Privatisation bill passed

Written By: - Date published: 5:17 pm, June 26th, 2012 - 239 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, infrastructure, national, Privatisation - Tags: , ,

Seems the Nats’ privatisation bill has just passed its final reading. The expected result was 61:60, with Peter Dunne’s crucial vote in favour cast in absentia. The Nats short circuited the select committee process and rushed this thing through because they want to get it done before the public opposition gets even stronger. The fact that most Kiwis don’t really understand what’s happening suits them just fine. Future generations will understand just fine though, and they’ll know who to blame.

Earlier in the day I/S at No Right Turn wrote:

The government’s privatisation bill will go through its final reading today. So who benefits from it?

Firstly, there’s the rich, who will purchase the SOEs, redirecting the dividend stream (and any capital gains) from the public purse into their own private pockets (this category includes many MPs, including John Key).

Secondly, there’s the financial industry, who will be paid $120 million by the government to sell us our own assets, and who will clip the ticket on every share sale into the bargain.

And thirdly, there’s the SOE directors themselves, who stand to see their fees double simply because of the change in ownership structure. Those fees, of course, will be paid for by higher power prices paid by ordinary kiwis.

Note who doesn’t benefit: ordinary kiwis. We’ll be facing reduced public services due to the loss of the SOE dividend stream, while being charged higher prices to meet the new owners’ rapacious demand for profits. And then, in a decade or so, when they’ve run it into the ground and asset stripped it, we’ll have to buy it back.

Sounds about right.

There’s no mandate for this sale, and the proponents of it still can’t articulate any advantages (beyond a short term cash injection to try and cover up their multiple economic failures). They’re quite literally selling our country down the river.

239 comments on “Privatisation bill passed ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    26 June 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Shame on them.
     
    Peter Dunne should be particularly ashamed.  He did not have the guts to front up and justify his position.
     
    No doubt he will now retire from Parliament and get onto the gravy train somewhere and feck off with the NZ supplied superannuation.
     
    He will disappear.  As will a huge chunk of collectively owned assets.
     
    Shame on him and all of the Government.

    • John M 1.1
      26 June 2012 at 5:34 pm

      The image of his face will forever make me feel ill. He is despicable scum and will be forever. Fantastic legacy he’s left. Total idiot.

    • Clashman 1.2
      26 June 2012 at 5:43 pm

      Hmm, any dark alleys in Ohariu ?

    • Logie97 1.3
      26 June 2012 at 6:50 pm

      Would seem to be a mark of United Future actually – Remember Gordon Copeland.
      He made such a song and dance about the repealing of Section 59, and then was so busy talking to the press outside parliament that he missed the actual vote… all hair, noise but no show.

      • Pete George 1.3.1
        26 June 2012 at 6:58 pm

        Copeland wasn’t in UF then.

        • Logie97 1.3.1.1
          26 June 2012 at 9:36 pm

          Only by a couple of days (as a result of a failed leadership bid ne c’est pas?) – splitting hairs a bit there Peteboy.

        • Georgecom 1.3.1.2
          26 June 2012 at 10:06 pm

          Pete. Given Dunnes support for the bill today, UF no longer exists. Its United NO Future from now on. People wil work extremely hard to ensure Dunne is buried at the next election. He had his chance to make a pragmatic retreat. He didn’t take it. He’d best look out for deep holes being dug in his electorate. Come election 2014 thats where his political aspirations will be laid.

          • Matthew Whitehead 1.3.1.2.1
            26 June 2012 at 11:50 pm

            Ohariu swings right, but only because a large section of its population is in the upper bracket of the centre, among whom retaining ownership of our assets is pretty important. For as hard as genuine lefties in Ohariu have been working to unseat him, nobody could have done a single better thing to lose him his electorate than to convince him to vote for this bill.

            • mike e 1.3.1.2.1.1
              27 June 2012 at 1:05 pm

              After the next bout of public servant slashing by the austerity focused fuckwits.
              there will be no right whingers left in Ohairyu

    • burt 1.4
      26 June 2012 at 6:58 pm

      mickysavage

      I think the relevant comment from the supporters of the government would be: We won you lost – eat that. (to loud cheers of ‘yeah’ from myopic partisans who love the game more than the outcomes)

  2. TheContrarian 2
    26 June 2012 at 5:27 pm

    “He did not have the guts to front up and justify his position.”

    pretty sure he was a t a family funeral today. Can’t begrudge that 

    • mickysavage 2.1
      26 June 2012 at 5:35 pm

      If that is where he was. I understand that he did not speak

      • Pete George 2.1.1
        26 June 2012 at 7:24 pm

        There were only ten speeches, so less than 10% of MPs spoke.

        And from what I saw there were less than 50% of MPs in house, so it’s a bit picky grizzling about one absence.

        • mickysavage 2.1.1.1
          26 June 2012 at 7:26 pm

          Petey don’t you know how Parliament works?  Or are you trying to provide cover?

          There were only ten speaking slots available so there were only ten speeches although Labour and the Greens shared a slot.  This was pre ordained.

          The house was only half full because National had a minimal presence.  Petey II was also missing. The opposition benches were pretty full.

          I guess the right-wingers including the coiffured one were too ashamed to front up.  I am not surprised. 

          • felix 2.1.1.1.1
            26 June 2012 at 7:41 pm

            “Petey don’t you know how Parliament works?”

            lolz Petey doesn’t know the difference between Parliament and Government.

    • mickysavage 2.2
      26 June 2012 at 5:37 pm

      Oops some text disappeared.
       
      I understand that he did not speak at any time to the Bill.  If so shame on him.

    • Anne 2.3
      26 June 2012 at 5:45 pm

      Yes, it would appear that some ‘family member’ obliged him (?). I understand he has been ‘absent’ throughout the bill’s progress through parliament.

      mickeysavage is right. He will retire from politics before the next election because he knows damm well his constituents will throw him out.

    • Te Reo Putake 2.4
      26 June 2012 at 5:45 pm

      Pretty sure he wasn’t at a family funeral, TC. Even Dunne isn’t claiming that. It’s ‘family-related’. So it’s the funeral of some poor sap who has been used in death to let Dunne hide away from the NZ public. A more cynical bit of cowardice from a politician is hard to imagine, but that’s what this legislation needed to get passed.

      • Jackal 2.4.1
        26 June 2012 at 5:52 pm

        Perhaps it’s a metaphorical funeral for our lost democracy.

        • fender 2.4.1.1
          26 June 2012 at 9:18 pm

          Dunne wanted to tour the cemeteries and watch the ground ripple as our forebears all turned in their graves in disgust. He’s sick (old meaning) and the dinghy that is UF should sink now hopefully.
          Sorry that should be flutter board not dinghy.

      • TheContrarian 2.4.2
        26 June 2012 at 6:17 pm

        “Dunne said he had intended to speak in the debate today, but was unable to attend because of a family funeral. ”

        Make of it what you will.
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7173669/Partial-asset-sale-law-passed-by-1-vote

        • Te Reo Putake 2.4.2.1
          26 June 2012 at 7:09 pm

          That’s Stuff’s version, TC. Here’s the Hair God’s email to his earthly representative, Pompous George:
           
          Peter Dunne: “I have not spoken to National Radio at all on this issue. However, as it happens, I have a family-related funeral this afternoon.”
           
          Family-related, not family. ie, the paper boy, the wife’s manicurist, the old bloke two doors down whose name Dunne doesn’t know, but who always waves as Peter heads off to Parliament in the mornings. That sort of close personal relationship.

          • TheContrarian 2.4.2.1.1
            26 June 2012 at 7:20 pm

            A small and petty difference. Your snide cynicism as to Dunne’s absence and your complete ignorance of why someone might want to attend a passing (no matter who it was you have no idea what meaning that person had to Dunne) to make a political point is quite unbecoming.

            • felix 2.4.2.1.1.1
              26 June 2012 at 7:33 pm

              Bullshit. He’s made himself absent at every stage of this bill’s passing. It’s inconceivable to anyone except Pete George that this is a coincidence.

              And it would be incredibly naive to think he would turn up for the final vote, having deliberately distanced himself from the entire process.

              He was never going to show today, funeral or not. That’s obvious. That’s why it’s disgraceful of him to blame the deceased for his lack of spine.

              • TheContrarian …
                26 June 2012 at 7:36 pm

                “That’s why it’s disgraceful of him to blame the deceased for his lack of spine.”

                Yeah but you don’t know that do you…

                • felix …
                  26 June 2012 at 7:38 pm

                  What don’t I know, Cont?

                  Which part of my reasoning above is causing you trouble?

                  • TheContrarian …
                    26 June 2012 at 7:43 pm

                    “Which part of my reasoning above is causing you trouble?”

