web analytics

Crowd-sourcin’: asset sales question

Written By: - Date published: 11:37 am, February 21st, 2012 - 47 comments
Categories: democratic participation, privatisation, referendum - Tags:

Phil Goff must be feeling slightly odd right now. He campaigned relentless on the ‘own our future’ message for six months and, suddenly, everyone’s talking about it – 3 months too late. Economic sovereignty is suddenly the hot issue with the vast majority of Kiwis opposed to more foreign ownership and asset sales. If an election were held today, there would be no way in hell that asset sales would be able to win a majority in the new Parliament (it still oughtn’t win a majority now if its opponents focus on Peter Dunne and his vulnerable Ohariu seat).

The Nats are in a spin: Key is desperately trying to upgrade English’s numbers on the fiscal impact of asset sales, which he said “is not our best guess – it’s just a guess”, to a “best estimate”. Strange best estimate: you sell parts of five differently sized companies over four years and somehow bring in precisely $1,500 million ($200 million over book value) each year for a nice round total of $6 billion, and the foregone dividend flow is a nice, even 3.3%, which bears no relation to the actual historical dividend flow from these companies. The actual best estimate of asset sales revenue is the one in the PREFU: $3.86 billion – but you can see why Key would want a number more than 50% higher than that, eh?

It’s time for that asset sales referendum petition. There’s still chatter about it happening but nothing definite. It’s hard to understand why – it would be a fantastic mobilising opportunity for political parties, unions, and other activist groups. And a chance for MPs to knock on doors with a 75% chance the person will be on the same side of the issue as them – not often they get that kind of chance to build bonds.

Could be they need a little help. Maybe you can help draft the question.

Here’s the constraints:

  • The wording should be unambiguous but also simple enough to be understood by all
  • The wording in the petition becomes the words of the referendum, so it has to work for both
  • The answer to the referendum that is anti-asset sales should ideally be ‘yes’.

At Standard HQ, also known as The Kingslander, we’ve kicked it around a bit and come up with:

We the undersigned petition the House of Representatives that a referendum be held on the question: Should it be illegal for the government to sell or part sell any state-owned enterprise or any other publicly owned company unless it wins majority support for that sale in a referendum?

I’m sure you can improve on that…

47 comments on “Crowd-sourcin’: asset sales question ”

  1. Lanthanide 1

    That’s a really dumb question, because you’re not asking whether the assets should be sold, you’re asking whether a hypothetical future referendum that asked that question should be obeyed or not.

    I also think trying to construct a question to which the answer “yes” means you’re against asset sales is going to make the wording confusing.

    KISS:
    Do you support the government selling or part-selling any state owned power generation assets in the current fiscal climate?
    Answer: no.

    • Blighty 1.1

      That’s a good question.

      I guess there’s a quesiton of whether the referendum should be seeking a law chagne to stop asset sales, or merely expressing dissent against the policy of asset sales.

      • Blighty 1.1.1

        Problem is your wording doesn’t cover Solid Energy and Air NZ and ‘current fiscal climate’ is pretty loose.

        You can’t say state-owned enterpeises because all they have to do is remove the comapny from schedule 1 of the SOE Act then (which they need to do anyway to sell them. At the same time, you can’t just say ‘assets’ because that includes schools, statehouses, ) and things that governments regularly sell and buy.

        How about;

        Do you support the sale or part-sale of state owned companies by the Government?

        Or

        Should the Government cease its policy of selling shares in state owned companies?

        • Lanthanide 1.1.1.1

          Yes, I deliberately said state-owned power generation assets simply to cut the scope, in particular I don’t mind too much about the sale of Air NZ shares and I would support the sale of TVNZ.

          I went with “current fiscal climate” as a way to highlight that the only reason the government is trying to sell these assets is the excuse of paying back debt etc and also point out that we really aren’t so bad as to desperately need the fire-sale of assets that they’re proposing – alternatives such as a fairer tax system are entirely feasible. I would be in favour of asset sales if it is what we had to do to avoid ‘default’ or some other nasty scenario, so answering “no” to the simple question of “do you support the sale of state assets by the government” wouldn’t be true.

      • Jackal 1.1.2

        Exactly! We already know that the majority of New Zealander’s don’t want National’s MOM asset sales… so a question that is designed to confirm that information is somewhat irrelevant.

