Red Alert

Archive for the ‘privatisation’ Category

Will experience rating stop workplace deaths?

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 15th, 2010

I don’t think so.

Nick Smith has announced he will be implementing a new experience rating scheme under ACC  saying that this will bring down our high rates of workplace deaths and injuries. He’d better be sure of that, because hardly anyone else is.

The evidence suggesting that experience rating sends a signal to employers and incentivises safer behaviour is tenuous and unproven at best. Most researchers have been cautious about crediting experience rating for lowering overall actual injury rates. Experience rating can provide an incentive for injury under-reporting and employers are more likely to dispute whether personal injuries are work-related and therefore, contribute to its claims record.

Experience rating is a concept from private insurance where the events to be insured against and the potential size of the losses must be measurable and defined clearly. But workplace health and safety can be complex and responsibility hard to apportion. An experience rating approach assumes that costs can be sheeted home to those who are responsible for them and there is no cross-subsidisation, yet our ACC scheme is based on the principle of ‘community responsibility’, where cross-subsidisation can and does occur because :

  • one person’s job often depends on another person’s job making responsibility hard to allocate.
  • an injury that occurs in one environment (eg work) might be aggravated or caused by an injury that occurs in another environment (eg sport).
  • in many cases neither the employer nor the worker can influence the outcome.

Nick’s racing ahead with this, along with his secret “Stocktake” on privatising the work account, even although his officials told him that it would take two years to design an experience rating scheme, and before that more research should be done.

I’m already getting an increased number of ACC cases through my Northcote office due to the changes the government’s made to ACC. I reckon there’s a lot more to come.


Is this what we call ambitious for NZ?

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 13th, 2010

Judith Collins is boasting about the economic benefits of a new private prison at Wiri, South Auckland.  She says the prison will generate $1.2 billion in economic activity over 30 years (yes, that’s 30 years). Something for the people of South Auckland to really look forward to.

I’m not proud that NZ already locks up more people (other than the USA) in any country in the OECD. But it looks like we’re going to need more prisons because of the NActs lock-em-up and throw-away-the-key policies that they’ve been steadily introducing since they became government.

In fact, if we look at parliamentary time spent since the NActs became government, I would guess that more than 50% has been spent on “being tough on crime”, while meantime, programmes for families  - programmes that will ensure our children and families are supported and valued are being cut.

I think we’ve lost the plot if we think economic opportunities lie in locking more people up. This is not going to improve the quality of life for all New Zealanders, let alone lower inequalities.

But I do know who will be doing well out of this.  Private foreign owners of prisons.

John Key said he was ambitious for New Zealand.

Ambitious to become the prison centre of the world?


Owning our own stuff

Posted by Clare Curran on June 21st, 2010

Classic quote from John Key tonight on TV3 commenting on the poll which resoundingly rejected the sale of Kiwibank and other state assets.

“There’s been a long history of demonising asset sales in New Zealand,” said John.

So JK, does that mean you think asset sales are good? And that the view that we should own our own stuff is demonic?

I know which side I’m on mate. And I don’t feel like a demon.

But I’m interested to know (if you’ve been stymied on selling off our assets)  how you’re going to continue to pay for tax cuts, while refusing to invest in kiwi jobs.


A bit of a stretch

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 17th, 2010

I sat through all of the hearings on Gerry Brownlee’s Electricity Industry Bill. A lot of submitters questioned his plan to take Tekapo A and B power stations off Meridian Energy and give them to Genesis Energy (both state-owned SOEs). The Institute of Professional Engineers argued that it could lead to less efficient use of water as competing generators tried to maximise their competitive positions against each other. The Treasury argued in a written submission to the Minister that there wasn’t a robust business case / analysis. Unfortunately the National MPs chose to block Treasury from appearing before the Select Committee to explain their concerns.

This morning Gerry Brownlee appeared before the Commerce Select Committee to discuss the estimates for Vote Energy. I took the opportunity to ask him what his basis was for concluding that the asset swap was a good idea. He claimed that because there had been several dry years in the past decade there was evidence that Meridian hadn’t been managing the Waitaki water catchment efficiently. Basically he tried to blame the lack of rain in the South Island on Meridian. I know they are the biggest generator, but I don’t think their market power extends to controlling the weather.

