As we head towards Waitangi Day a core issue for the Government is about to be tested. Pitching the Sale of State Owned Energy Companies will be fraught with subtle yet powerful undertones that will test Nationals mettle and it’s real desire to forge a long lasting relationship with Maori.
The easy route would be to complete the round of consultation hui and satisfy the Governments ‘obligation’ to consult. But, I suspect iwi and Maori are well past the box-ticking mentality.
Perhaps even some concessions that would see c.9 of the SoE Act being substituted for something ‘more meaningful’ to the current political landscape, the PM may even a propose to iwi a shareholding interest in SoEs (albeit too small to be effective).
But the Real Issue confronting all New Zealanders – Maori and Paakeha alike is that we have a vested interest in these SoEs not because of some romantic view that the State knows best, but that we must take leadership and derive the benefits from more efficient and high performing companies that deliver to us as citizens. Privatisation in itself will be a shortsighted gain with very few people benefiting – the risk being greater disparity between ‘haves and have nots’.
Waitangi Day is a time to see who walks their talk, a debate on retaining a Treaty of Waitangi clause in the SoE Act must not detract from the central issue of keeping kiwi assets in kiwi hands. Now is a time to have Maori on your side!
Agreed!
The Maori Party is threatening to quit over the partial sales of state assets.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6339225/Maori-Party-could-walk-over-Treaty-references
Will they put their money where their mouth is this time or will they – yet again – sell out their principles for the sake of a few baubles?
“Now is a time to have Maori on your side!”
That sounds like racism to me. In a democracy, it’s always a good time to have as many people as possible, of any ethnicity, on your side.
And I would disagree that Maori are a contiguous group who are on anyone in particular’s side. I’m white, so don’t call me an expert, but I’m not sure why Labour is so keen to parcel Maori like that.
National will consult, and I think the idea that they will remove the “Treaty Clause” from the SOE act is, a beat up and a red herring. Case law shows us that the government is always bound by the principles of the Treaty, regardless of whether it’s explicitly in any given act on any given matter.
Because Maori have been even though they aren’t a single group.
@Joel it will be interesting to see if what you think happens.
@Anne although MP ambivalent on the question of #AssetSales pre-election, am glad they came around to Keeping them! Might be a big test for them…
Unless you are Ngai Tahu in which case it’s ok to sell your land to foreigners. They seemed to interpret the principles of the Treaty completely consistently with the mixed ownership model.
Privatisation means having to pay off the private sector for taking the public interest into account, when 100% owned SOE’s could be directed by government to that effect.
We already know that the buy back of Kiwi Rail was required to realise the public transport objectives of the country, and if we cannot buy back these shares we will be stuck with direct subsidy (and some of this being appropriated as investor profit) to realise public objectives.
I shall consider it an inaccurate expression of democracy if our current government sells off assets because in this recent election just under 51% of voters voted for parties that stated they were against asset sales. A further 0.6% voted for United Future, who stated that more discussion was needed in order to proceed, they also had firm conditions, such as no sale of water rights.
Check this out for your self on the election results site if you need to confirm this.
I shall consider it a rort if asset sales proceed when the only official public feedback the government has indicates that NZers do not support the sales of our assets.
I shall also consider it a rort if in response to these figures, our government pours money into manipulating public perception into believing the partial sale of our revenue generating assets is desirable. I shall consider this to be a cynical use of the money and privileged position that our democratically elected members have.
Tautoko! There are also some deeper issues which resonate for me on this take. Eg Meridian’s Waitaki hydro scheme was initiated and established in the last Great Depression, and was the last major state infrastructure development built literally by pick and shovel. Why? The Govt saw thousands of unemployed needing work, and a project that would benefit the nation.
The sale of power co Meridian and coal producer Solid Energy will have major negative impacts in Te Wai Pounamu and these will flow on to hurting the country as a whole. Citizens will pay more for power. Rio Tinto and other corporates which have benefitted from cheap power and the smelting of aluminium at Tiwai will reap rewards.
Any tinkering with s9 SOE Act proposed by the Nats to quieten the Maori Party will mean a net negative loss for all Maori – and let’s remember so many hapu and iwi are yet to have their grievances reported on by the WAI TRIB, or settlements or direct negotiations completed.
A related kaupapa in the treaty settlement field is the way in which the PM can interfere in direct negotiations eg Tuhoe, declaring the Urewera National Park and Lake Waikaremoana off the table. Unilateral, bully behaviour…
Likewise of concern is the way recent settlements eg Hauraki Gulf Islands, have no provision for genuine Treaty partnership in terms of iwi governance and control of their land, islands and other taonga.