        A question designed to achieve a referendum is required. Good luck getting the government to pass enabling legislation on the referendum for it to be binding though. The Clerk will have control on the wording of the referendum, which (as history has shown) could also be problematic.

        Firstly you need a petition with the signatures from 10% of all registered electors within 12 months… which considering public sentiment, shouldn’t be all that hard to achieve. Keep it simple:

        Do you support a referendum on the government’s policy to sell or partly sell state owned assets?

        • Lanthanide 1.1.2.1

          “We already know that the majority of New Zealander’s don’t want National’s MOM asset sales”

          Officially, we don’t know that, and could never know, unless it was on the census.

          The government is using their electoral win, and strong campaigning on asset sales (and the oppositions strong campaigning against assets sales) as evidence that the majority of NZers do want asset sales. The fact that this is specious logic doesn’t matter, simply because there is no official alternative measurement of this idea.

          Therefore having a referendum just on this opinion is sufficient and removes National’s “mandate” argument. Of course they’ll simply ignore the results, much as they ignored the anti-smacking referendum, but it’s the political point that is the goal here.

          • Jackal 1.1.2.1.1

            The goal is to stop asset sales. If there is no financial benefit and selling our assets will actually cost us as a country more money than it makes, the public will soon wake up to the con. The political goal will be scored by stopping the asset sales, which a referendum is more likely to achieve. A petition to get a referendum is also a default gauge of the publics wishes… because only those opposed to asset sales would sign it.

            • Lanthanide 1.1.2.1.1.1

              Only a binding referendum could stop asset sales. It is parliament that gets to decide whether a particular referendum is binding or not. With 61 votes, they would choose not.

              It is therefore (practically) impossible for a referendum to stop asset sales.

              • Jackal

                The thing is that a petition either against asset sales or seeking a referendum that gains the required level (around 280,000 signatures) of public support can be worded either way. An indicative petition would also show how many people are against asset sales.

                National might bang on about their minute majority giving them a mandate to sell our future, but they cannot simply ignore a referendum. If they did, the John Key party would take a huge political hit, and be even more likely to lose the next election.

                • Lanthanide

                  I’m not entirely sure where you’re going with this, because you seem to be agreeing with exactly what I’m saying, but acting like you don’t.

                  • Jackal

                    ? I think an indicative petition and then referendum would be more effective at potentially stopping asset sales than just a petition. So no! I’m not agreeing with you.

                    A referendum would give us an official public yes or no to asset sales. It is my educated guess that it will be a very big NO!

  2. ianmac 2

    Do you support the sale of Government Assets? Yes/No.

    Yes. Phil Goff did a great job of raising awareness and good ideas take time to seep into consciousness. Sort of wonder about that flurry of attention over the tea-tape and whether it just prevented a final push of support for Labour/anti Asset Sales. Joyce clever by far?

    • McFlock 2.1

      Do you support the sale of Government Assets, even in part? Yes/No.

      Given that the tossers are already arguing the distinction between whole and partial asset sales.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2.1.1

        So Air New Zealand could not sell a seat on one of its flights to a Chinese person?

        • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1

          If by “sell a seat” you mean the occupancy of a seat, then that is not an asset, it’s a service.

          If you mean sell the physical seat, then no, they shouldn’t do that. I’m not aware of any airlines that do sell individual seats to the public anyway.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2.1.1.1.1

            OK, so the use of the seat is fine. No in-flight peanuts for Chinese people though, I guess.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1

              How about we continue this conversation when your personal flight returns to earth orbit, okay?

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                Every peanut is a partial asset sale. Before you know it, we will be tenants in our own country.

                • Colonial Viper

                  They can have our production of peanuts, just not the land the peanuts are produced from. See the difference?

                • McFlock

                  reductio ad insanitas

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                    They can have our production of peanuts, just not the land the peanuts are produced from.

                    OK, so by this criteria, selling the shares in Air NZ is fine.

                • Mike

                  The peanuts are not an asset, they are a part of a service if they’re free, or stock on the balance sheet if they charge for them.

                  What have Chinese people got to do with anything? Oh, of course, you’re confusing the Crafar farms sale with State owned asset sales. Let me guess, you think the high court is racist and based it’s decision on the fact that the bidder in question was a Chinese consortium. Of course the judge didn’t simply apply the law, nope he’s a racist.

