactic to maintain his force
is to rob you and I of power
- to keep us powerless and weak
There isn’t enough money available in New Zealand’s to buy this amount of public asset. To quote Gordon Campbell’s excellent article.
…as Milford Asset Management analyst Brian Gaynor pointed out to me – it would mean that investors would have 14–15% of the money in the New Zealand sharemarket tied up in electricity companies. Which would not only be unwise, but unlikely.
If John Key wants New Zealanders to own at least 85% to 90% of these assets, here’s a thought – Don’t sell them. Then we will own 100% of them.
I see the Tories are on full attack mode, a certain sign they have lots to hide. Tapes hidden by the cops, official papers hidden by ministers, perpetual lying by their leader? They must be terrified the public will out them before Saturday and realise they have been carefully played for 3 years. Hollow Men 2, the sequel? And I just had a ‘robo-call’ from John Key, trying to frighten me into voting his way. They must be desperate. Same technology they use to screw the phone-ins and the on-line polls, and the blogs? Scary stuff.
Good to see you putting up a sound argument Jennifer , not.
you see a conspiracy in everything jennifer , perhaps its just that people dont like labour.
theyve all grown up
@ Inverness:
People who’ve grown up don’t add the word “not” to the end of their sentences to convey a sense of sarcasm.
@ Jennifer: It’s terrifying that the Nats will be outed as a bunch of con artists too late.
When they havn’t an answer, or they know someone is telling the truth then it’s that boring cliche… just another conspiracy theory… Sure sign the commenter is on to something.
If Labour really wants to stop the asset sales all they need do is simply publicly state that when they next form a government, regardless of when that is, they will enact legislation that forces a compulsory buyback of the shares sold. The buyback would be at the price originally paid with no interest added or allowance for inflation.
Or alternatively they could announce that they will heavily regulate the power industry to protect consumers. Just saying a few words, even if they didn’t really intend to do it, would be enough to stop the circling vultures for fear of losing money due to inflation. Some might say it would be irresponsible, but clearly it is the right thing to do as a large majority of people irrespective of their political persuasions, don’t want our assets sold. Some might say that it’s not allowed; but of course it is, we are a sovereign nation, have we forgotten that business interests and their puppet politicians don’t tell us what to do, we the people are actually the highest authority, even though most of us have forgotten that.
And Labour supporters rush to support Phil Goffs oft repeated claim of a 17% return on the SOEs that National plan to sell minority shares in.
Inverness, why do you think the Government didnt want us to know from whom they took their advice, and that they didn’t ask Treasury? That revelation has nothing to do with commercial sensitivity. Naming companies and advisors is not commercially sensitive. Revealing how much you paid them might be.
I would particularly like to know the names so that when the Government appoint people to manage the sale and/or companies put their hands up to buy shares, none of the advisors or their companies were involved in advising the Govt to sell.
It’s interesting that Mr Key’s pledge to be transparent and honest doesn’t apply to asset sales which, rightly or wrongly, has divided the country if you are generous and has 75% against if you look at recent polls.
You repeat “minority shareholding” as though you think it means that 49% will never have power over the 51%. You need to read up on minority shareholder power, and what they can exert over the 51% particularly when the govt is that 51%, or you could just repeat what the national website or kiwiblog says about it.
The comparison with how the UK Labour Party acted following their rout in 1979 is now complete.
Renationalisation without compensation was one of the slogans we used to chant back in the early 80s. Before the record defeat in 1983. And further defeats in 1987 and 1992.
It took the UK Labour Party the best part of 2 decades to realise that the tide had shifted and they needed to move with it.
Will it take the NZ Labour Party as long?
Did polls show 75% of the uk population was against asset sales at that time OG?
Put me down as a don’t know on that!
What does it matter?
If politicians have the numbers they can ignore 90% of the public if they so wish. Take Section 59, for example. Labour didn’t seem to mind ignoring the public’s view then…
They just have to decide whether it will count against them at some time in the future.
Bye bye assets!
This may be why it’s not out in the open: http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/is-john-key-heading-for-a-position-with-goldman-sachs/
Key’s false assurance of 10% holding limit for any shareholder should the folly of privatisation of public assets be allowed to start; is without any foundation and he knows it. More lies.
Holding companies which are a part of a network are common and effectively control direction of companies.
The so called NZ company Fletchers has been run that way for in excess of 40 years when Colonial Sugar (transnational ) owned it.
Selling off any part of our energy assets has another far reaching aspect – sale of our rivers.
http://riversnotforsale.wordpress.com/
John W – I notice he didn’t answer the question directly when asked if he could prevent kiwis then selling to foreigners.
Usually he favours yes/no answers
It matters OG because the polls here suggest that notwithstanding people not wanting labour, they dont want asset sales either. I suggest that was not the case with your 30 year old UK example.
Treasury says in ten years the 49% could be foreign owned which means 49% of dividends could be taken out of our economy and circulated in someone else’s is this really how you grow an economy?
