Yesterday my Labour colleagues and I had an outstanding result from the Members Ballot with four Labour bills drawn.
If successful my State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill will see key state assets New Zealand Post, Kiwibank, Kiwirail and others protected for future generations.
It protects essential state assets such as New Zealand Post, Kiwibank and Kiwirail from attempts to sell them off for short term profits. Any government trying to sell these assets will need a 75 per cent majority in Parliament or win a referendum. That’s a fair policy.
We know Kiwis oppose selling our assets. This bill ensures strategic assets sales will need to pass a much higher hurdle, which is only fair.
The need for this bill is clear for all to see. The government is going hell for leather to sell off our essential assets despite massive opposition.
This is the acid test for the government. If National doesn’t support this bill it will be clear they are readying more assets like Kiwirail for sale. I call on all parties to support this bill and protect our assets.
I think New Zealanders will be very supportive of the fact that we are putting in place provisions that will stop sale of other assets.
People will sleep better knowing the Government had to either go to a referendum or get 75 per cent of Parliament before they can sell off Kiwibank.
This is just another way we can stop the sale of strategic asset sales and to keep them for generations to come. Kiwis all across the country are signing the Keep Our Assets petition in droves and to date the Keep Our Coalition has collected over 160,000 signatures, and is well on our way to forcing a referendum. Sign it today.
Sounds like a good approach, nice to hear, thanks Mr Cosgrove&co
The government is going hell for leather to sell off our essential assets despite massive opposition.
I don’t see any evidence of anything like this.
If National doesn’t support this bill it will be clear they are readying more assets like Kiwirail for sale.
No it won’t, a very strange claim to make. You’ll find it very difficult to get “all parties to support this bill” with these sorts of accusations. It appears as if you’re using the bill to try and score political hits rather than seriously trying to get support for it.
That’s a good bill doomed to failure.
I like the 75% of the house bit, which is sadly ironic in that it will be voted out with the support of two 0% nothing parties.
It was suggested elsewhere that “Bills that create super-majority entrenchment need the same super-majority to pass them.” Which would mean National support would be essential. Can this be confirmed?
It’s also been suggested that united future are in reality only to continue the personal puffery and self importance peter dunne is now accustom.
Can this be denied?
It’s also been suggested that some Labour MPs and supporters who keep denigrating potential allies are going to find it hard to get support when they want it.
Here’s a Claytonism: “today is the day when ‘never’ comes home to roost”
After the nat government falls, I suspect it’s UF who’ll be searching for allies, Pete.
And I’m sure those supporters, whoever they are, are doing quite alright by themselves.
When the Green/Labour/Winston coalition is in power we can bring in all the legislation we want. Be patient and plan, not should shout it – remember —Timing.
Er, maybe I’m missing something, but if this bill passed and a future government with 51% of seats in Parliament wanted to sell assets, wouldn’t that government just repeal this bill and then sell them?
I just want to place on record that I support the actions of the National led Government with it’s Mixed Ownership Model for selected SOE’s. The pity is that they did not introduce this 3 years ago.
Any government trying to sell these assets will need a 75 per cent majority in Parliament or win a referendum. That’s a fair policy.- So from this we require 75% to sell an asset yet only 51% to change “Constitutional” issues e.g. Privy council. Great to see we have our priorities right !!!!
Also pity to read so little regarding having a national power generation and supply strategy, instead all the discussion from Labour (Neo Lib supporters) is the financial issues in isolation. e.g. dividends forgone, and balancing this with cost of debt.
Kiwibank is NOT an essential state asset
I’m more worried about the lack of grammar in this post. Shouldn’t it be “Keep Our Assets” bill drawn. Hopefully selling state assets will help fund education all the way to MP level.
This National Government seems to be more preoccupied with selling stuff to keep it’s head above water rather than creating new business and building the economy.
Our forebears made sacrifices and built a country and an economy now we have Rogue Traders like Roger Douglas and John Key hocking off Assets we already own.
People are measured today by the depth of their bank accounts rather than how they acquired the money or their contributions to society.
“This National Government seems to be more preoccupied with selling stuff to keep it’s head above water rather than creating new business and building the economy.”
I disagree, they are also trying to help current and new business and trying to put in place measures that will help build the economy. With limited success in very difficult economic times.
I suspect most people don’t think Labour could have done much if any better given the economic circumstances, and it’s commonly thought they would have clocked up significantly more debt. Current member’s bills support that perception, being based on more costs to business and government (Monday-ising holidays, paid parental leave and minimum wage).
@ Jack Ramaka
+1
@Pete George
Nice summary of our Government’s propaganda there.
funny how some Nat trolls have so much time to post govt lines here – either they’re being paid to do it or they have no life, pretty sad either way.