        • thatguynz 2.1.1.2

          Where the fuck did your “a Chinese person?” meme come from?  i can’t see any reference to it in any posts above yours so assume you are trying to make a point?  Pretty damned poorly however I surmise.

          • QoT 2.1.1.2.1

            I’m guessing the memo has gone out about trying to paint all people who are anti-foreign ownership of land etc are Meanie Racist Heads Who Just Hate Innocent Chinese Individuals For No Reason.

            I mean, I’m sure plenty of people actually are xenophobic racists and wouldn’t be so upset if it were white Brits buying the Crafar farms, but it’s still a silly line to try to run against all opponents of the sale in the face of clear evidence it isn’t in line with existing law.

    • tc 2.2

      Joyce very clever and sinister with MSM lackeys in tow doing as asked.

      Anyone checked on how the hard done by Ambrose is doing these days or is he off shore now.

      Who paid his high court bills….not saying there’s anything suss but just how does a camerman pay all those bills.

    • mikesh 2.3

      The referendum question would have to include the words “or partial sale”.

  3. Ron 3

    I now that those poposed to assett sales would win this one hands down no matter what the question but referenda are a shitty way to run the country.
    You only have took at recent election results to see that most people don’t have the information or the interest to answer these questtions.
    I could rephrase that: most issues that could go to a referendum are complex and require adequate information and require voters to seriously think about that information to make sensible decisions. We’re simply not up to that in New Zealand.

  4. we the undersigned petition the parliament of new zealand to implement law changes that will restrict the sale of new zealand land to citizens and permanent residents only..
    non-citizens and non-permanent residents will still be able to lease land for commercial development..

    (i wd submit that if we do not do this now..that sooner or later..and probably sooner…

    ..we will become those tenants in our own land…

    ..we must retain that sovereignty over our own land..

    ..the alternative would be calamitous..

    ..and we are so small…and so constantly exposed..

    ..that we must close off the possibility of that ever happening..

    ..a lease-only/no-sale policy would provide that guarantee..

    ..forever..

    ..also..we would not have to endure the groundhog day option..

    ..of fighting this bullshit case by case..)

    phil-at-whoar.

  5. Details of requirements for a referendum here.

    You can’t have a referendum “about the way a referendum was held.” But I suppose a referendum about their being a future referendum should be fine.

    I’d still prefer a simpler question along Blighty’s line wrt support for asset sales. Mixing up requests for referenda amongst that blurs things. But the main thing is we need some sort of petition for a referendum at any rate.

    (Edit: oh, and happy to contribute to $604 cost)

  6. Frank 6

    On a slight detour…

    Phil Goff must be feeling slightly odd right now. He campaigned relentless on the ‘own our future’ message for six months and, suddenly, everyone’s talking about it – 3 months too late

    Of course.

    Because the last thing National would have wanted was a decision on the Crafar Farms made before the elections. Key and English knew full well what would have happened had this issue exploded in their faces prior to November 26.

    We’d be looking at a Labour-led government by now.

  7. duncan garner 7

    3 News Poll tonight.

    Q: Do you support partial asset sales?

    Results at 6.

    Cheers
    Duncan

    • lprent 7.1

      Will be interesting…

      • Herodotus 7.1.1

        What’s the point of a referendum we have had 3 others:no of mp’s, s59 and tougher penalties re law and not one was listened to by the mp’s so why is this different. We all know like in 08 the next election will result in a change on govt so the govt will put in place all those nasty policies just like the previous govt, stuff what the people think they want. In 2014 the irrevocable damage will have already been done

      • 62% against..34% for..3% braindead..

        phil-at-whoar.

  8. Jan 8

    taking the manipulative wording of the pro-smacking referendum as our model would give us:… 😉

    Should the sale or part sale of New Zealand’s publicly owned infrastructure and assets into private ownership, as part of New Zealander’s “owning their own future”, be legal in New Zealand?

    Or for a yes response.

    Should all New Zealanders, as part of the sound management of New Zealand’s economy, continue in full ownership of own our State Owned Enterprises.

  9. Draco T Bastard 9

    Considering that we’ll be worse off if the government sells our assets, as the figures show, should the government sell them?

