Wira Gardiner has taken on a lot of difficult jobs for governments of all hues, but I think hitting the road to sell ditching the Treaty of Waitangi clause from any new legislation for assets to be sold is going to be his most difficult task.
It seems the government regard the Treaty clause as it is currently contained in the State Owned Enterprises Act that covers the companies on the block will be an impediment to sale. Pesky Treaty getting in the way of National’s plan to sell off our future! The easy response from the government of course is to just get rid of it.
This is going to cause major ructions among Maori, and rightly so. Another question for the government to answer is what will happen to the “social responsibility” clause that also governs SOEs?
an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so
Will it survive in the new legislation for the assets that are being sold?
If it goes its clearer than ever that these sales are in fact privatisation. The rhetoric about the government keeping control of the assets is empty if the legislation that will govern them removes the protections that give all New Zealanders confidence that the assets are working in the best interests of the country. These will simply be private companies acting without reference to providing a social good for all of us.
These hui will be fascinating. Morgan Godfrey has already noted that support seems to be dwindling among iwi. I know for sure we will be putting pressure on National in Parliament and in the community to stop the sales. Interesting times indeed.
The linked Morgan Godfery post has a discussion in the comments (the only thread in fact), where Morgan calls Sir Wira Gardiner a “house n…” and then makes 3 follow up comments supporting the original statement. I hope the debate over the next few weeks stays at the level of this Red Alert post, rather than the Maui Street post.
It will be interesting to see what they would replace this clause with also. While at the time of the passing of the act the treaty clause was unusual it led to a lot of wider development of the law. Partly as a result of this clause Courts have interpreted treaty principles into several other pieces of law. The state owned enterprises could potentially be liable in some way to the treaty even if the clause were to go so they might need to actually pass a provision to block the principles applying if that is what they wish to do.
I wonder if they will be getting another fifty thousand dollar donation before they make the decision…
Legal argument explored and championed by who.
Hone is the mouth piece at this stage. Where is the voice of Labour.
Polls show that the “people” don’t want partial privatisation. The Treaty being swept to one side is a major issue in principle. Is Hone to be left standing with this one as well.
This is a big enough issue for marching in the streets.
Leadership against this monstrous annexation of NZ is needed.
“Leadership against this monstrous annexation of NZ is needed”.
John W , where were you , when , in Grants words , Labour were “trying to sell off New Zealands future”.
I refer to the partial sell down, by Labour , of shares in Air New Zealand.
Of course Air NZ have gone on to win awards and accolades for their performance.
Until Labour and its followers start remember the past and stop using over emotive language voters will stay switched off
The principle of selling off publicly owned infrastructure has been opposed consistently by a very large section of the NZ population.
Your cherry picking of somewhat irrelevant information concerning Air NZ has little to do with the increasing debt we face exporting profit from private investment.
There are better ways to organise than the investor led mandate which our banker clique throw their resources behind for their own interests.
Which part of the past do you want to deal with because the tale has some very grim elements and lessons to be learned.
Our present path is not a pretty one
I don’t know when that clause was added to the act, but I guess it’s fair play to assume it was there from 1984 (the passing of the Act). So I’m wondering why it will need to be removed to allow National’s partial privatisations, when it patently was not an impediment to the vast privatisations that occurred in the the last three governments.
As for ensuring that these companies are running in the best interest of New Zealanders – the best interest is when they run at maximum efficiency, in a market where they must compete for shareholders and customers.
Many people do want to buy these state assets, and some of them are Maori. You should talk to your colleague Shane Jones and recognise that Maori are not some monolithic block that all want the same thing. Their opinions and views are as varied as those of any New Zealanders.
I also find the comments about donations and influence interesting. Of course all parties serve their donors. That’s why Unions give money to Labour. They want something specific from the party too – favourable legislation to their cause. There’s nothing morally superior in any party’s donation acceptance.
+1 Joel
Cash, as well as being perfectly fungible, has no political bias.
Better to remove it altogether from the process.
However, I can’t agree with your ‘maximum efficiency via the market’ mantra. This has (a) never been proven and (b) is on-dimensional in that it excludes non-fiscal externalities (i.e. public good).
@Joel there was massive amounts of litigation involving the Treaty of Waitangi during the period of asset sales most notable the State Owned Enterprises case in 1987 which held that sale of assets could be a breach. A lot of concessions had to be made.
Right – so precendents have been set, and there will be no need for a massive beat up based on the treaty in these cases.
Precedent is a system of applying the law to like cases. The nature of Maori ownership varies massively depending on the specific Iwi and asset. Precedents have been set yes but how the Crown might be required to act can vary. There are for example liable to be major issues of geothermal exploitation yet to be dealt with properly by the Courts.
Is the Government relying on sales to kiwisaver funds to make up most of the “sales to NZers”? and if yes, what is the average “hold” position on a stock across kiwisaver funds.
If satisfaction of the “selling to kiwi mums and dads” first is to be largely satisfied through kiwisaver funds wont the turnover from fund hands to others, including foreign be relatively quick?