Controversial Asset Sales legislation will face its second reading in Parliament this week.
As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has already pointed out, the normal process has been abused. Just 0.6% of submissions supported the idea at Select Committee – for good reason – and there are holes in the proposal that future generations will have to deal with.
The proposal is a dog.
Unfortunately it looks like National members of the committee had cotton wool in their ears. The Government seems determined to plough ahead with its plan to sell off our best revenue generating assets. They have seemingly no regard for what expert submitters and the general voting public thinks.
In the face of such arrogance, some are tempted to despair. Not so Grey Power, and other community members of the citizen led campaign to keep our assets.
People are already out collecting signatures for a citizens’ initiated referendum. The Government could choose to ignore the referendum, but it would be foolish to do so.
Labour has set up a website in support of the campaign to save our assets. It outlines how you can get involved. There are plenty of campaign resources and you can download petition forms.
I oppose these asset sales and support the referendum for political purposes – but how can Labour argue the government has no mandate for the policy? Certainly they have no mandate for things like charter schools, but asset sales was a clear election policy.
@Ed B – More people voted in the last election for parties that actively opposed asset sales than those that were proposing them.
MMP support parties are what National is relying on to get the law passed.
Usually select committee is an opportunity to receive feedback from experts and the public. If they provide evidence of a need to abandon or modify the proposal, the Government can act accordingly. It hasn’t.
I think the precedent has been set about government policy changes since the teacher ratio/improving quality issue. As soon as the government reversed that policy labour has been crowing about the budget gap and what are they going to do about it? There is now way the budget can be re-forecast by removing the revenue from partial asset sale.
I seem to have missed this bit “We Labour! when we next get into power will be buying back all/any Assests that have been sold” if not why not???
A backdown/u-turn would be National suicide. Like Super they are trapped in their own blind committment. Can you hear Mr Key saying, “I have listened to the people and decided to abandon Partial Asset Sales.” Hah!
Come on David say it “we will renationalisation the stolen assets”.
Who said it will be John Key that will be around for any back down. He is looking really shaky on the increase on age entitlement for super . Another 3-4% decrease in the polls for National and a further drop in preferred Prime Minister ratings, and we will see a traditional National “night of long knives”. Key will get posted off to Washington or UK maybe.
@David – I would be interested in your thoughts on the meaning of the term “mandate” in the MMP environment given that it seems unlikely (in future) that any single NZ political party will be in a position to fully implement it’s election manifesto without the support of one or more of the minor parties.
Say it now: Labour will renationalise the stolen assets.
We need to hear it.
I am spitting mad about the Government’s cheating process on this vital issue. Stealing from our children – have they no shame?
If Key thinks 47% is a majority, why is he keeping 51% of the voting shares? By his own rules, he has no mandate.
Will Labour state that they will buy back these assets when they next come to power for the original selling cost or less?
That would put a halt to people wanting to buy our power system.
Under MMP National has the majority to partially sell these assets. Not the numbers but the elected Electoral system.
Similarly when Labour Green coalition gets in in 2014 they will have the right to do whatever they were elected on.
I expect that they will buy these partially sold assets, won’t they ?
“In the face of such arrogance” – Just a reminder – National won the election. That means they won the right / have the mandate to implement the polices they were voted in on,
Jennifer – The Mandate was given to the Government in the 2011 election. By your same thinking no government has ever had a mandate to do anything. This issue was debated and the Nats won. If people felt so strongly against Partial Asset sales then they would have voted for Labour. As it was Labour only came home with 27% support.
Partial Asset Sales will proceed and i think you will be disappointed when they are popular and people enjoy being able to invest is solid and quality infrastructure assets. I certainly will be investing in the electricity companies and Solid Energy. And like the contact energy shares I bought in 1998 (or was in 1999) and still own, I guess I will own my shares in any new floats for many years to come as part of a solid and diversified portfolio. I guess my Kiwisaver provider will also invest in the shares issued. And for that matter some of the iwi around New Zealand.