Think of the cheap SOE shares as being a juicy steak.
Think of the voters as being a ravenous rottweiler.
Anybody who trys to get between that rottweiler and his steak is going to get badly mauled.
My 30 year old UK example wasn’t at all to do with asset sales. It was to do with an out of touch Labour Party hanging on to out of date dogma and taking longer than necessary to realise what it needed/needs to do to reconnect with the masses.
Next week it’ll seem far more relevant to you, I’m sure.
All a future government has to do is regulate the 49% privatised companies in a way that reduces profitability and then buy the shares on the open market at no more than they were sold for.
Sure the rottweilers are National Party members who want to make an untaxed CG flicking shares onto foreigners. These foreigners will want to see the government sign a free trade deal that will allow private investors to sue governments for regulating companies in ways that reduce profits.
Predictions are that if a float of shares is made then purchasers will be able to double their money in a short while if not treble it. This profit will exceed any money gained by govt many times over. The book value of the asset will rise and so charges for energy will rise to produce a % margin of profit.
The float will be designed to allow this gross profiteering as that is what the speculator market wants. Keys mates the Investment bankers who can work through a cobweb of “investors”. The percentage held by each purchaser becomes irrelevant.
Shares can be floated differently to this over a long period allowing their value to rise and more will be obtained from the sell off. This is not the way Nats and Key are pushing it.
This shows Key is setting up a raiding of the opportunity to make big money for no effort and drive the asset well out of the reach of future Govt reclaiming the national assets. This will including rights to use rivers and other natural resources.
Privatisation of our waterways has not been publicly discussed.
The carefully chosen words are a smoke screen.
Transnational investors are driving the play. Key is but a stooge and lies like all con men with a profit motive.
Selling energy resources would have to be the stupidest idea for the country, but Key and co are not working for this country,
They are working the country for private profit with professional backing of transnational propaganda machines.
Phil may be accused of being aggressive but the attack has to be open and simple in style but backed with accurate cutting information to expose these bankster puppets.
In Australia they don’t need to sell assets to build hospitals and schools, they use their CGT revenue.
They don’t need to increase debt to rebuild after a flood or earthquake they put a levy on higher income earners.
Even Cameron the Tory has increased the top tax rate to 50p “so those with the broadest shoulders bear their share” of the budget deficit/debt containment burden, but not cut the top tax rate Key and let those with capital make some more untaxed income via asset stripping the country. This man Key is a creature of the better-off more than that class ridden society would now tolerate. No wonder our income and wealth disparity reaches these levels when this sort of government is re-electable. Even Treasury now blanche at the consequences of more market ideology and appreciate the need for a new approach.
OG, I was suggesting that one area they are definitely not out of touch is on asset sales, given the polls (by which you have put a lot of store in many of your posts suggesting what “many” NZers want). I have posted amny times who I think will win the election, so am not sure why you cling to this idea that my comments are about backing a particular horse rather than particular issues. For me it’s bigger than winners and losers in terms of horses backed. I note that a recent poll suggest 75% of NZers are against asset sales, and you revert to a slightly dignified version of na-na-na-na-na it’s going to happen because my team will win.
I assume, therefore you agree with s59a not being repealed on the basis of a petition and poll? No problem if you did agree, that would be consistent.
You have come the closest to anyone actually answering my question about what amounts to a “mandate” for partial asset sales. Fair enough that you believe it is having enough seats to govern notwithstanding not having 50% of the popular vote. Thanks for answering that.
Perhaps something like asset sales which has fired up the public imagination/reaction ought to be afforded a referendum. I’m not sure I recall as much animation from two sides of an argument about MMP before that referendum was announced and yet here it is on the ballot paper.
Tracey, I think that’s a good idea in regards to referendums on asset sales. There should be binding referendums requiring 75% majority before any government could sell a strategic state asset such as power generation, waterways, agricultural land, etc.
Tracey – only just noticed your post.
I don’t think I’m nah-nah-ing in a Cullenesque manner that ‘we’re gonna win, and so that’s what we’re gonna do‘, I was just stating a fact, basically that getting enough seats gives you the power to enact legislation over 3 years with your fate at the polls the next time round being the only real moderator. It’s pretty much the same whoever wins. They always claim a mandate to do anything and everything they’ve mentioned throughout the campaign.
Even die hards must have a least ONE policy on which they prefer the other side’s view, surely. But you have to encapsulate everything you believe in and want into one, or at best two, ticks. This makes the whole notion of popular mandates for single issues a bit fanciful, I believe.
Second point – regarding polls and referenda. I was just making the point, that I often do when those on the left suggest that the raw numbers should be used as a basis for policy decisions where the numbers are in their favour, that during the S59 debate that they were deaf to that argument. I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either a referendum is a good way for sorting issues or it isn’t. I’m easy either way. But if you suggest it should take a referendum with 75% support to sell of part of state asset it should also take the same to turn centuries of child rearing practice on its head.