Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘PPPs’

MartyG on PPPs

Posted by David Cunliffe on December 2nd, 2010

I guess it’s all in a day’s work, but MartyG on The Standard misintrepeted my position on PPPs in this recent post.

1.  His opposition to PPPs appears to be as blindly ideologically based as National’s blind ideological support for them.  Labour’s policy before and since the last election has been based on providing the best value for New Zealand taxpayers, regardless of ideology. 

2.  The vital point of difference between National and Labour on this issue is that National is committed to the private sector first and foremost, while Labour is committed to providing infrastructure in the way that works best for New Zealanders.

3.  That is why Annette King, when she was Transport Minister, set up a working group to look at the effectiveness of PPPs, particularly in relation to large projects like Waterview. 

4.  Labour has yet to be convinced of the value of PPPs for any particular project, but we are willing to weigh up the evidence. When considering the (de)merits of a potential PPP project we would take a range of critical factors into account.  I mentioned two in my recent speech:

“The project scale must be right and the PPP benefits must outweigh any increase in cost of capital”

5  Marty G and I should agree that this sets a high hurdle, because the Crown can always borrow at lower (sovereign) interest rates.  The offsetting benefits would have to be very clear, large enough in net terms (after deducting overheads like the cost of tolling), and not available by other means (e.g. non-PPP contracting) to clearly outweigh this cost of capital disadvantage.  

6.  It is also obviously necessary that whoever is evaluating a potential PPP for the state has to have the expertise and resources to really test the proposal and establish rigorous accountability.  I have not changed my view that setting a $25 million threshold for compulsory consideration of PPPs by all government departments, as Bill English has done, is ridiculous and bound to lead to bad decisions.

7.  Labour also has a longstanding policy that there needs to be a non-toll alternative before any toll-based transport projects could be approved.   That was reinforced recently in our tighter rules around foreign direct investment in monopoly strategic infrastructure.

8. Labour is not soft on privatisation. Our opposition to private prisons and SOE sales underlines that.  My recent speech explicitly ruled out any dilution of any Crown equity in any state asset or existing subsidiary.  That bright line test restates our strong “no sale’” policy that provides ongoing strong differentiation form National.

Labour is committed to an active and strong state sector.  It takes seriously its responsibility to adopt policies and projects that deliver sustainable value to Kiws.  Clear thinking and evidence-based policy are even more important when funds are tight, if we are going to get this economy going again.


Let us get clear policy on school PPPs

Posted by Trevor Mallard on July 23rd, 2010

A reminder of a previous post on school  PPPs :-

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.


PPP – Put Party Politics aside

Posted by Raymond Huo on July 22nd, 2010

Public Private Partnerships seem to be an obsession of the National Party but I think they would have more success if they concentrated on PPPs of another kind – ‘Put Party Politics’ aside.

Speaking in the House last night I congratulated National’s Jackie Blue for putting forward the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill.

Labour supports this Bill for being a sensible and fitting response to concern in the community over consumer protection. It is about protecting the consumer in the evolving, modern market-place we currently live in. Politicising aside, this is a common sense Bill which addresses real issues and concerns in the community.

My colleague Carol Beaumont also put forward a sensible and much-needed Bill.

Carol’s Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill, more commonly known as the ‘Loan Shark Bill’, aims to protect the most vulnerable people in our community by cracking down on loan sharks.

However, National was unable to put party politics aside and voted down Carol’s Bill in the House last night.

It’s a shame when pieces of legislation that will help the most susceptible people in society are voted down due to party politics. This is a bill that would have prevented many families from getting into mounting debt.

It’s interesting to note the contrast between Carol’s much needed Bill and National’s Paul Quin’s farcical Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill.

I want to congratulate the Attorney General on the opinion he expressed towards Paul Quin’s nonsensical and jumbled attempt at tackling the crime issue in New Zealand.

Mr Quin’s Bill sets out to prevent prisoners who have committed a minor crime the right to vote, if they are detained in prison on Election Day.

Currently, prisoners have to be detained for over three years before they are denied the right to vote. I didn’t realise that for Mr Quin it was such a burning issue in the community that this needed to be altered.

It is unsurprising that the Attorney General stated that Mr Quin’s Bill was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

I want to tell Mr Quin that all New Zealanders are worried about the spiralling crime rate in New Zealand and this Bill is a slap in their face.

These are loud gestures that don’t tackle the real issue. The crime statistics make grim reading since National have taken office.

- There were 451,405 recorded offences in 2009, an increase of 20,002 from 2008

- Violent crime increased by 9.2 percent in 2009

- Domestic Violence increased by 18.6 percent in 2009

- 65 murders were recorded in 2009, 13 more than 2008

For all of the National and ACT’s tough talking, all we got is an increase in crime.

We need real policies, not empty rhetoric. Or we should tell National’s dear leader that PPP matters.


Time to take action against water privatisation

Posted by Phil Twyford on June 7th, 2010

Not content with the damage it has done to Auckland, the National-ACT Government is now turning its sights on local government across the board by opening council water up to privatisation. If you want to fight this, read on.

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill allows private ownership of water infrastructure for up to 35 years.  Much of the initial public debate focused on whether this amounted to privatisation, with the Government arguing that because it wasn’t the permanent disposal of a publicly owned asset then somehow that is not privatisation.

But hey, how long would the contract need to be for it to qualify as privatisation: 50 years? 100?

The changes are designed to encourage public private partnerships (PPPs): long term contracting arrangements in which corporations will often build, own, and operate a waste water plant for example and then sell it back to the Council at the end of the contract.

Labour is against privatisation of water supply. It is a natural monopoly. It makes no economic sense to hand it over to the private sector. What’s more, New Zealanders believe water is a human right and its supply should not be driven by the profit motive.

The Government is 20 years behind the curve with this particular economic fad. Water privatisation via PPPs was all the rage internationally in the 1990s but the tide has turned with a wave of cities around the world bringing water back under public control because of dissatisfaction with over-pricing and under-investment. The latest is Paris where city government was elected last year on a platform of terminating contracts with Veolia and Suez and bringing its water supply back into public hands. Ironic given that the French virtually invented the water PPPs, and its two partially-state owned water companies dominate the international market.

Veolia is the parent company of United Water who already have seven contracts to deliver water services in NZ. Fifteen years ago they picked up the contract to run South Australia’s water supply. Three months into the contract Adelaide was engulfed in “the big pong”, an overpowering sewage smell that took three months to fix. An independent inquiry blamed it on equipment failure and lack of monitoring caused by cost cutting.

The Government argues  PPPs will bring private sector capital that will allow cash-strapped smaller councils to invest in much needed water infrastructure.  But they fail to explain that corporations don’t bring their own money to these deals. Ultimately all the costs of this infrastructure have to be paid through rates (or taxes) or user charges. What’s more the corporation has to make a profit. And the cost of capital for private borrowers is almost always more than the Government pays.

If you want to fight this folly, then join the National Day of Action Against Privatisation, this Saturday: details on facebook, and web. There will be a rally outside a town hall near you.

If you are in Auckland come along to this public meeting Wednesday night this week hosted by Labour and the Greens.  You can download this guide to help you make a submission to the select committee. Deadline June 18.

The Bill has other obnoxious features. It repeals the requirement to consult the community before public services are contracted out or corporatised, reduces the obligations on Councils to consult the community more generally, and imposes an arbitrary list of core services that surprise surprise doesn’t include community well-being (pensioner housing for example), economic development, or protection of the environment.

Update: Good article in Vanity Fair on how Big Water is taking over the world. Hat tip: John Whyte