Maori people and other Kiwi’s committed to kaupapa like conservation – remain the movers and shakers – still able to put 50,000 people on the street to demonstrate against the Govts misguided programme.
More Maori women in positions of political leadership are needed. It’s wierd how the Tories elevate Maori women, the Greens are onto it with a co-leadership model which has worked since 1996 or was it 1999?
I only hope Labour takes a hard look at itself in this term, and reinstigates democracy within the party organisation and constitutional arrangements. Rank and file should elect the leadership, and the parliamentary party should be answerable and accountable to the membership. More cognisance of the importance of tangata whenua and tangata pacifica, and recognition of the decades long loyalty of these constituencies is required urgently if Labour wants to grow the membership and build for electoral success in 2015. It’s not a new-look Labour team from what we see in the media – too much old wood still to be pruned, for new growth to come through
Kind regards, kia kaha, kia manawanui, and Save the Mohikinui River
If people really didn’t want asset sales, they wouldn’t have elected 61 MPs to a National-led government. MMP has given us 59 National MP’s and the support of the representatives of Epsom and Ohariu. We had an option to vote that system down if it was really so awful.
I’m sorry, that’s what it comes down to. You can’t treat every issue as a yes-no question. If you ask people “Do you want to sell state assets?”, naturally most people will say no. I would say no. But given the alternative is higher taxes or borrowing and hoping to tidy it up later, the people have spoken – they prefer National’s approach.
There is a school of thought which believes every issue should be taken to the electorate. This has many disadvantages, including that citizens can limit the ability of government to act at all – we know the government needs more money, but neither the asset sales, nor a tax increase would pass a referendum. So stop pretending that a democracy means every government action must gather a majority of public support. It was Labour’s own former leader who tried to campaign on making the unpopular but necessary decisions. We have a representative democracy – it’s the least bad system we know of so far.
@Joel
>If you ask people “Do you want to sell state assets?”, naturally most people will say no. I would say no.
So say no, then. You don’t have to reflexively support all National policy, even if you voted for the party.
>But given the alternative is higher taxes or borrowing and hoping to tidy it up later, the people have spoken – they prefer National’s approach.
That is not a given. It is an assumption based on guesses about the way the economy is going to go, based on running the economy in a way that is causing it to contract. There is no urgent need to sell at all.
Furthermore, selling the power companies will cause an even deeper contraction because the income from them will disappear.
Stupid, stupid idea.
Joel,
Clearly you didn’t read the comments I made. You may support asset sales, yet please do not site the last election results as confirmation that this asset sale approach is a democratically arrived at conclusion, it is not. 51% people voted for parties that clearly stated they were AGAINST asset sales. Considering I know of people who voted National and do not consider asset sales to be a good idea, the numbers are even worse than is indicated by the election results.
If you support asset sales, fine, but please do not shore up your ill considered views by stating ‘the people have spoken’ in the affirmative on the subject, they have not.
Ben Wilson, well said.
No, I understand you perfectly, that’s why I said:
“MMP has given us 59 National MP’s and the support of the representatives of Epsom and Ohariu. We had an option to vote that system down if it was really so awful.”
The electoral system being what it is, support for asset sales will have a majority in parliament. If people were really so overwelmingly, fundamentally, opposed to asset sales, they would have voted tactically to stop it. But they weren’t. QED.
Joel
Fact: 48.5% of voters voted for this current approach.
You cannot add to that, you make assumptions re National getting in. Perhaps people thought the Greens would be involved in Government, perhaps they despised some policy Labour put on the table so much they voted against it, they may have thought that National would be responsive to popular public opinion, neither you nor I can accurately conclude how the outcome came to be one that allowed National with their sub standard sell-our-revenue-generating-assets-off approach to form a government.
We can, however, factually state that 51% of voters voted for parties that stated opposition to asset sales. I am shocked that given this feedback, the current government would tell the NZ public that they have given them a mandate to sell assets which is simply untrue and carry on regardless.
I know that’s the fact. Unfortunately for that argument, we don’t have a totally proportional system. National told everyone, well in advance I might add, that they were going to do it – and the reasons why. And they formed a government. It’s stupid to try and relitigate whether they have a mandate or not. They are the government. That is their mandate.
@ Joal. Your blinkered view that National has a mandate to sell our assets, in my opinion your simplistic view is incorrect, as most people vote for a political party on more than just one policy as you would know. I doubt National will persist with asset sales after the public backlash unfolding by the day. A diverse mix of the populous opposed to state asset sales. included the ‘have nots’ who need little encouragement to vent their anger against the ‘well to do’s ‘. I can see this being the catalyst to civil unrest like we have never seen before unfortunately.