State Owned Enterprises aren’t toys. They’re multi-million dollar enterprises. Any changes the government makes need to be based on robust business cases and rigorous analysis. Gerry Brownlee hasn’t done that. Former National Party Minister Max Bradford made a real hash of his power sector reforms of the 1990s – which led to huge increases in prices. Sadly for price-wary Kiwis, Gerry Brownlee and National appear to have learned nothing from their past mistakes.


Honest John

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 4th, 2010


Stupid John

Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 2nd, 2010

Above John Key saying National would never sell Kiwibank.

Below John Key denying he said it.

Stupid. Liar.


BUDGET 2010: Jigsaw Pieces Click

Posted by David Cunliffe on June 1st, 2010

The jigsaw pireces of the Budget are starting to click in the public mind if recent polls are any indication.  In the last week :

  • The IMF described NZ’s savings gap and net international indebtedness as “among the largest of any advanced nation”
  • Analysis shows a $9.2bn additional fiscal hole in the Budget by 2023 arising from the tax changes
  • Budget documents show expenditure as a % of GDP falling from 33% to 28%
  • Bill English floats Kiwibank sale as one example of a number of SOEs ripe for partial privatisation.

In other words: give away taxes up front (very largely to their mates); run an out year deficit (deliberately); compress spending (as ‘prudence ” then demands); and flog off what is left of the family silver to fill the remaining gap (dressed up as mum and dad savings products, of course).

What does all this mean for the average Kiwi?

  • despite the govt spin, they are worse off for the next four years at least due to the toxic cocktail of GST, inflation, other govt charges and taxes, and slow wage growth;
  • public services like Heatlh and Early Childhood Education will be slashed as new spending lags inflation ($300m short in Health) or deliberate policy changes bite;
  • the outlook for public services gets dramatically worse as the National Party tries to resize the state to 28% of GDP – although they won’t want to talk much about that before the election;
  • the underlying economic problems reamin unresolved and get more intractable over time.   There is no credible plan for growth and jobs.

Moral of story: do NOT let National get a second term   Stop the malign juggernaut before it does irrepairable damage.


Transparency – we can do more

Posted by Trevor Mallard on May 28th, 2010

I’ve just had a set of answers to written parliamentary questions back from Key in which he refuses to list the occasions on which Ministers have declared an interest in Cabinet or Cabinet Committee matters.

He claims that continues a previous practice. I’m not sure if that is correct. I for one was never asked.

If Ministers have acted properly and  declared interests then that forms part of the Cabinet minute. Or sometimes they are given a warning that an item is coming up and they leave the room.

Some of us have non-pecuniary interests that we work through with the Cabinet Office or in my case SSC and the Treasury.  I wasn’t given papers – including policy papers – in areas I was conflicted.

Seemed to work pretty well. I would have no problem with the fact that I acted properly being public.

To take a contrary view doesn’t look flash.

Maybe it is another issue for #OpenLabourNZ.


Kiwibank CEO resigns

Posted by David Cunliffe on May 26th, 2010

Bill English has got more explaining to do now than when John Key rang to tear strips off him after his gaffe on selling KiwiBank last Friday.

English was clearly guilty of saying what he really thought when there were no cameras in the room (sounds like an earlier National Party conference remark.)  Unfortunately there were print journos taking notes.  Ooops.

This morning Kiwbank’s highly regarded CEO Sam knowles announced his resignation.

We do not know why yet.

It may be coincidence that just days after the MOF says he wants to flog off the Bank, which has grown amazingly well within NZ Post Group and is now a significant competitive force in the market, its excellent CEO resigns.

It may be coincidence that John Key was apparently furious with English after Friday’s loose lips blew a hole in the Govt’s post budget spin, and spent much of the last two days in damage control.   The issue has reportedly widened the gap between the Beehive’s 9th (PM) and 7th (MOF) floors.

This is a gathering storm.

The economics of retaining KiwiBank in public hands are overwhelming.

The issue demonstrates with crystal clarity that the Govt has not got a strategic clue about our long term financial future.  We MUST have a stake in our financial system.  It is only some 7% of the market but it is crucial to assist the competitive dynamics and local capital formation.

Just how much pressure was put on Key, by whom?  On English in the last week?  On Knowles?  Over what period?

One thing is clear – the Govt has enraged 700,000 plus loyal cutomers of KiwiBank who CHOSE to belong.  My email is running white hot.

The Govt now has serious governance questions to deal with amidst the resignation of a stellar CEO.

Watch this space.