I think the left will hate it that the issues will be well subscribed and that it will be business as usual when the “chicken Little’s” on the left realise that the sky has not fallen in – but rather that there is money to re-invest in the infrastructure of New Zealand (Schools, hospitals and roads)
No need to get hysterical. You will get a chance in power again and, if you can stop the Greens trashing the economy, you will be able to implement some of your policies too. Maybe even some you actually campaigned on.
It always amazes me that, wait till the next election.We are now six months into this regimes second term,and the cracks are showing as they are forced to sack their Ministers, and the ruthless drive of their ideology is being shown for what it is on a daily basis.
Time the opposition parties started to cry fowl and start calling for a early election.
Or is that a unappealing proposition in these austere times.
Labour won’t sell the assets so they will have to torment the elderly and frustrate the young by raising the retirement age. Perhaps David Shearer should be replaced by the Marquis de Sade.
David – You keep referring to state-owned assets as “our” assets, but to whom do you refer when you say “our”? Who do these assets belong? They belong to the state. The state is made of a group of people, but not all people nor does it represent all people. The state is an organization within society it is not society in and of itself. So you cannot be referring to the people of New Zealand when you talk of them being “our assets”. Because then you would be identifying the people of New Zealand with the state and such a simplistic identification leads to obvious logical absurdities. So to whom do you refer? Or is it time to abandon this empty bromide of referring to state-owned assets as “our assets” and just refer to them as what they are – state-owned assets.
“they will have to torment the elderly and frustrate the young by raising the retirement age.”
I’ll have spin on toast, with spin, spin, eggs, sausage, spin and beans.
“Perhaps David Shearer should be replaced by the Marquis de Sade.”
Perhaps george should be replaced by Gumby.
Dear Quoth the Raven,
They’re my assets.
Love Spartacus.
@Quoth the Raven – I like yer thinking!
The country will be worse off without those assets so let’s fight for them!
!
You might like to take a minute to send an email supporting this petition from Avaaz.com:
“Tomorrow, John Key is planning to ram controversial asset sales legislation through parliament — despite thousands of citizens taking to the streets in protest. Let’s create a massive outcry and stop the sale of New Zealand’s key assets:”
Just click on the link below fill in your email address and send.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Oppose_NZ_Asset_Sales/?boNMXab&v=15125
Hi Ianmac!
Yee haa ! 
!!!!!
@al1ens
“Perhaps george should be replaced by Gumby.”
The Blockheads being already here.
To be fair, I haven’t seen much from Cameron and Kate of late, but at least you’re always on, trying to even out the averages.
@Quoth the Raven – I suspect referring to “our assets” comes from the same place as the phrase “taxpayers’ money”. But as soon as taxpayers pay their taxes it becomes government money, from which time taxpayers lose direct control over what used to be their money. “Taxpayers’ money” is a tool created by the Right to argue for less spending on public services – the spending of what the Right also call “other people’s money”, often characterised in terms of how the hard-working “rich” should not be forced to give to the lazy “poor”. On the other hand, “our assets” is a phrase created by the Left to argue for continued State ownership in order to enable the benefits of such ownership to go to the same place as taxes, which is ironically the same place the Right do not want “their” taxes to go, and want on top of this ownsership of the assets as well in order to enjoy the benefits of the capital whilst denying the State the ability to generate further income for all “taxpayers”. In essence, the Left want an arrangement where everything, taxes and dividends from certain assets, to go to everyone, while the Right want everything, taxes, dividends from certain assets (as well as the assets themselves) to go to a relatively small handful of private citizens. This is nothing but greed, pure and simple.
@john e – couldn’t have put it better myself. +1
John E – “Taxpayers” is a meaningful collective term which refers directly to an identifiable group of people – those who pay taxes. The ownership of the money when we talk of “taxpayer’s money” is clearly identifiable prior to being handed over to the state (there being an implicit threat of violence therefrom). Contrast that with David Clark’s use of the term “our assets”. The “our” is ambiguous. To whom does he refer? If he means to refer to all New Zealanders that is an obvious absurdity. So I see in your comment a disanalogy between the use of “taxpayer’s money” and “our assets”.
More problematic than either is your use of the insubstative and divisive terms “left” and “right” which adds nothing to the conversation.
You know that using technical and, frankly, unheard of, language doesn’t make your argument any more persuasive, right?
Politics is not (and I’d suggest your commentary is living proof) a battle of logic.
The public (are you OK with this term? I know it is contentious!) of NZ (a pretty intangible concept at best), rightly or wrongly (and you say wrongly) see the State (?!) as holding assets (but really, isn’t that a value judgment?), that the public has created, or that it has purchased, for the benefit (subjective!) of its citizens (WHAT IS A CITIZEN?). Just like, as John E pointed out, the public wish to see the State as using their taxpayer money (let’s not relitigate this one!) for their benefit.
Now you can fruitlessly attack the terminology used in the debate all you want, but that doesn’t make the feelings of the New Zealand public any less valid. You must feel terribly powerless that you do not get to control the terminology of the debate, hm?
Likewise, people use the term “left-wing” and “right-wing” because it helps them to simplify political discourse. Your resentment for the practice is noted, but ignored.
The words I use are hardly unheard of. At least for those whose first language is English.
I am perfectly fine with using such words as “public” if they are used in the right context. The way in which you have used it above is wrong. You are trying to claim that the New Zealand public share the view you put forth on state assets (who said you could speak on behalf of the New Zealand public?), but, as above, I ask to whom do you refer by “the public of NZ”? Do you refer to all New Zealanders? Surely not. I doubt that all New Zealanders even have an opinion on state assets and I know that many, including myself, have a view contrary to your own. Do you refer to the majority? If so you should say so. You have fallen into the same unsound way of writing as David Clark has. That is of using ambiguous collectives (which plague political discussions).
This is a statement I agree with. Don’t you desire more than left versus right, National versus Labour, red team versus blue team? Politics is a zero sum game. It puts people into conflict, pitting them against each other, encourages uncritical groupthink and to my mind does more harm to society than good. If you can see that politics is not a battle of logic don’t you wish for a less politicised society?
Is this simplification helpful? Does it add anything to the discussion or does it only serve to be divisive and confusing turning (to quote the above link) “a means-ends discussion into a signalling battle of personal identities and group loyalties”?
Come on Guys, as they are in government and have enough votes to pass this they do have a mandate to partial sell state assets.
NZ had fair warning that this was the plan, you cant vote for someone who supports a policy, or worse not vote at all, and then complain about policy you new was in place.
I didnt vote National or any of there partners but i know people who did and now they are saying they dont like this policy. All you can do is shake your head.
All labour can do is politic on this policy that they stated they were against, in an attempt to unseat national next time.
Backing down about class size is a whole kettle of fish to backing down over selling part of our family jewels
The assests are owned by the State which is a construct of our Westminster parliamentary democracy. The idea being that State ownership infers for the ownership and benefit for all.
This type of of ownership model is away of protecting the collective citizenry from the predation of corporate and private interests.
In this case; energy generation should be kept in the hands of the many for the many, and not placed in the hands of the few. Enron springs to mind.
@Quoth John Rawls “Pubic Reason” covers off modern political discourse more succinctly rather than insulting antiquated quotes from another Austrian. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/
Ours, yours mine, my childrens, my grandchildren ….collective not private.
I do believe that both the New Zealand public and the National party have a real problem on their hands; one of having-or being-a government in power who have a plan that the majority of New Zealanders don’t want.
Could this be caused by too much emphasis on personality when voting, and electioneering, and not enough emphasis on policy? I really hope that New Zealanders wake up to this and start to focus on what they are voting for and what the consequences are of voting for these policies, rather than who they are voting for; personalities or how confident a person appears. Could we learn from the position we are in now? I sincerely hope so.
@Waterboy
“All you can do is shake your head.
All labour can do is politic on this policy that they stated they were against, in an attempt to unseat national next time.”