                    The part where you know absolutely nothing apart from “Dunne attended a funeral” yet it is now a cynical ploy of his to take advantage of a death for his personal political gain in order to dodge appearing in a vote.

                    Maybe the bit where people here seem to use a death as a political football

                    Possibly the bit where instead of just making things up you wait until the full story reveals itself.

                    I have more if you are still confused by basic human reasoning skills.

                    • felix …
                      26 June 2012 at 7:49 pm

                      Ok I’ll do it step by step, just for you.

                      Despite holding the casting vote on this bill, likely to be the vote that defines his career, Dunne has been absent from the house at every stage of the bill’s passing. That’s every debate, every vote, absent.

                      He was in the house for other stuff, but disappeared for anything to do with this bill.

                      Are you with me so far, cont?

                    • TheContrarian …
                      26 June 2012 at 7:51 pm

                      Defend your presumptive and tactless remarks in whatever way you think best.

                    • felix …
                      26 June 2012 at 8:00 pm

                      Either you accept what I’ve laid out in my last comment or you don’t.

                      If you do, we move on to the next step. If you don’t, this is where you say what you disagree with and why.

                      Which is it, Cont?

                    • felix …
                      26 June 2012 at 8:22 pm

                      Oh sorry, I forgot the third option: run away from the argument altogether flinging a couple of sad transparent insults behind you.

                    • felix …
                      26 June 2012 at 8:45 pm

                      I see you’ve decides on option three.

                      An excellent choice, well suited to your aptitude.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      26 June 2012 at 10:13 pm

                      You forgot option four:
                      Have dinner, spend time with wife, play some playstation, read a little, finish some work, drink bottle of wine, go to bed.

                    • felix …
                      26 June 2012 at 11:04 pm

                      And you got out of bed to type that?

                      Still, good to know you’re definitely not running away from a simple yes/no question. Idiot.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      27 June 2012 at 8:42 am

                      Sorry, I didn’t know you were still talking.
                      No, I didn’t get out of bed – you caught me between finish bottle of wine and go to bed.

                      I feel under no pressure to answer anything you have written. So please enjoy your little victory.

                    • felix …
                      28 June 2012 at 1:25 pm

                      It’s funny Cont, but you always seem to feel compelled to answer right up to the point where you get unmistakably shown up as a fool or a liar, then all of a sudden the whole thread is beneath you.

                      It’s so weird.

              • Pete George …
                26 June 2012 at 7:52 pm

                You’re being an assumptive prick too then. I guess you can be cut a bit of slack if it’s an emotional day for you – but not much.

                • mickysavage …
                  26 June 2012 at 7:55 pm

                  Let us cut Petey the coiffured one some slack.  Maybe he had a good reason for not being in the house today.

                  Is it true that he was not in the house during the other times the bill was being considered?  And is it true that he did not speak to the bill at any stage?

                  Simple yes or no will do. 

                  • Pete George …
                    26 June 2012 at 8:04 pm

                    I don’t know. Shearer said today he had spoken on it once. But it wasn’t his bill, it was National’s.

                    He played his part in moderating the bill before it came back into the house.

                    • felix …
                      26 June 2012 at 8:57 pm

                      That’s how Dunne wants it remembered – not my bill, nothing to do with me.

                      Trouble with that is it only passed because he wanted it to pass.

                      Why just the other day he (and you) informed us that in fact he had campaigned on supporting this bill and that he’d always been totally clear that he supported selling these assets.

                      And now he wants us to believe it was nothing to do with him.

                      Nice try Petes. There goes the hydro. Next up, Kiwibank.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      27 June 2012 at 12:01 am

                      This is his bill every bit as much as it is Banks’ and National’s, given that there is no margin of error for this vote. He doesn’t get to shirk his ownership of it just because he’s afraid he’s not going to be re-elected. Trying not to speak on it? Shirking.

                      And as the only one who did not vocally support this policy before the election, he has an extra burden of proof to justify his own vote on this bill, because it was a campaign issue that he sat out, resorting to opposing strawpolicies simply in order to not talk about it.

                      His conduct on this bill has been despicable on every level.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  26 June 2012 at 8:06 pm

                  Hi, Pete. Would you mind emailing the man who just cost NZ billions and ask him to define his relationship to the deceased? I only ask because, prior to today, the sleaziest funeral attender I ever met was the Hornby saddo who used to get a free feed each day at the nearest service to his home that he could find in the Press death notices. If anybody asked him how he knew the departed, he’d mumble ‘met him down the club’ and make a move for the exit, a sandwich in each hand.

                  • Matthew Whitehead …
                    27 June 2012 at 12:06 am

                    Let’s exercise some respect, please. We ought to be better than that.

                    Regardless of whether Dunne was dodging, (and he was) we shouldn’t try to get him to disclose anything about this person’s identity, so that their funeral doesn’t get used as a political football.

                    However blatant his dodging has been, we are good enough to leave the details of the bloody funeral out of it.

            • Te Reo Putake 2.4.2.1.1.2
              26 June 2012 at 7:40 pm

              Has it occurred to you that Dunne hasn’t said who died for a reason? I bet it’s not a close enough relationship to qualify for time off work in your own employment agreement, TC! But then you’re not employed, and handsomely paid, just to maintain a single vote majority in Parliament, are you?

              • Pete George …
                26 June 2012 at 8:02 pm

                Has it occurred to you that it’s none of your business. If I knew who it was, I wouldn’t tell you because you have a habit of ignoring facts and resorting to recidivist nastiness, as you’ve demonstrated here.

                Last time I advised here something Dunne had said you refused to believe it because that sorted your stories, but now you take what he said and imbeliish with nasty bull.

                Where were half the Labour MPs at the same time? There were a lot of empty seats on that side of the house.

                • felix …
                  26 June 2012 at 8:11 pm

                  So what? Labour MPs have spoken at length at every stage of the bill, including today.

                  Way to pretend to misunderstand, Pete.

                  • Pete George …
                    26 June 2012 at 8:19 pm

                    I’m listening to David Clark’s speech right now. Reeats of the same old. Heard most of it before, many times. Repeats of earlier speakers. And repeats of previous days. At the end of his speech there werre about ten Labour MPs in the house.

                    Eight during Mackey’s speech.

                    It was all a bit hollow, waiting for the inevitable.

                    • felix …
                      26 June 2012 at 8:31 pm

                      So what, Pete?

                      What does that have to do with UF being totally absent?

                    • felix …
                      26 June 2012 at 9:01 pm

                      “waiting for the inevitable”

                      Not inevitable. It only passed because Peter Dunne voted yes. He could have grown a spine and sided with the people.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      27 June 2012 at 12:08 am

                      Pete is incapable of addressing criticism without dodging, Felix. It’s probably not even worth replying to him.

                      I wonder where he got that tactic from…

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      27 June 2012 at 1:40 am

                      To say that we are disappointed in Dunne is an understatement, Pete.

                      But that he couldn’t even bring himself to face up to his responsibilities in the House by casting the vote himself?

                      What was he afraid of?

                    • felix …
                      27 June 2012 at 2:04 am

                      What’s he afraid of? Being visible on this issue.

                      Ideally he wants it remembered as ‘National vs The Left’ with himself being sensible and centrist. Kind of ruins his image if he’s remembered as one of the extremists.

                      Obviously his vote is a matter of record but he knows he can cover his tracks to a certain degree (i.e. with a certain amount of the population of Ohariu) by making sure there are no easily accessible soundbites to be repeated on the news.

                • Te Reo Putake …
                  26 June 2012 at 8:18 pm

                  How could I ignore your facts, Pete, when you never supply any? Bizarrely, we discovered the other day that you’d rather be known as a liar than provide the ‘fact’ that might prove your saintly all round truthiness.

                  • Pete George …
                    26 June 2012 at 8:24 pm

                    Unbizarrely, you don’t have any credibility. You bullshit so much nothing you say can be taken serioulsly.

                    You can’t hide your nastiness when you’re hissy fitting, can you.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      26 June 2012 at 8:38 pm

                      Hur hur, you’re putting your cred round here up against mine? Seriously? I’m a modest guy, with a lot to be modest about, it’s true, but you have got to be back on the crack pipe if you think you’re gonna come anywhere other than a distant second on that one, Pete.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      27 June 2012 at 12:09 am

                      LOL Pete George talking about someone else’s credibility.

                • mike e …
                  27 June 2012 at 1:11 pm

                  pathetic grovelar you want some nastiness head to whaleoil thats all they do

    • felix 2.5
      26 June 2012 at 6:11 pm

      Contrarian, if it’s true that he’s using a funeral as an excuse not to turn up to something he never would have turned up to anyway, then he’s an even more despicable human being.