Total public spending as a share of GDP – NZ low

Posted by Stuart Nash on May 8th, 2010

Finance Minister Bill English has gone on about how high NZ’s total public spending is – that we have a bloated public sector that needs surgery to remove $1.8b of so called waste.

Is this the reality?  You decide.  The OECD has categorised total public spending as a share of GDP [2004 - 07 average] into low (below 40%), medium (41-49%) and high (50% and above).

At 38.9%, NZ is in the ‘low’ category, with only 6 countries spending less than us.  These include the US at 36.7% (would you want their so-called public health system..?) and Japan at 36.9% (and who would want their long term macro-economic troubles).  The OECD average is 43.6%. There are 20 countries that spend more than NZ.  These include UK (43.9%), Germany (45.8%), Sweden (54.4%).  Spain spends less than NZ, thus proving that a low state sector budget does not necessarily insulate against major economic woes.    

So come on Mr English – NZ’s total public spending is not out of control by international standards – this is just rhetoric designed to soften NZers up for wholesale slash and burn policies.  Ouch.!


Of course it’s not privatisation…

Posted by Phil Twyford on May 7th, 2010

Tom Scott Rodney

Yesterday in Question Time, Rodney Hide wasn’t there, so Associate Local Government Minister John Carter answered questions from Brendon Burns and me about the Government’s water privatisation bill.

And for the first time we got a straight answer from the Government. When I asked: Does the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill allow private ownership of water infrastructure for up to 35 years?, John Carter said yes.

Could these two things be related?


When is water privatisation not water privatisation?

Posted by Phil Twyford on April 30th, 2010

Answer: When the government says it’s not.

Water privatisation is on the agenda with the tabling in the House yesterday of Rodney Hide’s local government amendment bill.

The bill will allow private companies to own water infrastructure (dams, pipelines, treatment plans, you name it) for up to 35 years.  Although curiously the bill’s explanatory notes and the Government’s press statement explains this is not privatisation. Yeah right!

If 35 years isn’t privatisation, how long would a dam have to be in private ownership before the Government conceded it was privatisation? 50? 100? Help me out here.

The provisions are designed to encourage public private partnerships (PPPs) which internationally have become the favoured mechanism for privatisation of municipal water in recent years.  And in particular BOOT schemes (Build, Own, Operate and Transfer). The Local Government Act 2002 limits contracting out of water services to a period of 15 years and prohibits private ownership of municipal water infrastructure – both those will go under Hide’s bill.

Hide says the current provisions in the Local Government Act prohibiting the sale of Council water assets still apply. They would continue to apply to existing assets but not to new ones built under the new regime.

Alongside the desire to open up municipal water to private control, is another provision which would repeal the current obligation of councils to consult the public before contracting out public services to the private sector.

The Prime Minister stands up in Parliament and says “there is no privatisation agenda” as he did this week. But his Government is removing the democratic safeguards against privatisation of local government assets.  The other example currently before the House is the third super city bill’s repeal of the requirement for a majority approval in a binding referendum before the Ports of Auckland can be sold.

Put the privatisation and contracting out agenda alongside Key’s corporatisation of Auckland local government by handing over 75% of the city’s operations and assets to hand picked commercial boards, and it is pretty easy to see what National-ACT are doing  to local government.

The bill contains a number of other elements we’ll be considering closely in the coming days: reducing councils’ obligations to consult the community, some requirement to focus on so-called core services (although most of Hide’s nutty core services and mandatory referenda ideas did not get through Cabinet), financial transparency and pre-election reporting.  The bill could get its first reading as early as Tuesday.


Key stumbles and bumbles on Auckland

Posted by Phil Twyford on April 27th, 2010

John Key was unimpressive in question time today. He seemed unable to defend his Government’s policy on Auckland. Jet lag after Gallipoli maybe? Missing his hoodie? Or just a hard policy to defend?

Following his major speech yesterday setting out our plan for Auckland, Phil Goff asked the Prime Minister some straightforward questions that Aucklanders are asking:

Hon Phil Goff: Why is he giving the Auckland Transport Agency, which is unelected, the right to pass by-laws, but is denying that power to the elected local boards?

Hon John Key: Because we think it makes sense for the agency to be able to set some initial parameters in relation to the local boards, and that is because, over time, they need to reflect those communities. As that system plays out, I am sure that the Auckland Council will set new policies there.