>It’s stupid to try and relitigate whether they have a mandate or not. They are the government. That is their mandate.
It’s stupid to litigate either way. What is not in question is that National have the power to implement asset sales. The question of whether the people of this country really want them is far, far more complex and can be asked directly, without all the other issues that come in a bundle in an election, like whether people really voted National, or didn’t vote at all because they didn’t like Phil Goff.
The question now is twofold:
1. Is it what the people really want?
2. Is it a good idea?
These are tied together – the perception of it being a good idea affects whether people want it. This can change backwards and forwards very much as more detail is fleshed out on the idea and the true ramifications become clearer. It’s quite possible to sell off the assets in a way that will alienate massive numbers of people who voted National – if, for example, they don’t get first dibs. Or if, after selling it, it turns out that it was ridiculously undervalued and a small number of people make disgustingly large profits from it. This has been the NZ experience of asset sales in the past.
I’m not even really sure whether the people would support sales that exclude Treaty clauses. This was not campaigned on, and there are quite a lot of Pakeha, and a great number of Maori, who feel the Treaty should always be honored. To ride rough-shod over it could actually, in this more enlightened NZ now, cause a real sense of racial conflict and sympathy for the Maori case, since it actually aligns with how a lot of Pakeha themselves feel about having their property compulsorily acquired from them.
Maybe the question is not the numbers of seats but does a government really consider its role is to do something with a country so clearly divided on it. It’s not like they don’t move from other things said during election campaigns.
Maybe just hold a referendum. Isn’t that what it was intended for, questions of national importance?
Equally funny how we are always happy as a nation to shove “Maori” tot he forefront of opening ceremonies, and events and so forth, but to shove them just as quickly back into the wings afterwards.
I see it’s ok for hollywood directors to want NZ Land. I wonder why Michael Fay didn’t outbid them?
The only reason NZ could be seen to be divided on the issue of asset sales is because some NZers still trust what this government tells them, their trust is misguided, this asset sales thing is a load of hogwash and I hope that more NZers drop this attitude of ‘they must know what they are doing’ before we all get sold out to the lowest bidder.
There can’t be a referendum on everything, because as international case studies show, the government’s actions become too limited. There can’t be a referendum on this because money is needed now, and taxes going up is A)unpopular and B)Bad for the economy.
Anyway, wasn’t it Phil Goff that campaigned on making the unpopular decisions that would be for the greater good? He’s not the prime minister, is he?
The election results prove that for a good portion of people, though they may not like asset sales, it is either not very important to them, or not a dealbreaker. Even the Maori party will continue to support the government (though not the asset sales particularly) if Maori’s treaty rights will be maintained.
And SJW – people mistrust all politicians. As it so happens, they mistrust Labour MPs about twice as much as they trust National ones. Blaming the people for the outcome in a democracy is a dangerous sentiment indeed. One that leads you to something a little like North Korea. Democracy is a business – the customer (voter) is ALWAYS right.
Joel,
If you believed in the sentiments you write “the customer (voter) is ALWAYS right.” you would be as concerned as I am that 51% of voters voted for parties against asset sales, yet our government appears to be aiming at proceeding with them regardless of such feedback.
That you are making nonsensical arguments against this concern, and then coming out with ‘the customer is always right’ makes me assume that you are either a very confused thinker, or some computer program programmed to spew slogans in response to comments pages such as these ones. Which one is it?
Well, as I said, I understand 51% of people voted for a party that didn’t support asset sales, but 2.8% of people wasted their vote on the Conservatives, which meant National got the government. If they’d voted for NZF, National wouldn’t have had a majority in parliament, and in all likelihood, we’d be in the middle of another election campaign right now. I’ll add to that the fact that the Maori Party never campaigned for or against asset sales. It was in their policy, but barely mentioned, and they will support iwi purchasers. That sounds like a weak opposition to me.
National got the biggest ever single-party mandate since MMP, and the biggest popular vote since the 60′s IIRC. What does that show? This is the most trusted government in a long time. I think you’ll find most people don’t actually care about asset sales, to be honest. They’re used to them from the last 30 or so years of it, and it hasn’t caused an economic armageddon yet.
The comment about the voter always being right was in relation to the dangerous comment about the people wrongly trusting National. Accusing the people of trusting the wrong person is dangerous. Prove Labour deserves their trust. And as I’ve said – most parties didn’t campaign on raising taxes. Which is the only alternative to asset sales. Labour did and…
@irisinclair @ben Wilson tautoko
@SJW we really need more kiwis to voice their opposition so the Govt is very clear that there is no clear mandate for Asset Sales
@Joel ….