What I want to know is – did David Clark buy a lotto ticket yet?
Funny how the troll and propaganda type words come out instead on any argument.
I’d be surprised if any of the Labour Davids would disagree substantially with that assessment.
@JMK exactly.
‘entrenching’ is really only a moral warning but has absolutly no legislative teeth. Under our constitution no parliament can bind its sucessors and that is what this bill is clearly trying to do.
Admit it Clayton this Bill is a straw man and nothing more, and a waste of debating time, and gets in the way of other private members bills.
One way of trying to usurp the powers of a legally elected government I guess with a socialist policy lockin. Such hubris, slightly unbecoming however.
If this is such a good idea, why doesn’t it apply to everything parliament does ie CIR for everything. That way we wouldn’t need any politicians at all. And we would be trapped right were we are now in what you are deeming as the “ideal state”, because that is what your bill is implying – that it is perfect now so we shouldn’t change it.
This is a campaign bill with no chance of proceeding. It demeans parliament, asking for a 75% house vote their compared to a 50% referendum vote. Aren’t MPs supposed to be more capable of making decisions?
This is a symptom of a major Labour problem, too busy trying to campaign, to score political points.
David Clark was embarrassed on Q+A this morning, neither of his Member’s bills have been costed at all. That’s not just his fault, it reflects Labour priorities. Clark has been groomed as a a faithful reciter and and he and his party appear to have skipped the basics.
http://yournz.org/2012/07/29/labour-embarrass-david-clark/
“Aren’t MPs supposed to be more capable of making decisions?”
You mean when they can be bothered to turn up and vote.
“Clark has been groomed as a a faithful reciter and and he and his party appear to have skipped the basics.”
And yet he’s an mp and you failed trying.
No wonder you appear a little bitter.
I’m not bitter at all, I’m doing what I expected to be doing. And you’re trying the old attack the messenger trick.
David has acknowledged he has learnt a lesson, good on him for that. But more importantly I hope his party can also learn from it, because David has been loyally doing what his party has asked of him.
Clayton, this is a very strange bill. You’re behaving very strangely at the moment. Do you think one parliament should be able to bind future parliaments? Why do you reserve this legislation for a supermajority, but not others?
Do you actually ever care about being consistent on anything, or do you just go for cheap, cynical headlines every time and hope that people forget the contradictory statement you made last time?
@ whodunnit.. It is much more significant that very significant legislation with huge ongoing consequences and which is difficult or legally impossible to reverse (nationalisation!?) should have a higher threshold. Of course when that legislation particularly favours the supporters of the party passing the bill the barrier to rorting other ordinary NZers for the benefit of that favoured group should demand real difficulty (eg 75% support AND(?) a referendum. Should the Auditor-general also closely investigate and report comprehensively on such legislation!?
Whodunnit….Do you believe that anyone commenting or campaigning for the sale of assets should ethically declare whether they might buy shares? After all NOONE buys shares to help NZ – They do it for personal profit! . So whodunnit, what are your intentions? And everybody else who comments.. Please?
I BELIEVE THE SALE IS APPALLINGLY BAD FOR OUR NATIONS FUTURE WELLBEING
I would not buy ‘the’ shares. I feel it would verge on unethical as I consider the part sale seriously to the disadvantage of the greater good
AND dont we all know that Key and co almost certainly ‘plan’ sale beyond 50%. That would be in keeping with their ideology. The part sale IS surely a con ‘meantime’!!
Paul B, all sorts of legislation has big effects. That is not entrenched. Working for families, income tax, student loans, social assistance programmes aren’t entrenched in law.
Labour could easily announce now that if they are in Government, they will pass a law to buy back all the shares at their issue price. Easily done. But they refuse to do so. Which is why Clayton’s position on asset sales is just hot air. If he was really serious he would say Labour would buy the shares back.
@ whodunnit.
A Buyback?… easier said than done. It would be nationalisation(!!!) and would scare the ‘daylights’ out of the stockmarket, which is pretty delicate already. The legal fight by extreme market champions would possibly be debilitating. Anyway Sweet Winston has promised to nationalise already!? Can ride on his back? He might buck us off though, do you think??
We MUST just not sell at all!!! The Mixed ownership model will surely be a dogs breakfast. How can the majority shareholder(The State} work for ALL NZers benefit and not have irreconcilable differences in philosopy with other shareholders.
States should not be intimately involved with private enterprise, particularly with essential infrastructure! Different Govt`s will have totally different philosophies- and legal ructions with other opportunist shareholders will be ongoing. Especially as the true marketeers will see a huge potential bonus(capital and dividends) if it can wrest more than 50% from the State.