What?!  It didn’t get much better. Phil went on to ask:

Why is he imposing council-controlled organisations on Auckland City when every other city in this country is able to make that decision for itself?

Why is the Government repealing the requirement for Auckland City to get the consent of Aucklanders by referendum before any privatisation of the Ports of Auckland can take place?

Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the advice given to him by four Government departments, the Auckland mayors as a group, the Auckland chamber of commerce, and the vast majority of submissions to the select committee that the transport agency should be an in-house operation and not one that is passed across to a commercial council-controlled operation?

You can see Key’s answers here in text and in video. What do you think of them?


The dangers of privatising the public service

Posted by Grant Robertson on April 26th, 2010

As she often does Tapu Misa hits the nail on the head in her column in the Herald this morning (as noted by Tracey in the comments on an earlier post.)

Tapu notes

The idea that business does it better and more cheaply is an article of faith for many proponents of privatisation.The cynical among us remember that before bailouts became fashionable in the rest of the world, we had our own taxpayer rescues: Air New Zealand, BNZ, TransRail.

The ‘left’ are often criticised by the ‘right’ about a public is good, private is bad philosophy, but the reverse is equally common. I mentioned this last week in the context of private prisons. Despite evidence that private prisons have not delivered in terms of savings, both here and overseas, the mantra still seems to be that the private sector must be able to do it better.

Tapu’s article finishes

The public service has its faults, but while the line between public and corporate interests may have become blurred, important differences remain. As a former comptroller of the US, David Walker noted in 2007: “There’s something civil servants have that the private sector doesn’t. And that is the duty of loyalty to the greater good – the duty of loyalty to the collective best interest of all rather than the interests of a few. Companies have duties of loyalty to their shareholders, not the country.”

This is the key, especially when it comes to core issues like health, education, prisons and the like. Where the government is funding, they should be provided for the well-being and safety of the many, not for the profit of the few.


Uh-oh – here it comes

Posted by Darien Fenton on April 26th, 2010

As predicted by Labour, it looks like the government is getting ready to privatise areas of ACC.

An interim report from the ACC stocktake working group has said that opening up parts of ACC’s business to competition is workable. Minister Nick Smith was given the report a few days ago, but he’s keeping quiet so far.

National made a deal with ACT that in exchange for support for their last miserly ACC bill, passed recently, the government would open ACC to competition.

Anyone who experienced the disaster the last time ACC was opened up to private insurance companies will be steeling themselves up for a repeat of the terrible experiences of workers, health professionals and even employers.

The only people who benefited from National’s last foray into the privatisation of ACC were Australian financial institutions and the lawyers called in to fight legal battles. One of the major workplace insurance providers, HIH, later collapsed owing $1 billion.

Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric the government will use. What they call “opening up of ACC to competition” is actually “privatisation”.

National sees ACC and workers’ injuries and livelihoods as a tradeable commodity. Labour doesn’t.

We have said we will reverse any privatisation of ACC, but in the meantime, it’s coming our way.


School PPPs won’t last under Labour

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 16th, 2010

I’ve looked at PPPs. They might have their place. But it isn’t for state schools.

Our schools are already designed by the private sector. They are built by the private sector. Unlike many other countries we don’t have a Ministry of Works anymore.

The only advantage to government in having state schools owned privately is that they are off the books and our debt looks lower. Smoke and mirrors stuff.

And it costs the private sector more to borrow to finance the buildings than they state. And they have to make a profit.

So we as taxpayers pay more.

Can’t blame Infratil and the Superfund for looking to invest in this area. Very good deal for them. Money for jam. Guaranteed margin.

But lets make it clear. Labour will develop a clear policy position on this. It will involve unwinding the contracts – using legislation if necessary. As with ACC in the past and if there is another privatisation.

And my view is that policy will involve compensation for the value of the bricks and mortar but not for the overheads and tender costs.

So be warned – don’t spend up on getting these deals together.


Will the Minister explain?

Posted by Phil Twyford on April 7th, 2010

Marty G at The Standard helpfully points out a $2295 -a-head conference on “Local Government Asset Management” where Local Government Minister Rodney Hide is the keynote speaker.  Later in the morning after Mr Hide’s speech is a session for which the blurb reads:

Privatisation is a contentious issue due to amendments in the Local Government Act 2002. Water will be the first area of local government which will move towards privatisation but what about the rest of local government controlled functions? What will the impacts be on asset management if more functions become commercialised in the future?