Whether a government has a “mandate” to do something or not, there’s nothing to stop anyone, not just Labour, from employing any legal lobbying tool available to change any policy a government may want to introduce. Democracy isn’t restricted to operating on election day. The referendum regarding the asset sales is an obvious example of this, so too is the attempt to add the amendment to hold off on the legislation until the result of the referendum is known. There’s absolutely nothing to stop people continuing to do what they can, that’s within the law, to halt this insane policy and that’s what people are continuing to try to do. In the same way as people gathered together to force a back-down on class sizes, people are gathering now to stop the asset sales going ahead. The two issues I agree are different, but they’re not so different in that one can be halted and the other one can’t be. All the differences between the two mean is how we go about trying to change them. Don’t give up, Waterboy. Losing the family jewels isn’t as inevitable as you think. Regardless of the result, we’d feel far worse if we didn’t try.
Backing down about class size is a whole kettle of fish to backing down over selling part of our family jewels
Bit of a pattern, this mandate thing.
I don’t recall jk getting them to raise gst or try to sack hundreds of teachers, either
Tea party republicanism, by stealth.
Good job he’ll be nowhere near as successful at being PM as Helen Clark was, and be around in 2016 to greet President Palin, where in his best armani suit, which would no doubt look better on the shop (other) dummy, bow and scrape his way to accepting a us naval base in the Hauraki Gulf.
Waterboy – There is far more to modern political discourse than Rawlsian fairytales and his critics are legion.
However, let me ask you how do you apply this ideal of “public reason” to practical reality? I don’t think it applies to a back and forth political debate between two ordinary citizens (who don’t hold public positions) as that between John E or Tim G and myself on a blog (however Rawls reliably vague as he is doesn’t make a distinction between such open discussion and decision making), but how would it play out in debate above? Does the debate about partial asset sales fall within the realm of public reason (does it concern the “basic structure,” in Rawl’s words of society?) Does the reasoning in my arguments above conflict with Rawls’ conception of “public reason”? I don’t know Rawls was incredibly vague, but perhaps you do.
I myself am not convinced by Rawls’ “public reason”. An uninhibited and open public debate on all matters where one can come to lean the views of his fellows and persuade or be persuaded in turn should be essential to any real liberalism against the inherent conservatism of Rawls’ “public reason”.
Easy to stop this. Repeat after me.
Labour has the power to prevent privatisation from happening. Now!
“Any privatisation to the detriment of NZ may be reversed without compensation, or at a price set by the Government when Labour is back in”.
I am mindful of the quote.
“Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Generally I have a somewhat optimistic view of humanity. I gave New Zealand’s National Government the benefit of doubt, by ascribing their sheer lunacy to incompetence.
However, even politicians cannot be that incompetent.
Trashing a top class education system, trashing WINZ, trashing ACC. Not to mention trashing NZ as an egalitarian society and causing a recession to deepen with idiot policy like public service layoffs and tax cuts for Hawaii holidays.
It is malice.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/155484/ehrenreich%3A_how_corporations_and_local_governments_rob_the_poor_blind
“wage theft nets employers at least $100 billion a year and possibly twice that. As for the profits extracted by the lending industry, Gary Rivlin, who wrote Broke USA: From Pawnshops to Poverty, Inc. — How the Working Poor Became Big Business, says the poor pay an effective surcharge of about $30 billion a year for the financial products they consume and more than twice that if you include subprime credit cards, subprime auto loans, and subprime mortgages.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/153858/5_biggest_lies_about_the_right-wing_corporate-backed_war_on_our_schools/?page=entire
“They want to dismantle public education altogether and run schools as businesses, judged as “successes” or “failures” based on abstract data taken from high-stakes standardized test scores.”
“The right are so envious of the poor, they want to take what little the poor have left”.
Our neo-liberals see how much wealth has been stolen by their counterparts in the USA and they want to repeat the process here.
They see tax payer dollars going into schools, Social insurance and infrastructure.
Even though they do not pay taxes themselves, their money is in trusts, untaxed capital gains or offshore shelters, they are trying to find a way of increasing their cut, of taxes WE PAY.
We forget, at our peril, why neo-liberalism is so popular among the wealth stealers.
Because it works for them!
Any surprise, that, as the financial-year-end is only days away, the SOE that is first off the block is seen lowering electricity prices in the futures market , the market where its short retail positions are priced. ? that will make it’s book/portfolio look much prettier to any new prospective owners come 30 June results. how can markets be any less efficient ?