It is a fatally flawed model and I would suggest deliberately so!!!
Anyway – will you be in for a share, whodunnit?
ps I would not be too concerned if Air NZ was totally sold off! There is plenty of real competition, and the State best out of flying disasters! If we must have an airline why not a shipping company?
It is the selling of absolutely essential everyday infrastructure that is pure lunacy and an unholy rort! THAT infrastructure we should totally keep under our control for the greater good.
“And you’re trying the old attack the messenger trick”
Not really, I’m only saying it as I see it.
But no need for chipped shoulders, pete, just because I’m good at it.
Are you sure the rough and tumble of politics is your sort of thing?
Paul B – there is a difference between nationalisation and buying the shares on the market. Sure it would be compulsory and at no more than the price that the National government sold it at (thus be as affordable as continuing to own them – but for the price charged by selling agents).
It’s interesting that the one policy that creates an irreconcilable breach between National and NZ First is one that Labour will not take up. Yet, if Labour goes ahead with an increase in super age it might push Winston to abstain from jumping either way and enable a Key government to continue.
Sure if National called Labour support for a buy back of the sold shares at sale price, nationalisation, it might help the dollar to fall around the time of the next election – thus we would benefit from job growth/a production led economic recovery.
The excuse that this might reduce the sale price for the assets is irrelevant if that set the price for the buy back. It seems Labour is seeking to pose for its support base yet reassure the business class 1% that they are really not that different and the policy of sale up to 49% is secretly bi-partisan.
Paul B, of course the Government could by the shares back at the market price when sold. If the assets really are strategic, and their dividends are as big as Labour says they have been, then why not? Labour says it makes economic sense to own them. But apparently not economic sense to buy them.
al1ens – I suspect I’ve roughed and tumbled a bit more than you. And you may be overrating your effectiveness. I just called your personal attack as I saw it – it’s a lazy approach, which does you no credit. Are you a self appointed bovver boy?
“I suspect I’ve roughed and tumbled a bit more than you.”
Are you saying united future is a refuge for former political sluggers?
To be fair, it just looks like a refuge.
“And you may be overrating your effectiveness.”
Is it your second or third response that proves otherwise?
“it’s a lazy approach, which does you no credit.”
It’s far from lazy, infact it’s been hard work these past months.
And no hard feelings here in losing your respect.
“Are you a self appointed bovver boy?”
No, I’m The Al1en.
@ whodunnit,
ANY government can legislate and forcibly buy anything, but it is not a decision to be taken lightly. Of course if the state does continue to own 51% of the shares AND keeps a majority control of the board(Has Key and co guaranteed that?) it can possibly still run the company for the public good, but many private shareholders may not like that at all. The gov`t plan as stated cannot work smoothly – what will happen to the ‘Company policy’ with a change of government? The NATS are planning a VERY DIVISIVE ‘partnership’ for absolutely essential public utilities!!!
REMEMBER Nationals earlier previous dismal failed Power Co experiment(Max Bradfords cheaper power farce?)
I would expect that sooner or later a less than honest Key, Joyce, and English -(sorry guys , but you totally fail to convince me of your ‘bona fides’ on this issue)- would actually let control slip to their shareholder mates by one means or another. ( Remember English`s overheard whispers re sale of Kiwibank – which was probably only ‘saved ‘because English`s intentions were exposed)
We MUST stop the part sale! A retreval situation will be so messy
Anyhow NZ first has given notice that it will buy back the shares and that is advice to potential buyers that in coalition Peters might campaign for that to occur? No one party runs the whole ‘business’ now, whodunnit.
Remember that a significant number of shares will end up in retirement schemes etc and those groups will cry piracy and worse if a buyback was forced. They will have huge propaganda power and will probably attempt to convince ordinary stakeholders that the govt was behaving badly.
Once divorced, a forced reconciliation is pretty daunting?
WE MUST JUST STOP THE SELFSERVING BARSTOOLS FROM REDISTRIBUTING ‘OUR STUFF’ TO ‘THEIR MATES’ IN THE FIRST PLACE…. have you signed the referendum petition yet?
Of course if the state does continue to own 51% of the shares AND keeps a majority control of the board(Has Key and co guaranteed that?)
Yes, it’s in written in to the MOM Bill.
http://yournz.org/2012/06/21/politicians-journalists-and-bloggers-fix-mom-bill/
@ Pete G
Oh, so easy to introduce legislation to change the majority control. We need a hands on heart promise that NONE of the PRESENT CABINET would EVER ALLOW ‘Change of the state majority situation “on their watch”‘ Still would you believe them ?
Paul B – I believe that for this term, what we have is the maximum that will happen – they might struggle to complete the programme, but there’s nothing to indicate it will exceeded.
I don’t think any MP should have to commit 100% to anything for their entire career. MPs should be able to adjust their views to changing times and needs.
OK so what are Labour doing to stop asset sales? Making noise and letting it go through anyway is a cop out – you do nothing but get to tell everyone afterwards that you did.
Threaten to buy back or cancel shares for goodness sake. You are long overdue to regulate pricing in the power industry anyway so why not make a big noise and scare buyers away?
@ Pete G,
I take your point that we can all change our mind, AND that the Cabinet will not permit loss of control of our energy infrastructure ‘THIS term’ – ie JUST 2 yrs or so!!!
It is ONLY the public belief that the govt intends to retain majority ownership indefinately that is preventing much,much greater protest!
My concern is that the cabinet secretly INTENDS to ‘lose’
control but are not telling us that. John Key, may have STATED (” not during my watch”), but he will quite likely be ‘gone Hawaii’ soon – when he realises that the ‘right’ will probably be dumped come 2014 or earlier -(of course, Banks and consequently the govt, should really be history today!- unless the Maori party would truely compromise its principles) See the Dompost editorial today
Remember Key has said he is not interested in leading an opposition.
Pete G .. on this issue the Cabinet should guarantee long term security of State control. Of course, they probably realiize that the 51% state holding is a fatally ‘conflicted model’ which will soon enough require modification to be workable . I might suggest that they have even planned that deliberately?
YES, the cabinet must ALL promise that they intend that the State will absolutely control our essential energy infrastucture long term !
Fortunately we now seem to have a slight delay while water backs up behind the Maori ‘dam’!
Did Labour submit a bill entrenching the Bill of Rights? No.
Did Labour submit a bill entrenching the Electoral Act? No.
Did Labour submit a bill entrenching the Treaty of Waitangi? No.
Did Labour submit a bill entrenching the Judicature Act? No.
Did Labour submit a bill entrenching the Constitution Act? Nope.
Did Labour submit a bill entrenching state ownership of some corporations? Yup.
Labour is acting like the Mixed Ownership Model is the end of the world. Heck, the revenue from the assets being sold doesn’t even pay the interest on our government debt! That’s how small the sale is. This is not an issue we should be seriously changing our constitution over.
Seriously, get a grip!
I hate the thought of Kiwi Rail being sold. The government wrote to us in April 2012 to ask if it could increase fares and rates for train and bus fares. According to them, this would cover the cost of revamping our ticket machines. If they do want to generate extra revenue I recommend they reduce ticket prices, improve connectivity and increase the frequency of buses and trains, especially during rush hour. This is my reasoning.
•In some cases we wait half an hour for the next bus or train. If someone misses a bus, the next best option isn’t to wait for the next bus but to take the car or miss the appointment.
•As for ticket prices – bus and train tickets are already too expensive in NZ and to increase those even further to fund this project might defeat the aim of the project to generate revenue. Why? With increased prices fewer people might find the services a cheaper option than their cars – which would be bad for the environment; it would become prohibitive for the poor. Reduced fares would be the best incentive for people to leave their cars at home. The savings on huge car-parking fees would be an added bonus. And most important,
•the revenue for the project would be generated through higher volumes of commuters.
To improve connectivity I propose they not only increase the frequency of the service but have mini buses plying between bus stops, the train stations and office blocks. These could be run by the car park attendants who would be out of a job if more of us left our cars at home.
To my mind, a win-win-win for the public, the public transport agencies and the government!
These, to my mind, are the obvious pros for my suggestion and I have no doubts there will be quite a few cons. Unless a discussion is initiated I’ll never know.
The increased volume of commuters is what will generate the revenue for modernising.
@ Thomas You say that the sale of the assets is of no consequence becuse…..”the revenue from the assets does not even cover the interest payment on our debt. That is how small the sale is.”
SURELY Thomas,… that is a compelling reason why we should not trade away near half control of our clean future energy infrastructure just as the world is beginning to clamour for clean energy! The part asset sales are a disgusting attempt to pass very significant control to parties just interested in private or corporate profit . It is crazy and far more irresponsible than the sale of Telecom which also was sold just prior to huge profit gains – but that sale was only ‘technology and copper’ and could be duplicated.
Sale of essential fixed energy assets permanently placed in prime locations is an attempt to transfer the peoples assets to just some for their profit alone. It is unconscionable behavior by a morally derelict party hellbent on advantaging its own supporters, without consideration for future generations of New Zealanders!
Are you intending to by shares Thomas?
I have tried more than once to get someone to come to my house so I can sign the petition and still nobody has turned up. I rand Phil Goffs office twice. Are you sure his staff aren’t right wingers?