@All up at Waitangi now and this is a topical issue along with Govt proposing to strengthen its relationships with Maori/Iwi …hmmm
Nanaia, agree
Joel,
Before the election, National told voters that our books would balance by 2014 and sneered at Labour for their longer term approach of retaining assets and having the books balance only A FEW YEARS LATER. Now barely a few months after the election Mr Key is telling us that the books are unlikely to balance by 2014, and muttering something about doing so…A FEW YEARS LATER…. one assumes; MINUS our revenue generating assets. This is the type of phenomenon, which I base my statement on that I feel the trust placed in what National had to say by the NZ public, was misguided. Had more of the population seen the ‘optimism’ that Key was offering for what it appears it really was: obfuscation of the realities, then we would have had even more of an indication that asset sales is an unpopular idea with NZers.
Even with the opinion manipulation that was evident over this last election season, I was stunned to note that 51% of people voted for parties that were against asset sales.
There were plenty of parties for voters to choose from and I feel your statement ‘prove Labour deserves their trust’ as irrelevant for that reason.
Joel,
You yourself say that elections are not about one issue, yet you (& Mr Key) appear to be confusing the one issue, asset sales, with the general mandate of governing. While acknowledging there will be as many expectations as voters on what a governments mandate is, my view (and hope) is that a government’s mandate is to govern the country in a way that benefits the largest possible amount of NZers, and done so with a great deal of regard for and conscientious application of democratic principles and that decisions and approaches will involve thought for the future generation as well as all levels of society’s members now. What I am seeing within months of the election is a government that pays scant regard for these aspects.
This government knows that asset sales is unpopular, FACT.
There is nothing that I have read nor comments from Government I have heard, which convince me that selling revenue generating assets is an approach which will have positive spin offs for large numbers of NZers, and there is plenty I have read which indicates it is an approach which will fail a lot of us.
Our government could honour the feedback they have been given by the people, yet are choosing to ignore it and continue to feed us half baked information such as ‘we have a mandate’ on the issue, and ‘we have the biggest popular vote since the 60′s’ (The left/right divide was so close that we were a whisker away from a hung election.) I am continuing to hear bizarre contradictions emanating from our government such as:
“Nothing can be done with regard to the Crafar Farms’ sell off”, while at the very same time they are making moves to change laws that involve aspects integral to our collection of papers that make up our constitution, in order to sell off more.
All this being apparent and there still exists people who continue not only to believe them but also spend time justifying this approach.??
I,ve talked to hundreds of people. They DON>T WANT ASSET SALES !!!! National Joel do NOT have the countrys best interests at heart.The Government is meant to listen to the people.WE DO NOT want ASSET SALES!!!! Our Grandfathers fought in the Wars for those Power companys,Then built the power companys and farms up.Lets have another ELECTION if they are so sure of Public surport.I,am sure more people will take time to vote.If all the people who voted green Maori Mana Nz1st Labour join up as a united front.We would have a fairer shearer government.Nat have NO Mandate they are acting like Dictators.The people are sick of not been listened too.Outdated GST .Why do we pay so much?the petrol is taxed brought into the country,Tankered to use NO TAX at the pump NO GST on FOOD —RATES— ELEC–PHONES. The more you spend less tax you should pay.Honi said a transation Tax. Also TAX the RICH BMW Cars Yachts Luxury items,they would not notice.But we notice we don,t have enough money to buy food,bills petrol insurance etc. Basics have become luxuries.We are asked to tighten our belts.When the Polititions have had FOUR Pay Rises.Greece,Spain have suffered great unrest we do not want this.But….the people are very unhappy.Acc leavies GST must go WAY down.Why does it cost so much to register my car.It stays in the garage while I car pool or walk.If GST went DOWN instead of up Their would NO Recession in New Zealand. National is more interested in their rich mates selling shonky deals that is not what NZers want.AN why are we BORROWING Millons of dollars every week.Helen Clarke Micheal Cullen should be commended for running us in surplus.!! Nat seemes to have a hidden agenda.Who is checking on them?Why is the Maori Party not making a stand against asset sales {Some things Nat has done is OK}But not much.The people feel they are out of touch.As they have such larger incomes many perks.Even if you earn more money it goes on bills or food.Could get depressed cry…PEOPLE POWER WE want whats best for NEWZEALAND.DO you Agree?I have children friends a friend fo the late Graeme Hunt.My Great grandfather was a member of Gov- owned newspapers. The PEN is mighty then the sword!!!
I was in Nelson this weekend and they are voting on Council amalgamation. Being from Auckland I was amazed, and pleased, to see that they have democracy down there.
Did you check to see whether Nick had written a letter to express his views as the local MP?