From the New Zealand Herald this morning the real story of the government’s intentions around the treaty clause and asset sales. It seems a draft version of the consultation document was accidentally put on-line.
It showed the Government’s original intention was not to include any Treaty clause at all in the new legislation covering the mixed-ownership model. On Tuesday morning, a sentence was deleted which said the Government was yet to form a final view “but, on balance, favours no Treaty clause”.
Not sounding much like an ‘elegant’ way through as the PM suggested. More like an awkward bulldozer. No wonder the Maori Party were so angry. And in terms of why, well, you heard it here first folks.
The draft also revealed that the main “harm” the Government considered would come from using section 9 was that it would put off institutional investors. It said those investors would not understand it, which would “create uncertainty and have a negative effect on investment in the companies”.
That’s right, follow the money.
And more generally the government’s claims about still having control over the assets are further undermined by another deleted paragraph.
The draft document shows other politically sensitive paragraphs were also deleted at the last minute – including references to the limited powers ministers would have over mixed-ownership-model companies, despite the Government’s majority shareholding, and the aim of the policy being to run them as private firms.
This is privatisation, pure and simple. Core infrastructure assets built up over generations by New Zealanders, currently owned by all New Zealanders are no longer going to be there for us. The handling of the Treaty clause has been a debacle but none of this should shift attention from the real process here- the loss to all of us of our assets.
This is just the start of a dreadful three years. I hope Labour pulls out all stops and thunders – yes thunders – it’s opposition to both the sell-out of our land and the sell-out of democracy. This govt. has deluded itself that the voters gave them a mandate to do whatever they like and to hell with the consequences. They are in the throes of emasculating this country in a manner we have never seen before. All our key resources and services to be eventually sold to the highest bidders. Never before has it been so vital that Labour and the opposition parties (Greens in particular) put aside their differences and work together for the sake of the future of NZ. Unless that happens it is doubtful we have much of a future.
The problem is, every day they are borrowing more and appearing to be a one-trick pony… Ideologically they cannot pull out, fiscally they cannot pull out because all their eggs are nestled in one wee basket
What they seem to be doing is voluntarily relinquishing the normal rights of a majority shareholder – with that majority shareholder being the people of NZ, that’s essentially enabling wealthy foreign shareholders to steal from us.
However, two can play at that – I’d hope that Labour might commit to taking back control and removing voting rights from the minority shareholders immediately they take office.
Can Labour not just threaten to re-nationalise any of these assets without compensation? Who’d risk buying them then?
Why was this clause not put into the Air NZ deal ?
Rich
Nobody could afford to remove the voting rights of the private (read IWI as well) shareholders.
The legal profession would keep this going for years.
Key is so concerned about ‘institutional investors’ in private but in public he talks about ‘mum and dad investors’.
They both cant be the ones he pitching the shares too.
I wonder which ones hes listening the most to ?
Fortran, which land did Air NZ own when it was sold that could be part of a treaty claim?
Institutional investors means banks, kiwisaver funds and private super funds or investments. These are the companies that are responsible for mum and dad investors’ money so they can have a safe and diversified portfolio.
As for applying the principles of the treaty to the minority shareholders – that is not even legal. You cannot apply the treaty to private citizens – they are not a party to it. It applies only to Iwi and the Crown.
Of course the intention is for them to run like private companies. They are the most profitable – which is actually best for the government and taxpayers alike!
The govenment stressed we kept a majority ownership and this is only a sale of a minority shareholding.
But all along it intended to ensure that terms that suited the minority shareholder would be legislated for.
Wonder why it made none of this known before the election.
Buy back all shares at issue price, no matter the price they are when the government takes them back.
@ghostwhowalksnz
I’m sure it’s possible to have an airspace grievance?
@Paul I like your way of thinking!
It’s good to see the Maori party taking a stand against this, whatever the reason for them doing it it works for us. Let’s just hope the Maori party have actions to back up their threats.
But I can see why National is trying to raise revenue and I kind of wish they went through with mining national parks instead. It’s like New Zealanders want the government to improve the economy but at no cost to the public or the environment. We need industry and we need growth, I say we mine national parks under state ownership and seek out oil under state ownership too. Export the resources and use that revenue to reduce taxes and we would boom.
The was a banner at the consultation hui: “Can’t sell what you don’t own”. These assets, built by our parents and grandparents belong to generations yet to be born.
“Export the resources and use that revenue to reduce taxes and we would boom.”
Yeah, ‘cos we’ve beeen booming since the first two nat budgets slashed the top rate of income tax and gave ‘rich pricks’ $1000pw they didn’t deserve.
Like the crafar farms and asset sales, exporting minerals from conservation land would only benefit foreign interests and those with too much already.