Is anyone else surprised that National devoted their launch to talking about asset sales, a policy that the Sunday Star Times tell us this morning only 14% of the population support? And to top that off, they tried to dress up a previously announced money-go-round as some kind of new fund. We have been saying asset sales is the defining issue of the election, good to see National making sure it is.
Red Alert
Posts Tagged ‘asset sales’
Everyone’s talking about asset sales, including National
Posted by Grant Robertson on October 30th, 2011State Assets- Bargains Flying out the Door
Posted by Grant Robertson on August 28th, 2011A window to the future if a National led- government is elected….
Kiwis want to own our future
Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 23rd, 2011Tonight TV3 revealed the results of a poll that asked New Zealanders about substantive issues and the results were revealing. New Zealanders overwhelmingly prefer the introduction of a capital gains tax over the sale of state assets.
53 percent opted for a capital gains tax while only 31 percent of respondents wanted to see state assets sold. Even amongst National’s own supporters, one in three prefer the policies that Labour is promoting.
National’s sales pitch for asset sales hasn’t convinced anyone. Kiwis know that once the assets are sold, they’re gone forever. They also know that the shares will probably end up being owned overseas, and we’ll be waving goodbye to more and more of the profits.
John Key’s assertion that it will be “different this time” rings a little hollow when even his own Finance Minister publicly admits there is no way they can stop the shares ending up in foreign ownership.
This election is a clear choice between owning our own future or selling off whatever is left to the highest bidder and becoming tenants in our own country. Labour’s got a lot of work to do over the next three months, but I’ll be proud to be out there campaigning under the banner of a party that’s willing to make the bold calls and do what’s right for the future of our country.
Meanwhile at the National Party Conference
Posted by Grant Robertson on August 15th, 2011While there has been a lot of coverage of the cynical welfare policy announcement from the National Party Conference, there has been a bit less attention on the fact that even National Party members have major concerns about the selling of our public assets.
On the Saturday of the conference, which by the sounds of things Captain Panic Pants and friends wanted to be a total non event, Bill English was taken on about whether assets would actually stay in Kiwi hands. Just how he would ensure this has been the subject of numerous questions in Parliament, but Bill revealed his hand to the delegates.
His answers are incredibly waffly and weak, and the second questioner in the video even says he is not convinced by English’s answer to the first question. Basically he said he could not guarantee that assets will stay in New Zealand hands, does not know how so-called Mums and Dads will be at the front of the queue and even said that they will not finalise how this will happen until after the election.
The problem with that is the “keeping assets in NZ” pledge is a critical part of the policy. The reality is it will not happen, and English has now acknowledged this. New Zealanders don’t like asset sales because they know just how much value has been lost from them over the years, and we want to keep key infrastructure in New Zealand hands. The Nats sale plans are bad economics and bad politics, and even their members know it!
With Labour, we will own our future, and keep public assets in the ownership of all New Zealanders.
What others are saying
Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 16th, 2011It’s been a good week for Labour. We’ve put forward a bold policy agenda that will protect our valuable state assets whilst also setting us on the path towards a brighter future. It’s ambitious and highlights the contrast between Labour’s visionary approach and National’s total lack of a plan.
John Armstrong’s column in the NZ Herald notes that Labour’s policy is driven by a desire to do the right thing and get the economy moving again, unlike National’s approach of trying not to scare the horses by doing nothing:
National concedes that Labour’s promotion of the tax was always going to get the tick of approval from some economists, think tanks and academics. National did not count on that endorsement being so strong. The endorsement has come from across the political spectrum, thereby making Goff’s push for the tax look less political and motivated more by what might be in the national interest.
Over on Stuff, Andrea Vance argues that Labour has taken the lead:
…Labour has seized the moment. There comes a tide in the affairs of politics and this time Goff, Cunliffe et al have caught it…pitched against an asset selloff, a CGT looks to many like the lesser of two evils…
On TV3’s The Nation Colin James says that Key and National have “miscued”:
They’ve attacked things that aren’t in it, and attacked things that are in it that they said aren’t in it, and John Key talked about it being a ‘dagger through the heart of the economy’ and I thought Russell Norman in Parliament was able to skewer him on that, he quoted the OECD, he quoted the Treasury, he quoted Australia, and I think National just miscued, it didn’t handle it nearly as well…
Earlier in the week, Rob Salmond posted an interesting piece on Pundit correcting some of Key’s mythical claims:
If John Key is determined to measure a person’s welcome in New Zealand only through tax rates, then the conclusion is clear. High income earners are more “welcome” here than in any of the country Mr Key aspires us to be like… The CGT discussion so far has been a bit surreal. Labour starts a debate about tax policy, traditionally a strong area for National and ACT. In response, National becomes a fact-free zone and ACT retreats into an internecine war over the appropriate degree of their race-baiting.
Blogger Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn, often critical of Labour for not being bold enough, nails it:
The numbers stack up. This is not a spendthrift plan to just keep on borrowing. Instead, its a cautious, sensible, fiscally conservative plan to balance the government’s books by closing a serious tax loophole. And we don’t have to sell anything to do it. Labour is now presenting a clear alternative to the government’s policies: either we can sell the family silver and see the profits go offshore, while trying to cut our way out of recession – or we can pay off our debts and support our government services by making the wealthy pay their fair share. Put like that, its really a no-brainer.
Meanwhile Fran O’Sullivan questions whether John Key has the gravitas to deal with the challenges we face:
All New Zealanders know Key has fulfilled his childhood dream by becoming Prime Minister of our small nation. But does he really have serious aspirations for his prime ministership? Or even New Zealand?
One gets the feeling that Key and his Ministers quite like their ministerial BMWs and have forgotten why they’re allowed to ride around in them. We certainly don’t hear them talking about being “ambitious for New Zealand” very much these days.
On a lighter note: Fry and Laurie
Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 16th, 2011A friend posted this on my Facebook wall, thought given some of the discussion over the past week it might lighten the mood a little.
Selling power companies will put prices up
Posted by Trevor Mallard on April 2nd, 2011Went to the local supermarket yesterday morning – took even longer than normal probably because the clientele were double the normal average age, moving slowly and keen to chat.
Quite an animated discussion ( not argument because not one took a contrary point of view ) developed with a small group who were very concerned at the effect of putting power companies into the hands of foreign bankers.
Very strong views were expressed that the government held shares on behalf of all Kiwis, that the dams had been built by the old Electricity Department using taxpayers money, that we had paid for them several times over as power prices went up, and they weren’t John Key’s to sell.
Unanimous that foreign owners would try and milk every last cent out of them and that would mean higher prices and fewer people employed to do maintenance.
Business leader opposes asset sales
Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 28th, 2011Great column from Selwyn Pellett, a business leader who is involved in the high tech area.
Firstly, the justification for the plan is invalid or at least greatly exaggerated. New Zealand doesn’t have anything like the same Crown (government) debt as Portugal, Spain, Iceland or Greece. The combination of private sector debt — via our foreign banks — and Crown debt is unacceptably high at around 90% of GDP. However the difference in New Zealand’s case is that a greater proportion of our debt is private sector debt. A default on this debt impacts on the balance sheets of foreign banks not the New Zealand government.
Our Crown debt is, by global standards, still low. Lumping these two types of debts together, as the Prime Minster is doing to attempt to justify this policy, is at best mischievous and at worst dishonest.
and
The dividend stream that flowed out of Telecom – and indeed out of the country – would have been enough to see our broadband infrastructure in place a decade ago, with all the positive effects on GDP growth. Telecom’s ability to extract monopolistic pricing effectively became a foreign tax on all New Zealanders and a handbrake on our economic development.
>
Sell the Donkey
Posted by Grant Robertson on January 27th, 2011For those who have not seen the Herald today, Emmerson’s take on asset sales.
Mums, Dads and other spin
Posted by Grant Robertson on January 27th, 2011Its always interesting the morning after a big announcement to look at the spin and lines that get trotted out. National pay a lot of attention to this stuff, and Crosby Textor and Mr Joyce have been working hard to get their lines and their “independent” commentators out there. Let’s just look at a few examples:
“Selling assets will give Mum and Dad investors a chance to get a stake”. Well, to start with Kiwi Mums and Dads already have a stake in them, since along with the rest of us Kiwis they already own them. For a large number of Mums and Dads they are worried about paying the power bill, not owning the company.
As an aside I find the omnipresence of Mark Weldon talking about how good this will be is hilarious. Mark is the CE of the NZ Stock Exchange, I kind of expect he might like the idea. Its in the same vein as bank economists being put up as the commentators on interest rates. Just a slight vested interested there.
“This will not increase power prices” So, what exactly will the new investors in these companies be looking for? A warm feeling of social responsibility? No, presumably a profit, which won’t exactly be helped by lowering power prices. There is a discussion to be had about how we best leverage our collective ownership of these assets, and whether the dividend policy needs to change to help address power prices, but I am damn sure that wont happen by selling them off.
“We have to sell assets and further slash government expenditure because we have a huge debt problem” Where to start? Perhaps where John Key said “we don’t have a debt problem, we have a growth problem.” Of course any government needs to be a prudent manager of the economy, but the truth is that our debt is quite different from the PIGS. Their problem is soaring government debt. In New Zealand the National Party inherited zero net government debt. It has increased under National’s watch, but even still not to the point of being anything like the PIGS.
If we are in such a parlous state, perhaps its time for John Key to look in the mirror, Two Budgets with tax cuts targeted at the wealthy and no economic recovery plan. Time for National to take some responsibility.
“Which schools and hospitals would you not build if we did not do this” Utter nonsense. This is pure spin developed to meet the polling results that New Zealanders want to see better investment in education and health. Investing in schools and hospitals is a priority totally seperate from the ownership of SOEs.
But my favourite piece of spin comes directly from the PMs speech
I am convinced that Air New Zealand would not be run as well, nor provide as good a service to customers if it was owned 100% by the government
Let’s remember Air New Zealand was bailed out by the 5th Labour Government after it was driven into the ground by its private owners. A bailout incidentally opposed by National at the time. For New Zealand a functioning airline is essential, and it was highly at risk without government involvement. As it happens I think one of the reasons Air New Zealand has been innovative is that it has had the security of government ownership.
There is more, and feel free to contribute any other myths and spin in the comments.
A clear dividing line
Posted by Grant Robertson on January 26th, 2011From time to time someone will ask me if there is any real difference between Labour and National. For me the answer has been, and is, obvious. But the last two days should leave no one in any doubt.
From Phil, on behalf of Labour we saw yesterday a vision for an economy where we all pay our fair share, combined with a plan to actually grow the economy through a focus on R and D, skills, savings and protecting our assets and where government works as a partner with businesses.
Today from John Key we have seen a retro 90s style recipe of asset sales and slashing government spending. As my colleague Moana Mackey said if a definition of madness is doing the same thing over again but expecting different results, then John Key and National are positively bonkers. As another colleague Charles Chauvel said this morning, there is no plan for increasing Kiwi wealth, just for selling off what we already own.
It was interesting today another leader gave his State of the Union Address. There were lots of interesting lines in the Obama speech. His call to respect the teaching profession being one. But I was also struck by this
Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact.
To extend the metaphor further than it probably should be, John Key’s plan is to remove the engine and sell off a wing and half the seats and hope that the plane keeps going, ours is to fix the engine, make the plane fly higher and faster and make sure there are seats on it for everyone. That’s the difference.
The test is how the public will view these different visions. Interesting to see that as at early this afternoon the (obviously highly unscientific) Herald and Stuff on-line polls which do not tend to favour Labour were 2/3rds against asset sales and 2/3 for first $5000 being tax free respectively. It’s sure going to be an interesting year.
Owning our own stuff
Posted by Clare Curran on June 21st, 2010Classic 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.
English – Assets for sale next term – Kiwibank first on block
Posted by Stuart Nash on May 22nd, 2010Well, at least its out there now – http://tinyurl.com/2c3b273 - Bill English has signalled that assets will be sold if the Nats win another term. First on the block – Kiwibank.
At Labour’s banking inquiry earlier this year, an analyst said that the introduction of Kiwibank had saved New Zealanders about a $1,000,000,000 in interest payments due to competitive pressure it had bought to the market.
Selling Kiwibank (and other assets) would be a disaster for the country – and is certainly something Labour would never ever contemplate.
The true Nat agenda (as if we didn’t know) is at least not so secret anymore…
The ‘For Sale’ signs are up again
Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 26th, 2009It seems more than a little coincidental that the National/ACT/Maori Party government have started talking about privatisation in the same week that they announced changes to the Overseas Investment Act to make it easier for foreign investors to buy strategically important NZ assets. The government seems to be following the Roger Douglas mantra of “never waste a good crisis”.
National went to great lengths prior to the election last year to convince New Zealanders that if they elected a John Key government nothing much would change, except of course they would get big fat tax cuts, a promise they clearly had no intention of keeping. It was already becoming clear at the time that the economic going was getting worse, but Bill English continued to insist that large tax cuts could be afforded without any cuts in government spending. He even kept saying things like “New Zealand doesn’t have a debt problem, we have a growth problem”. How quickly he changed his tune once comfortably ensconced on the Treasury benches.
In the past few weeks the government have sent out stalking horses such as the PM’s close confidant Mark Weldon and Treasury Secretary John Whitehead to start re-invigorating the privatisation agenda. It’s now highly likely key strategic assets like Auckland International Airport will end up in the hands of foreign investors, but the even bigger risk ahead is that we could see our electricity infrastructure follow it.
If the government is looking for privatisation targets, the four biggest State Owned Enterprises will be at the top of the list. They are the 3 big electricity generators and NZ Post/Kiwibank. Over the next year to 18 months, we can expect the government to do all it can to undermine public confidence in those companies in an attempt to strengthen their case for hocking them off. The real question is will they have the guts to go to the people at the next election with a transparent privatisation agenda, or will they break their promise before then and start hocking off the family silverware to overseas investors before ordinary Kiwis have a chance to have their say?