  10. Mike 10

    A referendum, as much as I wished otherwise is a waste of time as Key et al wouldn’t care less about what the public thought on this issue. They’re committed to this path. It would be better for United Future Voters (all 13,000 of them) who oppose asset sales (assuming that would be more than 6,500 of them to pile the pressure on Peter Dunne big time, as should National voters who oppose asset sales.

    Alternatively, take the seats electorate seats National won by the smallest majorities and try and find some factual and serious dirt on the National electorate MP in question to try and get a resignation and force a bi-election. Nasty I know but legitimate.

  11. The huge difference between the asset sales of the past is that power and dams are strategic
    assets,the life blood of nz and just should not be hocked off to those who can pay top dollar,
    or afford to dabble in the sharemarket.
    In a town in the uk their power assets were sold to a german company and now those
    town folk cant even afford to boil a jug,once lost,gone forever.
    Partially or fully selling strategic assets should not be allowed by any in-comming govt
    and should be written into law,they are hands off.
    Perhaps a citizens appeal to the high court would stop these assets being partially or fully
    sold.
    If key and english were genuine about reducing debt they would introduce a capital gains
    tax,this tax touted by labour was the right path to go down and yet the key govt
    dismisses this,why? because he does not want to offend his mates and corporate
    friends who are pillaging nz for personal gain.
    When you consider $14-$20billion,(this is a soft estimate) tax riches from un-taxed\
    profit would be like striking gold for the economy and our assets would still be
    producing $1b a year for the tax payers.
    Just where is the logic,where is the economic nouse,from key and english?
    No where to be found is the answer.

  12. The daily mail uk,has a story on the selling off of their power assets.

  13. Further to my previous post it isn’t difficult to find that goldman sachs had a hand
    in greeces debt problem.
    A search ‘Goldman Sachs involved with greece debt problem’

  14. locus 14

    Do you agree – yes or no: “The government has no right to sell shares held on behalf of the NZ public without the majority of the NZ public showing their approval in a referendum”

