Comments on: Not Yours To Sell

By: jarbury

jarbury — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:24:20 +0000

I do agree that Twyford is perhaps opening a bit of a “can of worms” with this Bill and whether it means Labour is a big fan of referendums after all when it comes to big decisions.

One could argue that privatisation is a special case, considering public opinion is generally against it, yet politicians have often gone ahead regardless. Perhaps a super-majority for the sale or purchase of significant assets would make sense?

By: felix

felix — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:09:57 +0000

Exactly what I was trying to hint at. These are questions of an overarching philosophy of the level of government participation in the economy, the general direction in which the government wants to take the country – questions which are usually answered at elections, not on a case by case basis. A mandate for the general direction is sought by competing parties every three years, not every time an issue pops up.

The trouble is we now have a government who, despite having been elected under a promise of “no asset sales in the first term”, appear to be readying Auckland’s public assets for sale with no such mandate.

This represents, on the issue of public ownership, a direction 180 degrees opposite that signaled by the voters on election day.

You can argue about the technicalities of the wording of the promise and how it leaves plenty of room for interpretation by not defining what constitutes an “asset” (or a “sale” for that matter) and that spending your whole first term setting up the shop is technically not selling anything, but I don’t think the voters of NZ will see it that way. No asset sales means no asset sales, and “not in the first term” means we’ll talk about it later.

In this context, is it any wonder that the concept of government by referendum seems so appealing to so many?

By: Nick C

Nick C — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:17:33 +0000

Can someone please tell me why we need referenda before the council can sell assets, but not before the council can buy assets? Or is this just an ideological bill which makes it hard for government to get smaller and easy for government to get bigger?

By: Zaphod Beeblebrox

Zaphod Beeblebrox — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:44:34 +0000

Absolutely correct- people in glass houses shouldn’t through stones. labour have a chequered history with privatisations.

If, as looks likely, the Transition Authorty appointees force the new council to sell Watercare (which will then be able use whatever charging system it likes), flog off the port and airport and load up the rating system to property value, poor people will have every reason never to trust National and ACT again. This is why Twyford is doing this.

By: Daveski

Daveski — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:17:13 +0000

This is one of those lines of attack that works well in opposition but has flip flop written all over it if Labour gets back into Government.

Why stop at referenda for selling local body assets? Where was Labour’s enthusiasm for “democracy” when it came to buying back Air NZ or KiwiRail? Why not have referenda on tax rates? You can’t choose to be “democratic” only when it suits.

At least Labour seems to have learned a little from Teflon John – it was of course their intention to form a super city that kicked this off (although I do accept that Hide’s approach and changes to the original concept have caused some but not all of the angst). Still, Labour has been very quiet about what it’s actually for, apart from a referendum.

By: the sprout

the sprout — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:14:49 +0000

i didnt want the tiaras and knighthoods either, but to be fair i don’t think i was even asked.

By: Ron

Ron — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:45:20 +0000

Or maybe the discussion should be about referenda as a way of making important government decisions.
I’m not a fan myself because I don’t think our system is good enough at completely informing voters about the issues. So, actually, too many voter decisions are made out of ignorance.
I think our parliamentary process is well set up to deal with that fact.
In the end I don’t believe that – for individual decisions such as assett sales – that just because more people want it then it’s the right thing to do.

By: Lew

Lew — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:29:10 +0000

sprout, yeah. Hide taking point on the supercity is a smart move by Key; the Chinese wall has so far enabled National to escape much of the criticism. Not that it should, but it’s harder to make the criticism stick.

Contrast the s59 repeal, which despite being Bradford’s member’s bill, Labour was still seen to be responsible – even before it was adopted by the government. It resonated with other aspects of the Clark government agenda. That’s what’s needed for the supercity – make it resonate with the things people canonically think of when they think ‘National’. Twyford is doing well leading that charge.

By: illuminatedtiger

illuminatedtiger — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:24:17 +0000

Stop being a troll mike. I think if anyone’s not listening to the voters it’s the NACT coalition. Nobody wanted the Supercity yet they rammed it through anyway, nobody wanted increased spending on private schools at the expense of public schools but it looks like that will be happening too! And lets not forget Rodney Hide and his plans for local governance that if he gets his way will include the wholesale privatization of waters and libraries!

How’s that change feeling New Zealand?

By: the sprout

the sprout — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:18:12 +0000

yeah National and Rodney are totally listening to Aucklanders about the Supershity

By: Lew

Lew — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:13:37 +0000

DtB, the problem was that you argued voters abandoned Labour, not because of things Labour did, but because of things National said. That stretches credulity, and is part of a wider pattern of blame-shifting and excuse-making exhibited by lefties who just feel like Labour was cheated. It wasn’t; it was beaten fair and square.

By: felix

felix — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:57:12 +0000

“If referendums are required to sell assets then shouldn’t they also be required before making investments that will lead to assets being created?”

I think what you’re really asking here is “Should the government own assets?”

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:53:17 +0000

That’s a rather convoluted bit of logic Lew that introduces – stuff that just isn’t there. I certainly never said anything about the electorate feeling that Labour listened. I said that the electorate turned against Labour, at least partially, because of what National was saying about Labour not because of what Labour was saying. Communication only works if it’s two-way and the electorate needed to listen to Labour to know that they were listening.

Where was I being uncritical of Labour? In fact, I’m pretty sure I’m quite critical of Labour. Critical enough not to vote for them at least.

By: NZtony

NZtony — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:43:52 +0000

While John Key goes on

Trips to Hawaia,
Trips to Samoa, dancing
Selling his cast on trademe, and talking about cycle lanes:

Here is what happens to allot of people.

“Dozens of people are suffering really badly. They need a lot of support to get through this sorry mess because they’ve got the financial worries and the loss of security. For some people there’s no hope.”

Gray said local authorities and lawyers who charged huge fees shouldered much of the blame.

“The result is they don’t have enough money to fix their homes and they’re just dying a slow and miserable death in their rotten, defective homes.”

Many were once successful businesspeople who were struggling to cope with the stigma of mental illness. “We’ve got high-profile people in executive jobs who won’t get help because of the stigma of depression – they fear how that will impact on their future and their career,” said Gray.

He knew of one “very well-known businessman” who had been hit particularly hard. “He’s saying ‘I’m tough, but this has just brought me to my knees’.”

Gray wants the Government to put more effort into helping homeowners fix their properties and offer help to people who aren’t eligible to go to the tribunal or can’t afford litigation.

By: felix

felix — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 23:17:11 +0000

Ah I see now. And mike started it.

And yeah, National do seem to be pretty good at being seen to be listening, although as far as I can tell, they’re not.

Maybe they’re just not listening to the same people I am.