Hang on, I thought there was no privatisation agenda for local government?

That’s right, I remember.

The Government’s third super city bill repeals the requirement for a majority in a binding referendum before the Ports of Auckland can be sold.

The move to transfer 75% of the super city assets into council owned companies will exempt them from the Local Government Act requirement for public consultation before strategic assets can be sold.  So after the two year moratorium designed to ensure no asset sales before the 2011 election, a future Auckland Council could flog off the airport and ports shares without consulting the public.

The Government’s announced plans to free up the safeguards against privatisation of water will allow private ownership of water infrastructure for up to 35 years.

Maybe the Minister will use his conference speech to explain whether these moves amount to a privatisation agenda?


Serious Fraud functions to be privatised?

Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 5th, 2010

Today’s Herald editorial states the obvious in its headline

Criminals win if SFO changes mishandled

The Serious Fraud Office has always had problems of scale.  Richard Prebble’s policy was to “strengthen” it by merging with the Police back in 1993. It was looked at again about ten years ago.

I’ve worked closely with SFO Director Adam Feeley both when he worked in Crown Minerals and then on Eden Park. He is a smart guy. I’ve also had a bit to do with a couple of the people from Meredith Connell. They are good at their job.

But isn’t the question whether we want to retain and build prosecution capabilty within the SFO. It is specialist work and takes years to get on top of.

I just don’t understand why Judith Collins wants to privatise the prosecution function.


National’s neglect of rail

Posted by Chris Hipkins on March 9th, 2010

Wellington commuters who regularly use our local trains live with the day to day realities of the last National government’s disastrous decision to privatise what was then NZ Rail. Between its sale and eventual buy-back in 2008, very little was spent on upgrading or even maintaining rail services. Some of the trains running on Wellington’s rail lines are literally museum pieces.

The last Labour government started to repair some of that damage. For example the new trains that will start arriving in Wellington later this year were purchased only after central government stumped up most of the cash. The problems that have plagued our local trains over recent months are largely due to the huge backlog of maintenance and upgrading that’s now being done. Had it been done over the past decade and a half we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.

Like a lot of Wellingtonians, I’m disappointed the new National-led government seem to have so little faith in rail. From the outside looking in it seems as though they want it to fail so that they can carve it up, sell it off, or close it down. They’re now talking about closing down regional lines, what a sell-out. Freight within NZ is expected to increase by up to 75% in the next 20 years – does National want to see all of that going onto the roads?


I don’t care about compensation. I want a network that works!

Posted by Clare Curran on February 28th, 2010

This is  what I’m hearing from young mothers. From people who rely utterly on their mobile phone and who don’t have a landline. Who don’t have a lot of discretionary income, so texting is the primary form of communication. Who need a working phone to be able to get through their day, juggling children, a job and other family responsibilities.

Telecom’s XT network is a critical piece of new infrastructure. It’s new, it’s supposed to be the future and it should work.

There is now a growing clamour for answers about the XT network and about the 111 service, which is part of what’s called the plain old telephone service (or POTs). In other words, POTs should never break down. It’s part of that institution called the NZ Post Office which Telecom emerged from when it was privatised.

Telecom is now hastily trying to increase the capacity and resilience of the new network which strongly suggests that the new network went live without enough capacity and the degree of resilience required.

The number of outages bears this out and serious questions must be asked of Telecom as to what testing procedures were undertaken before it went to market; whether it was properly funded and whether it has sufficient resilience to give the public confidence in this important piece of new infrastructure.

On TVNZ’s Q&A this morning, Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds kept repeating how angry he was at the outages in the network. I don’t think being angry cuts the mustard any more. He needs to take responsibility and inform the public.

At what point is he going to reveal just what lies behind the network’s fragility? And what does the government have to say on behalf of the New Zealand public? Steven Joyce continues to duck and weave. At some point the public pressure will overtake his reluctance to get involved. I wonder what MED are thinking and what their advice to him is right now?

You are not allowed to put a new car into the marketplace without a rigorous set of tests and without it meeting a set of required safety standards. Nor should you be able to flick the switch on a new mobile network without appropriate testing.

Telecom’s got some serious explaining to do. I think the Government should be demanding answers. I worry that consumers like the mum who told me she just wants a network that works doesn’t seem to have a voice.

Who is representing consumers here? Seems like a big gaping hole to me.