  15. Geoffrey Robert Burns 15

    Most people are opposed to state asset sales. Therefore National does not have a mandate for even a partial sale of state assets. Nothing short of a change of government will stop National doing what it likes.
    If there is a clause in the legislation which only binds the crown to consider the Treaty of Waitangi private share holders can do what they like.
    All share holders should be bound by the Treaty of Waitangi because the Treaty covers the rights and responsibilities of all New Zealand citizens.
    If no one wants to be buy shares because they think such clause might restrict what they can do with their share well good.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Tokelau Language Week reminds us to stay united and strong
    Staying strong in the face of challenges and being true to our heritage and languages are key to preserving our cultural identity and wellbeing, is the focus of the 2020 Tokelau Language Week. Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, says this year’s theme, ‘Apoapo tau foe, i nā tāfea ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • NZ announces a third P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    The Government has deployed a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 Orion (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea, announced Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark. “New Zealand has long supported ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Pacific trade and development agreement a reality
    Pacific regional trade and development agreement PACER Plus will enter into force in 60 days now that the required eight countries have ratified it. Trade and Export Growth Minister David Parker welcomed the announcement that the Cook Islands is the eighth nation to ratify this landmark agreement. “The agreement represents ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Securing a pipeline of teachers
    The Government is changing its approach to teacher recruitment as COVID-19 travel restrictions continue, by boosting a range of initiatives to get more Kiwis into teaching. “When we came into Government, we were faced with a teacher supply crisis,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins said. “Over the past three years, we ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Border exceptions for a small number of international students with visas
    The Government has established a new category that will allow 250 international PhD and postgraduate students to enter New Zealand and continue their studies, in the latest set of border exceptions. “The health, safety and wellbeing of people in New Zealand remains the Government’s top priority. Tight border restrictions remain ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • First COVID-19 vaccine purchase agreement signed
    The Government has signed an agreement to purchase 1.5 million COVID-19 vaccines – enough for 750,000 people – from Pfizer and BioNTech, subject to the vaccine successfully completing all clinical trials and passing regulatory approvals in New Zealand, say Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods and Health Minister Chris Hipkins. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • International statement – End-to-end encryption and public safety
    We, the undersigned, support strong encryption, which plays a crucial role in protecting personal data, privacy, intellectual property, trade secrets and cyber security.  It also serves a vital purpose in repressive states to protect journalists, human rights defenders and other vulnerable people, as stated in the 2017 resolution of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ministry of Defence Biodefence Assessment released
    The Ministry of Defence has today released a Defence Assessment examining Defence’s role across the spectrum of biological hazards and threats facing New Zealand. Biodefence: Preparing for a New Era of Biological Hazards and Threats looks at how the NZDF supports other agencies’ biodefence activities, and considers the context of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020
    New Approaches to Economic Challenges: Confronting Planetary Emergencies: OECD 9 October 2020 Hon David Parker’s response following Thomas Piketty and Esther Duflo. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, wherever in the world you might be. I first acknowledge the excellent thought provoking speeches of Thomas Piketty and Esther ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Kaipara Moana restoration takes next step
    A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed today at Waihāua Marae between the Crown, local iwi and councils to protect, restore and enhance the mauri of Kaipara Moana in Northland. Environment Minister David Parker signed the document on behalf of the Crown along with representatives from Ngā Maunga Whakahī, Ngāti ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • New Zealand and Uruguay unite on reducing livestock production emissions
    Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor and Uruguayan Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries Carlos María Uriarte have welcomed the launch of a three-year project that will underpin sustainable livestock production in Uruguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica.  The project called ‘Innovation for pasture management’ is led by Uruguay’s National Institute of Agricultural ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • 3100 jobs created through marae upgrades
    Hundreds of marae throughout the country will be upgraded through investments from the Provincial Growth Fund’s refocused post COVID-19 funding to create jobs and put money into the pockets of local tradespeople and businesses, Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta have announced. “A total ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Health volunteers recognised in annual awards
    Health Minister Chris Hipkins has announced 9 teams and 14 individuals are the recipients of this year’s Minister of Health Volunteer Awards.  “The health volunteer awards celebrate and recognise the thousands of dedicated health sector volunteers who give many hours of their time to help other New Zealanders,” Mr Hipkins ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Community COVID-19 Fund supports Pacific recovery
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio says a total of 264 groups and individuals have successfully applied for the Pacific Aotearoa Community COVID-19 Recovery Fund, that will support Pacific communities drive their own COVID-19 recovery strategies, initiatives, and actions. “I am keen to see this Fund support Pacific ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Community benefits from Māori apprenticeships
    Up to 50 Māori apprentices in Wellington will receive paid training to build houses for their local communities, thanks to a $2.75 million investment from the Māori Trades and Training Fund, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Ngāti Toa Rangatira Incorporated to provide its Ngā Kaimahi ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Training fund supports Māori jobseekers
    Rapidly growing sectors will benefit from a $990,000 Māori Trades and Training Fund investment which will see Wellington jobseekers supported into work, announced Employment Minister Willie Jackson today. “This funding will enable Sapphire Consultants Ltd. to help up to 45 Māori jobseekers into paid training initiatives over two years through ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Ruakura Inland Port development vital infrastructure for Waikato
    The Government is investing $40 million to develop an inland port at Ruakura which will become a freight super-hub and a future business, research and residential development for the Waikato, Urban Development and Transport Minister Phil Twyford, and Māori Development Minister Nanaia Mahuta announced today. The funding has been has ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Appointments made to Defence Expert Review Group
    Defence Minister Ron Mark announced today the establishment of an Expert Review Group to review a number of aspects of the New Zealand Defence Force’s (NZDF) structure, information management and record-keeping processes.  The Expert Review Group’s work arises out of the first recommendation from the Report of the Government’s Inquiry ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • No active community cases of COVID-19
    There are no active community cases of COVID-19 remaining in the country after the last people from the recent outbreak have recovered from the virus, Health Minister Chris Hipkins said today. “This is a big milestone. New Zealanders have once again through their collective actions squashed the virus. The systems ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • Clean energy upgrade for more public buildings
    More public buildings will be supported by the Government to upgrade to run on clean energy, the Minister for Climate Change James Shaw announced today. Minister Shaw announced that Lincoln and Auckland universities will receive support through the Clean-Powered Public Service Fund to replace fossil fuel boilers. Southern, Taranaki, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago