Speaks for itself really!
Where were all the supporting organisations putting in submissions to the select committee in favour of Asset Sales?
Today the government will attempt to push through another stage of its controversial and unpopular legislation to sell New Zealand assets.
Labour agrees with the vast majority of submitters that this legislation is unnecessary and misguided, and will increase power prices, increase asset inequality, increase the government deficit, increase the current account deficit, and leave New Zealand worse off.
These assets were built by generations of New Zealanders and survived during times that were tougher than today. The Government has no mandate to sell them now by the narrowest of parliamentary margins. As one submitter stated, “We are robbing the future by selling off something paid for in the past”.
Make your voices heard. Come to parliament.
At least there has been some limit put on National’s MOM bill through a proposed amendment – a change from 51% voting rights to 51% ownership.
http://yournz.org/2012/06/18/mixed-ownership-model-bill-51-ownership-amendments/
It’s not as much as many here want, but it’s a successful limitation.
Yes,
And I wonder if those those ’9′ were considering nothing else than that they saw an easy road to wealth at the expense of the rest of us.
And I wonder if those nine were supporters of NAT`s
And I wonder if a significant proportion of those “9″ will donate to the “party” for the easily gained profit.
And I must wonder if many more(But a very clear minority!) supported the sales but were ashamed to identify their greedy selves. It is not a ‘good look’ wanting to screw the rest of us. And of course their arguements mainly pathetic euphemisms for “Make me richer, thanks”
It is certainly obscene that our government would be rushing to sell our mainly green energy assets just as the planet begins to appreciate the value of such assets. This will be Telecom all over again – Sale of a public asset on the cusp of huge profits . Labour has learned to act with honour for the majority interest- but not so ‘our”esteemed’ investment banker. But then it is all about personal profit for the wealthy few … eh John?
The arguement that the state should directly help the sharemarket prosper is equally obscene. The free market is for those who wish to flourish by means of sound investment in well managed stock… but with minimal Govt input – except to control unethical abuse and deceit( and we have had plenty of that of course!). It now seems that the market must be showered with state supplied gifts. Asset sales is rather like the equivalent of a major tax cut for the wealthy(.. well probably even more generous actually, and cannot be corrected!) – and of course they have recently had the tax cuts!! The wealthy “gimme, gimme, gimme” element of our society is not pretty
I suspect that soon enough the ‘market’ will complain that the part sale is unfair for investors if the State exercises its control for the public benefit at the expense of private shareholders! Surprise, surprise, the only ‘answer’ will be to sell more than 50 % of our invaluble assets. I suspect we are being lied to.
Should we suspect that there are even now whispers about… like the sale of Kiwibank, Eh Bill?
I am advised by my KiwiSaver Fund Manager that they, and all the other fund managers, will try and get as many shares as they can, as they are considered a good long term investment and good for their members therefore.
Are they rushing it through because they know or suspect that Banks may be ousted from Parliament soon? What other explanation is there?
That is fine Fortran. But your Kiwisaver fund manager should not buy assets from all of the public (most of whom are unwilling) for the benefit of your fund. Worse – in a crisis he can sell the shares to anyone. Inevitably sooner or later many of our shares will end up in overseas hands.
Furthermore there must be a a huge ‘conflict of interest’ between your fund manager maximising profit for the likes of yourself, and, the major shareholder controlling the assets for the benefit of all of us.
Surely the interests are incompatible! So legal fights soon enough?
I wonder if the for/against submission ratio would’ve been the same when Labour sold $10bn of assets under urgency during the 80′s, or when they tried to sell off Air NZ during their previous stint, or even for the 600,000 hectares they flogged off to foreign interests?
Hypocrite much?
Dr Raymond Miller’s comment on National’s claim to have a mandate to advance it’s mixed ownership model bill can be found at:
http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/panel-tony-ryall-video-4932822
I’m told about 80,000 so far have signed the petition for a citizens initiated referendum on asset sales..
Key and English are enabling the wealthy to tax the poor through electricity prices. Key has only ever been about making money for wealthy clients; nothing has changed.
Hmmm… reminds me of the public response to Sue Bradford’s [Labour Supported] smacking legislation…
I’ve already started saving ( that means I’ve stopped buying more than I can afford and therefore have a deficit each pay) and can therefore buy shares and increase my own wealth. This is what the govt is doing. Can I add that power prices WILL come down, can i add that I earn below the average income, can I also add that I voted for these opportunities and don’t see why my vote should be any less valid than yours, that’s a democracy. And this was the key election policy. Mandate, yes.
Buying what you already own, that makes a huge return for the country each and every year, for a few extra bucks in your personal account. That’s not democracy, that’s almost borderline criminal.
What politician, especially one being battered pillar to post, wouldn’t take a referendum poll win offered on a plate? One that knows he’s lost the argument and can no longer carry anyone or anything (except the tax cuts he gave himself on his $50m slush fund)?
Mandate… Only for divs or shills.
Ther referendum has already been held, the election. Labour made it all about parital asset sales, it was their raison d’etre. Yet the public rejected it soundly, and it was EVERYWHERE in the elction campaign. Please don’t give me the horse****t about less than 50% voted for National. Much less voted for Labour, their friends and their policies. National formed a Government with a majority of like thinking parties, hence a mandate. How can you not understand this? Or am I to be reassured that a Labour led Government would automatically go to the polls for any legislation the polls say public don’t want? When has Labour ever done that (listened to the majority?)
Lou Peters is unfortunately correct. People voted for National knowing full well what it would mean. This suggests that either they supported partial privatisation, or else consider it a small detail which did not detract too much from whatever other virtues they perceived in National.
Anyhow, its a bit rich for Labour to comment on privatisation. Those of us old enough can remember the corruption and cronyism associated with Labour’s privatisations in the 1980s. Check out Jeremiah 13:23 for a very apt description of Labour.
Like I said, only divs or shills