      • prism 2.5.1
        26 June 2012 at 8:19 pm

        I think the Greek leading politicians are doing it (finding a way to get away from a huge burden of political responsibility by being called away urgently, in their case to hospital) so why can’t Mr Dunne be called away to his grandmother’s funeral?

  3. Dv 3
    26 June 2012 at 5:27 pm

    Peter Dunne Memorial Bill

    He will be remembered for his act of economic idiotic

  4. lcmortensen 4
    26 June 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Why can’t we go back to the old way of voting, when there was a split vote, MPs had seven minutes to return to the chamber and then they would vote with no proxies? Even if they keep the current way and only vote personally if a member moves to vote personally.

    Then Peter Dunne wouldn’t have voted, resulting in the MOM’s bill defeat. On the other hand, National could delay the third reading until Wednesday if they knew in advance…

  5. gobsmacked 5
    26 June 2012 at 5:35 pm

    What would have happened if Rahui Katene had held her electorate seat? 61-61?

  6. Bored 6
    26 June 2012 at 5:39 pm

    This morning the Standards ambassador in Wellington handed the Dunne office a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o’clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their vote from the Key government that a state of class war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently common New Zealanders are at war with the Key government…………..

    Class war it is, out in the open.

  7. Jackal 7
    26 June 2012 at 5:42 pm

    As if my power bill wasn’t expensive enough already.

    • chris73 7.1
      26 June 2012 at 5:57 pm

      you mean like how it increased under Labour?

      • Jackal 7.1.1
        26 June 2012 at 6:03 pm

        The cost of electricity has been increasing by around 8 to 9% annually since 2000… so why single out Labour? It’s increased under National as well. Privatisation will make electricity even less affordable, and therefore people’s health will be negatively impacted.

        Approximately 1600 people die prematurely per year in New Zealand from cold and damp houses… How is asset sales going to help them chris73?

        • chris73 7.1.1.1
          26 June 2012 at 7:54 pm

          My point being whether its a SOE or a private company, prices will go up. However the govt will still hold a majority share and I’ll be able to invest in them.

          Also National has a clear and unarguable mandate to do this because they said before the election they were going to do this, Labour said they were going to do this, the people knew what they were going to do and voted accordingly.

          You lefties can fill your hearts with impotent rage if it makes you happy but you’ll have to wait for the next election before you get your turn to try your theories

          • Jackal 7.1.1.1.1
            26 June 2012 at 9:17 pm

            Your initial point chris73 was that it’s OK for National to partially privatize our power companies, which will lead to more expensive electricity, because electricity had increased in cost under the last Labour government.

            My point is that prices will increase faster under a privatized model, and there will be increased social costs that have not been factored into the equation.

            The rightwing has already tried its theories re privatization, and it has been a complete disaster. In many ways New Zealand has not recovered properly from the last round of asset stripping and wealth misappropriation.

            There is nothing impotent about being angry… it’s how we use that anger that’s important.

            Whether National has a mandate to sell our assets will be decided by a referendum, unless John Key decides that we live in a complete dictatorship and doesn’t allow the petition to progress. Either way, be prepared to kiss your aspirations for a Nact government goodbye in 2014.

          • Frank Macskasy 7.1.1.1.2
            27 June 2012 at 1:51 am

            “However the govt will still hold a majority share and I’ll be able to invest in them.”

            Except bthat those SOEs belongf to us all, Chris. You are in effect investing in property that belongs to us all.

            I thought neo-libs were big on proprietorial rights?

            “Also National has a clear and unarguable mandate to do this because they said before the election they were going to do this, ”

            Nonsense, and you know it.

            It is not “inarguable” – don’t talk to us in absolutes.

            National’s “mandate” is dubious, to put it mildly. They have a one-seat majority, based on some shonkey dealings in Ohariu and Epsom; Waitakere was held by nine votes (!!); it was the lowest voter turn-out in a century; polls regularly mis-represented National’s support; etc, etc.

            It was a shonkey election with a shonkey outcome.

            And you’d be saying precisely the same thing if situations were reversed.

            You should also be aware that people vote for parties on a myriad of issues, and the asset sales issue was subsumed by peoples’ fear of the global financial crisis; our own high unemployment; stagnant economy; and losing their own jobs.

            By the way – how is National going with those 170,000 new jobs?

            What about the promise not to raise gst?

            The promise of 4% growth?

            How’s that working out for you?

            “You lefties can fill your hearts with impotent rage if it makes you happy but you’ll have to wait for the next election before you get your turn to try your theories”

            Oh, we will, Chris. And you can be assured that many of us who were “centrist” will now be even more left-wing by 2014 (or earlier), and will be looking at policies that will give you heart-murmurs.

            If you want to know how to push people to the left – push hard to the right. Never fails.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 7.1.2
        26 June 2012 at 6:06 pm

        You mean like how it is in the interests of the nation to return all power generation capacity to its rightful owners, not just those fenced by this latest Quisling betrayal?

        Or are you just in the way?

      • burt 7.1.3
        26 June 2012 at 7:07 pm

        chris73

        Exactly…. to think the lovers of corrupt self serving govt though it was fantastic when the power companies were contributing billions every year to the state coffers. Hey it was OK to force low paid workers and pensioners to turn their heaters of when we had a Labour govt because…. well because … well because Labour are good and National are bad.

        • felix 7.1.3.1
          26 June 2012 at 7:28 pm

          Except that no-one thought that was ok burt.

          No-one except you and your market-worshipping ilk, that is.

        • Frank Macskasy 7.1.3.2
          27 June 2012 at 1:56 am

          But, but, but Burt – those power companies were performing according to the market, as per Max Bradfords plans.

          To re-cap; in 1998/99, the ECNZ was broken up into “baby ECNZs” (one, Contact was privatised), and all four power companies were left to “compete” against each other.

          You mean to tell us that competition didn’t work out?

          Well… whoda thunk it?!

          After 2014, it looks like a few radical changes will have to be made, eh? Re-nationalisation… reforming the old ECNZ… enshrining in law to prevent National from ever f*****g up the energy industry again…

          That’ll do for starters.

  8. Macro 8
    26 June 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Where was Dunne? In the dunny!

  9. muzza 9
    26 June 2012 at 5:51 pm

    The theft of valuable strategic, revenue generating assets, for debt!

    Thats what we got here!

    • Anne 9.1
      26 June 2012 at 7:10 pm

      Where was Dunne? In the dunny!

      Nah… he was at the funeral of a cousin twice removed of a friend of a friend of a friend, whom he met once 40 years ago. (sarc)

      • TheContrarian 9.1.1
        26 June 2012 at 7:30 pm

        It is quite unbecoming to mock someone about a death before you even know who/what/why.

        • Macro 9.1.1.1
          26 June 2012 at 7:34 pm

          If you think that that “happy coincidence” of a funeral was more important to Dunne than the most important vote in his political career, then you are a bigger fool than you already appear.

          • TheContrarian 9.1.1.1.1
            26 June 2012 at 7:39 pm

            I don’t know of anyone that considers funerals to be “happy coincidence[s]”

            • felix 9.1.1.1.1.1
              26 June 2012 at 7:44 pm

              What does a funeral have to do with anything, cont?

              He was never going to show today anyway, and no-one seriously believes otherwise.

              • TheContrarian …
                26 June 2012 at 7:46 pm

                I can make things up too.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  26 June 2012 at 7:54 pm

                  And often do.

                • felix …
                  26 June 2012 at 7:55 pm

                  Cont, you’re asking me to believe something quite incredible here.

                  You’re asking me to believe that Peter Dunne, despite being absent from every stage of the bill, despite not speaking to the bill once, and despite letting National cast his votes in absentia, was planning on showing up today and surprising everyone.

                  That is what you’re asking me to believe, and it’s simply not a credible story.

                  Yet you accuse me of making things up.

            • jack 9.1.1.1.1.2
              26 June 2012 at 7:53 pm

              Funeral? Contrarian, why don’t you tell us the relationship the Dunne Beatle had with the deceased. Do you always take politicians at face value? I suppose you still believe John Key has a blind trust.

  10. Draco T Bastard 10
    26 June 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Still have silence from the opposition about renationalisation without compensation but I’m not really surprised by that, they’re sticking to the old failed ways as well.

    • burt 10.1
      26 June 2012 at 7:10 pm

      The old failed way… respecting private property rights – yeah… that’s a silly thing for a self serving dictatorship to do….

      • felix 10.1.1
        26 June 2012 at 7:26 pm

        So if an opposition clearly stated that when elected they intended to reclaim an asset without compensation if the current govt sells it, and someone is stupid enough to ignore that warning and buy it anyway, would your free-market, individual responsibility, caveat emptor principles all go out the window or something?

      • Macro 10.1.2
        26 June 2012 at 7:27 pm

        If property is stolen then the person or persons holding that property have no right to it.

        In the case of the Mighty River dams for instance, who at present owns those dams? Not Key, Not English, Not Dunne, – the people of NZ. The little girl over the road has just as much claim to them as you or I.

        The gov’t has no right to put them up for sale – they have no mandate apart from a slender electoral majority in the house, and that is NOT a mandate. The gov’t is acting against the wishes of the majority and as such is stealing from the people. If a lawyer sells property that he has in trust without the full consent of the rightful owners that is fraud and they are punished accordingly (Edwards v’s the crown, and Renshaw v’s the crown).

        • burt 10.1.2.1
          26 June 2012 at 8:26 pm

          The gov’t has no right to put them up for sale

          Umm, sorry you are wrong. The govt has the right to anything it bloody wants in this country of the fastest law makers in the west. That’s the problem – we have a half Westminster system without any checks and balances to make sure we have democracy – how else did Clark’s govt last 3 terms ????

          • felix 10.1.2.1.1
            26 June 2012 at 8:34 pm

            By getting the govt out of debt and into surpluses and spending the profits on stuff people wanted.

            Simple.

            • Treetop 10.1.2.1.1.1
              26 June 2012 at 8:53 pm

              It has taken seven months to the day of the last election for the country to be plunged into the worst stink I can remember; sadly a record has been set.

          • Macro 10.1.2.1.2
            26 June 2012 at 8:42 pm

            They may have a legal right – even that is suspect – because they have no mandate from the people. They certainly have no moral right.
            The govt in the 1860’s had a right to purchase land from Maori under the Treaty, and did so. But when we look back at many of those purchases, the deals were neither fair, nor with full consent of the rightful owners, and the govt is now in the position of having rectify (quite rightly) those wrongs. This legislation is about to do exactly the same thing – not just to Maori – but to the whole population of NZ.
            It is wrong in principle. It is wrong in practice. It is little more than an act of the greatest stupidity.

            • Treetop 10.1.2.1.2.1
              26 June 2012 at 10:30 pm

              And I heard in the last 24 hours that some of the money gained from the sale of the energy assets will be used to settle Maori land claims. National’s agenda is rob Peter to pay Paul, I find this to be really sick.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.3
        26 June 2012 at 8:54 pm

        And yet you seem to be quite happy about this government selling the property of people who don’t want to sell.

      • Frank Macskasy 10.1.4
        27 June 2012 at 10:06 am

        If you’re going to talk about respecting property right, Burt, you can start with respecting public ownership of five SOEs.

        Or do property rights only apply to privately-owned property?

      • mike e 10.1.5
        27 June 2012 at 1:17 pm

        Burt you mean what European did to uneducated illiterate Maori when they came to NZ and took all their assets for a pittance!
        These asset sales may not go ahead because Maori are the ones who can least afford these shares

  11. DJL 11
    26 June 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Retirement by candlelight for many of us. Dark days (no pun intended)

  12. chris73 12
    26 June 2012 at 5:58 pm

    This is a good start.

    • McFlock 12.1
      26 June 2012 at 6:02 pm

      Yeah.
          
      We privatise the power companies so the last one on the plane to aus doesn’t need to switch out the lights.
         
      They’ll just go out when the power company slowly grinds to a halt like tranzrail did. 

      • chris73 12.1.1
        26 June 2012 at 7:46 pm

        Yeah but now I’m in a position to profit from this decision and on the plus side the govt will still hold a majority share. Everybody loves a win-win situation.

        • felix 12.1.1.1
          26 June 2012 at 8:36 pm

          That’s not win-win, chris.

          You just got to buy some shares, most people just lost half of theirs.

          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.1
            26 June 2012 at 10:53 pm

            For no return. In fact, they’re worse off after the loss of those shares.

  13. Kotahi Tane Huna 13
    26 June 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Once the power companies are returned to their rightful owners, I suggest the next pro-New Zealand government act to forever undermine any such future betrayal, by encouraging far more small scale domestic power generation.

    This would be a great way to undermine share value prior to repurchase too.

  14. Carol 14
    26 June 2012 at 6:15 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10815646

    A man wearing a Peter Dunne mask who allegedly gave MPs the finger today was removed from the public gallery by police.

  15. Mooloo magic 15
    26 June 2012 at 7:14 pm

    John Campbell slayed Key on Campbell live. Key’s body language was most telling, clearly he is not used to rigorous questioning by an interviewer who is not intimidated by the PM., Key clear did not enjoy the experience, likely his last appearance on Campbell Live

  16. Poission 16
    26 June 2012 at 7:35 pm

    It would be interesting to find when the speaker granted leave for Dunne ( to enable his proxy) eg Parliamentary voting rule

    A party consisting of a single member and any independent member, may, in their absence, have their votes cast on their behalf by proxy. But the proxy may be exercised only if the member concerned is actually present somewhere in the precincts, or is attending a select committee meeting outside Wellington with the agreement of the House or the Business Committee or is absent from the precincts attending official business approved by the Business Committee, or has been granted leave of absence by the Speaker. Leave of absence can be granted for illness or other family cause of a personal nature or to enable the member to attend to public business in New Zealand or overseas. [61] For this purpose the Speaker may grant leave of absence on a case-by-case basis or generally, as the Speaker sees fit.

    FOI requests from the press please,

  17. ianmac 17
    26 June 2012 at 7:35 pm

    I put this on open mike as well:
    Campbell Live had a good interview with John Key over asset sale Act. Campbell held Key to account and Key got a bit sulky. Key accused Campbell of showing his Financial ignorance. Campbell challenged him to explain why. That was over selling Contact for $7billion but $20 billion has been paid out in dividends.
    Then there was Campbell asking 3 times to explain how the shares sold to NZers would stay in NZ. Key did not look happy to be challenged.
    Good one John Campbell!
    Not online yet.

    • Treetop 17.1
      26 June 2012 at 8:03 pm

      I to saw Campbell Live. Key does not care who owns the shares and he seems to think that they are so precious that NZers will hang onto them, hoping he will not have to face having done the dirty on every NZer.

      What upsets me the most is that there will be nothing substantial to show for the government ripping off the country.

    • felix 17.3
      26 June 2012 at 8:43 pm

      Jeez he turns into a nasty little shit when the convo doesn’t go his way, doesn’t he? Getting all personal, calling Campbell financially illiterate.

      Good on Campbell for calling him on that, and on the rest of his bullshit.

      I think it’s about time for the sheep of NZ to see the wolf that is John Key.

      • jsrret 17.3.1
        27 June 2012 at 12:37 am

        key did actually give a pretty reasonable justification for his statement that campbell is financially illiterate, campbell seemed to have been ignorant of the cost to nz of holding a debt of seven billion dollars and been ignorant of the benefits to nz of having spent that 7 billion on other assets, the sale proceeds don’t just evaporate into thin air… it is good to see journalists really challenge a politician though, just wish journalists had a bit more knowledge of the world around them so they could back up their attacks with relevant facts rather than rely on opposition party press releases

        • fender 17.3.1.1
          27 June 2012 at 12:49 am

          What are these new assets again?

          All thats been mentioned are things that taxes have always funded and vote-buying irrigation systems.

        • felix 17.3.1.2
          27 June 2012 at 1:44 am

          “key did actually give a pretty reasonable justification for his statement that campbell is financially illiterate, campbell seemed to have been ignorant of the cost to nz of holding a debt of seven billion dollars”

          lolwut? Key lied to justify it – he said the govt would pay 5% interest which is more than the rate of return when actually they would pay 3.4%, which is less than the rate of return.
          (Of course he might not have been lying, but that’d make him the financial illiterate. You can choose – he’s your god, not mine.)

          “and been ignorant of the benefits to nz of having spent that 7 billion on other assets, the sale proceeds don’t just evaporate into thin air”

          Except he’s not talking about buying income generating assets at all. He’s going to spend it keeping schools and hospitals open. So actually it does evaporate into thin air, just not immediately. It’ll take a couple of years to spend.

          “just wish journalists had a bit more knowledge of the world around them so they could back up their attacks with relevant facts rather than rely on opposition party press releases”

          Oh sorry, I didn’t realise you were taking the piss. It looked just like a real comment too.

          • jsrret 17.3.1.2.1
            27 June 2012 at 3:08 pm

            wow… wish i could predict future interest rates and businesses returns as a percentage of their capital value like you can… and i’m surprised that you think spending on schools and hospitals is just letting money evaporate into thin air

            • mike e 17.3.1.2.1.1
              27 June 2012 at 3:17 pm

              jsret energy costs are continuing to go up oh you haven’t noticed.
              The short term gain Nactuf BS you are buying into will be far out weighed by the long term loss of income.
              Virtually all assets sold previously have lead to massive windfall gains to foreign owners the detriment of the taxpayer and NZ as a whole.

            • felix 17.3.1.2.1.2
              28 June 2012 at 1:32 pm

              “i’m surprised that you think spending on schools and hospitals is just letting money evaporate into thin air”

              Yes it is. This is ordinary, everyday spending to keep schools and hospitals running, not a one-off spend on infrastructure.

              It’s selling a revenue stream for a one-off cash injection just to pay the bills to keep the damn things open for another year.

              What do you reckon the plan is for next year’s bills?

  18. captain hook 18
    26 June 2012 at 7:42 pm

    so exactly WHO is going to benefit from the Assets Sales?
    Who is being payed off with cheap shares and an asset transfer?

  19. Herodotus 19
    26 June 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Power generation companies for sale and Fonterra. Time for all of us to save our tax cuts from a few years ago and reduced mortgages and talk to our share brokers. Oh happy times and to swim in money !!!!
    the wealth of the country can be now shared by all of us !!!!;-)

  20. vto 20
    26 June 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Fucking shit for brains Key said this tonight …

    “For a lot of New Zealanders, they’ve never owned a share – only about 10 percent of New Zealanders have, they’re not directly involved in this in their lives.”

    So, on one hand he says he wants and expects to get lots of kiwi investors and on the other he says New Zealanders don’t invest in the sharemarket.

    Will somebody please explain how this fuckwits brain works?

    • burt 20.1
      26 June 2012 at 8:29 pm

      vto

      It’s a complex thing that is never going to be understood by slogan chanting socialists who after every attempt at implementing socialism fail to notice it failed and we were worse off after it than we were before it.

      • RedLogix 20.1.1
        26 June 2012 at 8:32 pm

        Go on burt. Knock yourself out and explain it to us…

      • vto 20.1.2
        26 June 2012 at 8:34 pm

        Got an answer to the question? Or just dumb-arse slogans?

        And anyway the world is in a perilous state right now. At the end of a century or so of pretty much rampant capitalism, not socialism. Fool.

        • burt 20.1.2.1
          26 June 2012 at 8:55 pm

          And anyway the world is in a perilous state right now.

          Yes it sure is, many countries have been spending more than they earn for far too long.

          At the end of a century or so of pretty much rampant capitalism, not socialism. Fool.

          Bollox… the majority of countries in the world do have social policies funded by taxes of some form. Lesser or greater degrees of socialism. Shame they didn’t notice every time they started spending more than they earned that their popular at any price for election policies failed and created the perilous state you acknowledge – but can’t see is a result of the failed policies of political popularity. IE: socialism.

          • vto 20.1.2.1.1
            26 June 2012 at 9:01 pm

            Bloody hell burt you are one thick bloke if you believe the hype.

            What about the actual question? I notice you have avoided it – how surprising. Too hard for you is it? It was actually a genuine question about Key saying two opposite things at the same time – both about one of the core issues of this entire debate. So go on, see if you can answer it. I will even repeat it for you….

            “””Fucking shit for brains Key said this tonight …

            “For a lot of New Zealanders, they’ve never owned a share – only about 10 percent of New Zealanders have, they’re not directly involved in this in their lives.”

            So, on one hand he says he wants and expects to get lots of kiwi investors and on the other he says New Zealanders don’t invest in the sharemarket.

            Will somebody please explain how this fuckwits brain works?”””

            Over to you oh great wise one…

            • Descendant Of Smith 20.1.2.1.1.1
              26 June 2012 at 9:37 pm

              I thought the private sector spent more than it should and the taxpayers bailed them out fuck I must have been on a different planet to Burt.

              • burt …
                26 June 2012 at 9:41 pm

                Yeah that happened too… why…. because the other options were politically unpopular….

                Hell it’s like the government buying back a share of Air NZ…. what sort of crap stunt was that. The business either stands or falls and it should have been let fall – anything else is just popularist intervention.

                • Descendant Of Smith …
                  26 June 2012 at 9:46 pm

                  Nah it happened cause both the nats and labour are right wing governments in bed with business.

                  That’s the problem with the socialist arguement – both the main parties are different shades of blue.

                  • felix …
                    26 June 2012 at 9:51 pm

                    That’s usually the problem with the s0cialist argument, but I note in this case burt was careful to define (albeit retrospectively) s0cialism as any govt that raises taxes and spends them.

                • vto …
                  26 June 2012 at 9:59 pm

                  Answer the bloody question burt …

                  All you others, stop distracting him. He is like some smart-arse brainless kid bouncing from one moment to the next with no real idea of what’s up.

                  • muzza …
                    26 June 2012 at 10:06 pm

                    VTO – It does not matter what Burt says, it does not even matter what Key says, its all BS and its all lies. DoS is spot on, it makes no difference which of the major parties is in charhe, the result will be the same, just a little more palatable to a few more people…

                    Let Burt and co have their jollies, the truth remains, and they will pay too….

                    • vto …
                      26 June 2012 at 10:10 pm

                      Yep, karma has a way. And you’re right about both main parties. I suspect the smaller parties are going to see a substantial increase next election.

                      burt you’re useless

          • muzza 20.1.2.1.2
            26 June 2012 at 9:54 pm

            Burt it seems you still have not got a grip on the money creation thingy yet…

            Its not necessary for a country to spend more than it earns, unless it has no control over it supply,

            Do you like to see people suffer Burt?

            • vto 20.1.2.1.2.1
              26 June 2012 at 10:01 pm

              I suspect we’re wasting our time muzza. Burt is from those parts where debate consists of yelling smart-arse one-liners at each other.

          • mike e 20.1.2.1.3
            27 June 2012 at 1:21 pm

            Burt So are you saying Con man Key is a Socialist!
            Burt the Brainless Ideologue.
            National are the first govt in 10 years to spend more than they earn under
            Borrowing bills blinglish the double dipping dipstick from dipton.

      • Dv 20.1.3
        26 June 2012 at 8:48 pm

        Mums and dads?
        Who has pushed that?

    • Jackal 20.2
      26 June 2012 at 9:01 pm

      Key also said on Campbell Live that government debt incurred interest of 10%, which is complete rubbish! It’s currently around 5%. So much for the PM being financially literate… Fucking capitalist moron!

      • vto 20.2.1
        26 June 2012 at 9:09 pm

        It is called being a liar Jackal, stop being so generous. Time for accuracy, reality and bluntness.

      • Dv 20.2.2
        26 June 2012 at 9:17 pm

        I thought the 10% he was referring to the interest back in the 90, the earlier privatization’s

        BUT the current govt interest cost is not 5%, but 2-3%

        >>1999 to 225,000 shareholders. 2002, a little over 3 years later, the number of shareholders had halved. It now stands at about 80,000.

        AND the return over the 12 years is about 4% per year

        • Jackal 20.2.2.1
          26 June 2012 at 9:25 pm

          I think you’re right, but do you have a reference to the 2-3%? I was going of something Bill English said, so I’m not surprised if it’s wrong:

          Finance Minister Bill English confirmed some borrowing had been brought forward because of ”favourable” conditions, with interest rates dropping from just under 6 per cent to just over 5 per cent.

          “We’ve been borrowing about $300m a week in the last three months or so… that’s all a matter of the public record.

        • felix 20.2.2.2
          26 June 2012 at 9:46 pm

          Yep that was a blatant lie to the people of NZ, many of whom would hear him say “5%” and not even realise that the govt doesn’t pay retail rates.

          Campbell should’ve called him on that, but Key is using a scattergun technique where he tells so many in rapid succession that no-one in the media has time to call him out on all of them.

          It’s partly a failing of our soundbite media culture, where a current affairs can interview the Prime Minister on the most important and controversial issue of his term and it consists of 5 minutes, with maybe two questions.

          But it’s also the real John Key going into panic mode and showing his teeth.

        • Jackal 20.2.2.3
          26 June 2012 at 9:58 pm

          OK Just watched the Campbell Live video properly. Key was talking about interest rates of 10 to 20% on borrowed money instead of selling BNZ, Telecom and Contact. This was in reference to the income from those sales of 7 billion in comparison to 20 billion in lost revenue.

          10 to 20% was not the rate of interest back then either. Try around 5.4% real interest on government borrowing in 1990 (PDF).

          You’re right about the scattergun technique felix. Key is just firing out as many lies as he can get away with to try and confuse people.

          • Dv 20.2.2.3.1
            26 June 2012 at 10:14 pm

            OK would you buy used power company from that man?

            Oh that will be why he has Banks.
            Banks is going to sign the prospectus!!!

            • Jackal 20.2.2.3.1.1
              26 June 2012 at 10:24 pm

              I actually feel ashamed he’s the PM of New Zealand.

              • vto …
                26 June 2012 at 10:28 pm

                Yep. Just watched it and Key clearly lied about the interest rates. 10-15-20% he referred to as being what the government would have paid.

                Lies and dishonesty.

                This is what I referred to the other day with this being theft, theft being the taking of property with dishonesty. Two parts. First, the taking which they are doing. Second, with dishonesty. Established tonight on by Campbell Live.

                Thieves and liars

              • Draco T Bastard …
                26 June 2012 at 11:08 pm

                I’ve felt that way since he got voted in.

  21. Paul 21
    26 June 2012 at 9:24 pm

    A sad day for New Zealand.
    We all need to get 100 people to sign the petition and encourage10 people to do the same.
    Apathy cannot be an excuse.

    • burt 21.1
      26 June 2012 at 9:37 pm

      Paul

      Just use public money to get the signatures….

      • Paul 21.1.1
        26 June 2012 at 9:39 pm

        ACT troll

        • burt 21.1.1.1
          27 June 2012 at 8:18 am

          Did I touch a nerve ? Feel a bit ashamed of using tax payers money to buy a referendum ?

          • mike e 21.1.1.1.1
            27 June 2012 at 1:24 pm

            using thousands to promote policy is bad Burt.
            using millions to promote the sale is OK because its Nationals propaganda.

      • Paul 21.1.2
        26 June 2012 at 9:40 pm

        zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      • mike e 21.1.3
        27 June 2012 at 2:07 pm

        Burt $71’000
        as opposed to many millions outside the $120 million Goldman sachs will get
        Duncan garner TV3 last night it will take many many millions to Con-vince the voting public!
        Propaganda!Burt

        • burt 21.1.3.1
          27 June 2012 at 8:05 pm

          Oh, we now measure principle using relative monetary amounts – nice!

          • mike e 21.1.3.1.1
            27 June 2012 at 8:07 pm

            yes

          • RedLogix 21.1.3.1.2
            27 June 2012 at 8:37 pm

            There are many principles in life but none of them are absolute. Often they are in conflict with each other and in real life we balance them off against each other.

            For instance we might hold freedom of action to be a good principle; but on the other hand we restrict people to driving on one side of the road because there is another principle at work which takes a higher priority in this case.

            Principles are often measured using relative amounts because they are in themselves inherently relative.

            Otherwise we become like: “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”

  22. Observer (Akl) 22
    26 June 2012 at 9:26 pm

    What can we do?

    We must work hard on Labour, Greens and New Zealand First – and make them collectively realise they have have as much power as the parties of greed in our Parliament. They have the power to take back Our Assets and return them to the people at the next election. And they must tell the nation that they will.

    To his great credit, Winston Peters has had the foresight and the courage to announce his intentions. He has told the new owners to be – that he will take our assets off them.

    Every time Key or English make an appearance in the media concerning Assets, the leaders of Labour, Greens and NZ First, must jointly make a counter appearance and say the simple words : “We will return the Assets to the New Zealand people.” They must continue to repeat these words at every opportunity. Without any weasel, and with utmost conviction.

    It is pointless slapping the Maori Party and the strange United Future guy for their little dog trot behind Key, unless the parties of the common people have the courage and the will to reverse the actions of the greedy.

    The great majority of Maoris do not want the Assets sold; many decent people of the National Party do not want the Assets sold; and most of the people of Labour, Greens and NZ First do not want them sold.

    If the politicians of the common people dither and waver and hide in caucus burrows like frightened rabbits, then they will let the majority of New Zealanders down. One of the reasons that Key has got away with this is – that he has guts. Pity about Greens and labour!

    • Paul 22.1
      26 June 2012 at 9:29 pm

      Insist to the political parties that we simply take our country’s assets back.
      South American countries have shown us the template.
      The sale was illegal – so we shall simply take them back.

      • burt 22.1.1
        26 June 2012 at 10:07 pm

        Paul,

        If the sale was made by a non elected government, a military regime perhaps, then sure under ‘international law convention’ it could be deemed an illegal sale. Parliament, by passing this bill 61-60 has made it legal under their mandate as the legislature in our half baked Westminster system.

        A sale simply can’t be called illegal when it’s done under the authority of laws enacted in parliament. I guess the legislation could fail to get royal ascent, but that would be a first.

      • burt 22.1.2
        26 June 2012 at 10:10 pm

        Paul

        However Labour could make a new law retrospective law. You can’t rule that out.

    • Paul 22.2
      26 June 2012 at 9:33 pm

      I agree – Winston has shown the most steel by simply saying we shall buy them back…. with no profit given

      • burt 22.2.1
        26 June 2012 at 9:38 pm

        You believe Winston…. wasn’t he the guy who didn’t declare donations from big racing industry backers while giving the racing industry a tax cut and claiming it was National who used secret trusts and sold policy for cash to their big business backers….

        • Jackal 22.2.1.1
          26 June 2012 at 10:26 pm

          National selling policy… you don’t say?

          • burt 22.2.1.1.1
            26 June 2012 at 10:37 pm

            Jackal.

            It’s being investigated…. how are you and your Labour buddies gonna like a ‘not in the public interest to prosecute’ if that’s what it ends up ? I’ll be spitting if it goes that way. Bet the investigation takes months and months and the report ‘exonerates’ him as only being guilty of helping people.

            I’m waiting for this one… Popcorn is ready.

            • felix 22.2.1.1.1.1
              26 June 2012 at 11:12 pm

              If you like that (it’s ok, I know you don’t) then you’re gonna love it when he gets investigated for the ACC deal (you really won’t).

              • burt …
                27 June 2012 at 8:19 am

                The only way I wouldn’t like it felix is if he validates himself and uses parliament to hide his corruption…. You know from past experience that gets me fired up.

    • seeker 22.3
      27 June 2012 at 2:29 am

      @Observer (Akl)

      “One of the reasons that Key has got away with this is – that he has guts.”

      Nonsense. He has guile and complete indifference to the needs of this country.

      +plus his hideous egocentric activities have given me insomnia tonight!

  23. Observer (Akl) 23
    26 June 2012 at 9:39 pm

    Hi Paul

    Thankyou.

    I get the feeling that Greens and Labour are wimping out.

    • Paul 23.1
      26 June 2012 at 9:46 pm

      Hi Observer
      New to this game.
      Is the best way to respond to people who troll like burt
      1) to ignore them..
      2).or to question how they seek to benefit personally from this theft of our assets?
      I think I know the answer..

      • felix 23.1.1
        26 June 2012 at 11:17 pm

        With burt it really makes no difference at all. If you ignore him he just keeps responding to himself, generally in circles, usually self-contradictory, sometimes utterly insane.

        Which is pretty much what he does when you question him too. Potato potato.

    • burt 23.2
      26 June 2012 at 10:31 pm

      Observer (Akl)

      My take on it is that the Green & Labour have been called on their bluff and bravado. FFS you simply can’t take back without compensation in a democracy. Notable points of contention include Maori land, treaty claims, land taken under the public works act or wartime legislation which, in themselves, show it’s simply not right for the government to “confiscate” without current value compensation.

      How long do you think it would take before we were in serious shit with a whole pile of international governance bodies and trade embargoes if 3 years from now the government “takes it back”.

      Winston’s – “pay the same amount” is equally bluster. How would he implement that? What – pass a law that the government is giving you the original money back and you lose title ? For how long will that stay enforce and when will it be actioned? The government might end up paying more than it’s worth ! It’s still confiscation without consideration for current value.

      Do we really want to live in a country where the government de-jour can simply unwind without consideration for circumstances, or time passed, a law validly enacted by a previous government?

      • Jackal 23.2.1
        26 June 2012 at 10:39 pm

        The law being valid is the question. United Future’s electioneering was not clear and to me it looked like he did not support Nationals proposed asset sales. Without Peter Dunne’s vote, National and Act wouldn’t have passed this legislation. The referendum could show that the law change is invalid, and therefore the argument to repurchase will become a financial one, as it should have been from the start.

        • burt 23.2.1.1
          26 June 2012 at 10:42 pm

          Somehow you have jumped from a country where a referendum has never been binding in any way to one where a referendum allows retrospective evaluation, perhaps dissolution, of a law passed in parliament. How’s that working out for you?

          • Jackal 23.2.1.1.1
            26 June 2012 at 11:00 pm

            The referendum might not be binding on the government, but it would be politically naive to ignore it. The referendum will likely show that National never had a mandate to sell New Zealands assets, which therefore gives a moral obligation to the incoming government to change things. It also questions the speed at which NactUF rammed the Mixed Ownership Model Bill through and whether they respect democracy whereby the majority decide what is best. Do you think the majority of Kiwis should decide if our assets are partially privatized?

        • burt 23.2.1.2
          26 June 2012 at 10:52 pm

          Jackal

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for direct democracy. I don’t claim to know how it would be well implemented but I’m not backing a referendum on asset sales as a good leaping platform.

      • felix 23.2.2
        26 June 2012 at 11:28 pm

        “Notable points of contention include Maori land, treaty claims, land taken under the public works act or wartime legislation which, in themselves, show it’s simply not right for the government to “confiscate” without current value compensation.”

        burt, are you seriously supporting “current value compensation” for treaty claims?

        Really? Do you have any idea how much you’re talking about here? You need to rethink this, and quick.

        Also you never answered my question earlier. If the opposition clearly says that when elected they will definitely take back an asset without compensation if the current govt sells it, and someone is stupid enough to ignore the warning and buys it anyway, what happens to your belief in free market, risk and reward, personal responsibility, caveat emptor and all your other articles of faith?

      • lprent 23.2.3
        27 June 2012 at 7:37 am

        We already do. Haven’t you looked at the laws here? Public works act, the enabling acts for power lines, dams, roads, railways, defense, supershitty’s, and of course the act passed yesterday.

        Spurious and rather silly argument.

  24. Logie97 24
    26 June 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Of course the mums and dads like Mr and Mrs Hounsditch-Monument and others wouldn’t want to buy shares in an Equiticorp type market. But of course some of them will queuing up to get there spare millions on these ones … they will be gilt edged.

  25. Georgecom 25
    26 June 2012 at 10:03 pm

    I’ll sell my car and some tools of my trade to pay for food on the table. What I won’t do however is charge board to the joker living in my house for free.

    Does that make sense? Seemingly only if you are the National-ACT-UF Government.

  26. Anne 26
    26 June 2012 at 10:08 pm

    Observer:
    Winston Peters – as the third and smallest party in a Lab/Green/NZ1st coalition govt – can afford to make promises he knows he won’t be in a position to have to carry out. Labour and the Greens however don’t have that luxury. Who knows what the the financial situation is going to be after November 2014. All the predictions don’t look promising at this stage. If a situation arises that does allow them to retrieve some of the assets at least then well and good, but don’t knock them for being responsible and refusing to make rash promises.

  27. Observer (Akl) 27
    26 June 2012 at 10:10 pm

    Hi Paul

    I think the thing is to look after your own integrity. Say what you honestly think. Always talk to the topic. Respect is then gained and held.

    Persons who use these kind of forums for their own purposes, or for mere political spin, are like people who go to a barbecue just to eat free sausages. They make everybody sick – in the end. The same people only go to funerals to eat the cakes too.

    Just ignore their bloodshot eyes and mean wizened body language.

    But you don’t need my tips Paul – you write well.

    • Paul 27.1
      28 June 2012 at 9:24 pm

      Thank you
      I shall try to follow your wise advice
      I think people are gradually waking up to this government’s agenda

  28. alex 28
    26 June 2012 at 10:58 pm

    Just keep getting those signatures everyone. We’ll see how the referendum goes.

  29. Observer (Akl) 29
    26 June 2012 at 11:15 pm

    Hello Anne – thanks for your response.

    I agree that the timing of the buyback is as important as the timing of the selling. I think the Nats under Key have foreshadowed they will not sell until the share prices are fat enough, and pre-demand is such that Treasury will paste up a “Sold Out” sign.

    But he has confidently pressed ahead.

    L&G could take a leaf out of Key’s book. For the important thing is that the new owners should be made very aware that their shares will be temporary. We are talking about shares in power products that are absolutely gauranteed, endlessly fruitful. Presently the property of all New Zealanders.

    Many people will go into serious debt to get hold of these maginificent shares.

    If Labour and Greens have so little confidence in the future of New Zealand then we are right to doubt their ability to do much at all – let alone even up the playing field for the common people.

    Will they be similarly impotent when assets such as ACC, Public Education, Public Health, all Crown Land, National Parks are put out for sale?. Where have L & G drawn line Anne? Or can we expect their limp “I must not be rash” on every truly major issue?

    Finally, I think Winston Peters, who may well play a pivotal role in the next Parliament, deserves respect from serious commentators.

    • felix 29.1
      26 June 2012 at 11:31 pm

      +1

    • Anne 29.2
      27 June 2012 at 6:11 pm

      Hello Observer.

      Have only just seen your reply.

      First, I don’t disrespect Winston Peters. Indeed his courage and tenacity over the WineBox Affair was truly impressive. And I concede he often makes some very pertinent points. Apart from that he’s a superb debater in the House.

      It doesn’t alter the fact that smaller niche (for want of a better word) political parties do have the ability to be more liberal with their promises. ACT was a splendid example in the last half dozen elections. L and G will only be impotent if the global recession, in particular, goes into complete meltdown.

      It’s not a case of them being weak or lily livered, but the knowledge that if future circumstances
      (and we can’t predict at this stage what they will be) do not allow a buy-back of assets – or even a partial buy-back – then they will be digging their own grave if they promise as much now.

      I want to see a left of centre govt. in NZ as much as anyone else, but I want to ensure they are not thrown out again in 1917 as a result of a rash promise.

  30. ropata 30
    26 June 2012 at 11:32 pm

    One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the Oligarchs will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new capitalist overlords. I’d like to remind them that as a trusted internet personality, I can be helpful in rounding up socialists to toil in their unregulated coal mines.

  31. millsy 31
    26 June 2012 at 11:44 pm

    So what next.

    MRP will be on the block next year, so I doubt that one can be stopped.

    Hopefully the left should be able to stop the sale of GEN, MERI and SE.

    Though I would really like to see a plan from Labour and the Greens, plus Winston about what they want to do with the remaining assets.

    The SOE’s along with the CRI’s and various other central and government owned companies spattered round the place need to be seen as a form of bedrock with which to build the rest of the economy on, and I think serious thought needs to be given about establishing something like the Singaporean Temasek Holdings, I read somewhere that David Shearer was keen on such an idea.

    In any case, I see no good coming from this 🙁 🙁

  32. Frank Macskasy 32
    27 June 2012 at 1:38 am

    My immediate response to tonights’ events; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/you-have-mail/

    Included in that post in an idea how National’s privatisation plans can be undermined, if all four opposition parties work together…

    • Pete George 32.1
      27 June 2012 at 6:52 am

      You’re promoting Winston Peters’ poorly thought through proposal? To force Kiwisaver funds and the NZ Super fund to sell their shares, then force them to buy them back again? That’s an absurd idea.

      For a start, NZ Super investments have to be completely independent of Government influence.

      And Kiwisaver funds are owned by us, the people. There should be an uproar if Government tries to intefere with them.

      Both Clayton Cosgrove and Russel Norman said Winston Peters was being fiscally irresponsible. They’re right on that.

      • Descendant Of Smith 32.1.1
        27 June 2012 at 7:06 am

        Exactly why the other day I said you were Quisling.

        You purport to stand for one thing, New Zealanders and honesty in politics and a better way of doing things and accountability but in reality you are part of the group dismantling and aiding and abetting.

        The hypocrisy in saying don’t touch the Kiwisaver funds they are owned by us the people when you’ve totally supported this government in selling the power companies that are owned by us the people, your defense of this government while they abuse parliamentary processes, and so on.

        Quisling indeed. “to quisle” describes perfectly what you do in your posts.

        • Pete George 32.1.1.1
          27 June 2012 at 7:30 am

          I haven’t totally supported the government with their asset sales policy. I’m one of a few who managed to moderate National legislation.

          You’re totally wrong, there is a vast difference between state assets (power companies) and privately owned assets (Kiwisaver accounts). My Kiwisaver account is owned by just me, not by ‘the people’.

          • Descendant Of Smith 32.1.1.1.1
            27 June 2012 at 7:35 am

            There’s a difeerence but it’s only your Quisling like position that makes it vast. I would quite clearly see that it’s minuscule.

        • muzza 32.1.1.2
          27 June 2012 at 7:33 am

          The PG’s of this world are those whose self esteem is very low, the self image problems deveoped at a young age, through perceptions (some formed on reality), of being a reject.

          Once these feelings become part of the psyche, progress through the formative years are generally the stuff of horror for the Petes of this world, so they go looking for ways in which to take control of other people, having by in large lost the ability to control themselves…

          Rejects inevitably find their ways towards others of similar ilk, who are themselves easily controlled by the puppeteers, and pushed via the various clubs and memberships into the political landscape, and onto the ballot papers…In Petes case, he was below the rejects, and had to become the hanger on to the rejects…his name on the ballot with the 170 votes garnished, vindication of his rise to prominence. Still not happy inside though, as the brown nosing breeds further feelings of self loathing, which conflicts with the desire to been “part of something”, this is where Pete is currenty at with himself..

          A reject clinging onto what he believes gives him self worth, and in his eyes, any and all comments, if aimed at him, are proof that he is “something”

          Thats why the best action , is to ignore his posts completely, like the below reject level that make up these types of people. Responding provides validation, and self righteous evidence that he is in fact playing a :The PG’s of this world are those whose self esteem is very low, the self image problems deveoped at a young age, through perceptions (some formed on reality), of being a reject.

          Once these feelings become part of the psyche, progress through the formative years are generally the stuff of horror for the Petes of this world, so they go looking for ways in which to take control of other people, having by in large lost the ability to control themselves…

          Rejects inevitably find their ways towards others of similar ilk, who are themselves easily controlled by the puppeteers, and pushed via the various clubs and memberships into the political landscape, and onto the ballot papers…In Petes case, he was below the rejects, and had to become the hanger on to the rejects…his name on the ballot with the 170 votes garnished, vindication of his rise to prominence. Still not happy inside though, as the brown nosing breeds further feelings of self loathing, which conflicts with the desire to been “part of something”, this is where Pete is currenty at with himself..

          A reject clinging onto what he believes gives him self worth, which is why the best course of action is to ignore his posts, as once any evidence that people pay attention is gone, then the feelings of self hatred reappear…DNFTT, let him fester on the karma that will come around to the Petes, Johns, and all those who seek to sell out, destroy, kill, and inflict suffering.

          You cant hide from the truth, it is always there!

      • Frank Macskasy 32.1.2
        27 June 2012 at 10:18 am

        “You’re promoting Winston Peters’ poorly thought through proposal?”

        As opposed to National/ACT/Peter Dunne’s “poorly thought through” asset sales programme? Is that what you’re meaning Pete?

        “To force Kiwisaver funds and the NZ Super fund to sell their shares, then force them to buy them back again? That’s an absurd idea.”

        The NZ Super Fund is different to individual Kiwisaver accounts. But no doubt you already knew that?

        Anyway, NZ Super and Kiwisaver funds are already able to take up IPOs. So your outrage and concern for the ‘public good’ is misplaced.

        “And Kiwisaver funds are owned by us, the people. There should be an uproar if Government tries to intefere with them.”

        Really, Pete? There’d be an UPROAR if Government did something people didn’t like?

        Would you care to re-think that statement through a bit more clearly, and understand why it’s so utterly ludicrous?

        “Both Clayton Cosgrove and Russel Norman said Winston Peters was being fiscally irresponsible. They’re right on that.”

        I think you totally missed the stategy I was getting at. *peooowwww!* (sound of something going over your head)

        • felix 32.1.2.1
          28 June 2012 at 1:36 pm

          “As opposed to National/ACT/Peter Dunne’s “poorly thought through” asset sales programme? Is that what you’re meaning Pete?”

          Oh no Frank, Peter Dunne thought it through and concluded that there were no downsides to selling these assets.

          No downsides.

          None.

      • mike e 32.1.3
        27 June 2012 at 1:32 pm

        pathetic grovelar more of your BS not since Nactuf got back into power. The National party have directed the super fund to buy shares in Z and the oil refinery formerly owned by shell .
        This investment is poor as fuel sales are declining.
        Just another broken promise pathetic pete

      • mike e 32.1.4
        27 June 2012 at 1:39 pm

        Pompous pete Then the National Act UF use the Cullen fund to buy Z no reasoning no due diligence.
        Dumb idea from dumb govt fuel sales are declining.

  33. Carol 33
    27 June 2012 at 8:18 am

    And the directors of Mighty River Power have already made a cool $220k for preparing their business for privatisation. Not bad for 20 days work?!!!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10815746

    Directors at the first energy company to be partially sold off have picked up an extra $220,000 in fees for working on the deal.

    Mighty River Power’s nine board members were paid the money for about an average of 20 extra days’ work preparing the company for sale, according to papers released under the Official Information Act.

    State-Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall, who approved the payment, expressed concern over how much it has cost but would not rule out further payments.

    And he has also said director fees could rise from $1200 a day after the sale because the job would be harder and carry greater risk.

  34. Observer (Akl) 34
    27 June 2012 at 8:54 am

    Hello Frank Macskasy

    It is so easy to underestimate a successful opponent or his tactics. Yet writer after broiling writer on this valuable forum has wasted time calling John Key names. The man has guts.

    He wanted to transfer gilt edged, cascading wealth to his very wealthy friends – against a quietly hostile nation – and he has done it. He has rummaged deeply through the pockets of the common man to do it. And won’t stop here.

    Why has it been so easy for him? Simply, because he has put his body on the line.

    The opposition, who declare themselves as supporters of the common man, do not have the qualities of their opponent. They have used thumb sucking words to berate Key, but they have not put their political body on the line.

    Winston Peters is the only man in the Parliament who has told New Zealand what he is going to do to retrieve their Assets. He has courage. One single voice out of four parties Frank. Just one committed man. Let others wrongly call him irresponsible. Wimps fling names around, but he bravely intends to get the Assets back.

    Apart from telling us we should sign bits of paper, the other three have in no way shown determination to return the Assets. Words don’t substitute for action Frank.

    John Key acted on the support of 20% of the population (some say 40%). Our Opposition can’t find courage from the 80% (some say 60%) who have repeatedly declared themselves against the sale of golden Assets.

    Shame Labour. Shame Greens. What are they in Parliament for Frank? Any idea.

  35. freedom 35
    27 June 2012 at 9:09 am

    Q: Can the Governor General do anything?

    I admittedly am a bit fuzzy on where those largely ceremonial powers start/stop. Which is why i ask questions of others who know these matters more accurately than I. ( something many people would do well to try) Ceremonial position aside, does he not have some power here? Perhaps if he thought of all his brothers in arms who fought and died for New Zealand and what they died protecting, then he could be a brave soldier and refuse to allow the act to be accepted by the Crown?

    Yes it messes in our self-determination but we are not a Republic yet. If it is a tool in the box, let’s bloody well use it and ask the GG to protect Aotearoa.

    • lcmortensen 35.1
      27 June 2012 at 9:39 am

      There is the question of whether the GovGen has any power to refuse Royal Assent to a bill. Most likely he only has power to refuse Royal Assent to any bill abolishing democracy.

      • freedom 35.1.1
        27 June 2012 at 9:57 am

        As I understood it, The ‘ending of democracy bit’ is the extreme example of the GG powers and is largely accepted as the only situation where the powers would be applied, so as to protect the appearance of a free nation acting independently of the Monarch’s control.

        regardless of the selective ways the laws are applied, can those same powers apply to any Bill?

        If it is refused does the Bill not then have to be returned to the House for further debate? This would be followed by a new vote, where the public pressure on certain people may well change the outcome of that vote. I see the dangerous road it exposes, but these are very dangerous times.

        (btw anyone know where John Banks has been hiding ???)

        • lcmortensen 35.1.1.1
          27 June 2012 at 2:44 pm

          In theory, a head of state can veto any bill s/he is not happy with, but in a parliamentary system, it is very rare.

          If the Governor General refused a bill Royal Assent, the bill simply gets thrown in the trash can, and the only way to resurrect it would be to go through the whole legislation process again.

  36. Frank Macskasy 36
    27 June 2012 at 9:25 am

    “Shame Labour. Shame Greens. What are they in Parliament for Frank? Any idea.”

    Yes, one. Partisan politics such as you’re promoting is not going to help this country one iota. Only National will benefit from a fractured Opposition such as you are promoting.

    Instead, all parties have to work together to achieve a good outcome for the common good.

    Any ideas?

  37. Observer 37
    27 June 2012 at 10:11 am

    Frank

    As you will see from earlier posts of mine prior to reading your blog, I suggested and believe that the Opposition Parties should act collectively to return the Assets. Neither you nor I are alone in these views.

    Unfortunately, there is no current evidence that Labour and Greens have any intention of doing that.

    In the meantime, you views and mine are similar – to the point of identical. As a fair man, you will grant me that Frank.

    I read your blog and admire what you have written.

    Ciao

    • Frank Macskasy 37.1
      27 June 2012 at 10:28 am

      Apologies if I’ve mis-understood your comments, Obs.

      I’ve already read one discussion on FB where NZF and others were at each others’ throats. I couldn’t be bothered participating.

      The four Opposition parties must work together if they’re to have any chance of beating the Tories. This includes careful strategising where the four parties can work to undermine the National privatisation programme. I have confidence this can be done.

      (If not, the Nats will laugh their heads off at the amateurism of the Opposition.)

      The four Parties don’t have to have identical policies – otherwise they’d be one single Party, not four. But they shouldn’t impede working together.

      And if you read my blogpost – http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/how-to-sabotage-the-asset-sales/ – you’ll see that Peters’ plans have a part to play, and that Labour and the Greens can use that as part of a plan.

      Far from being exclusive, the separate policies of each of the parties can actually mesh together, like a jigsaw, to form a complete strategy. It just has to be done with careful planning and confidence, and with the leadership working together.

      • David H 37.1.1
        27 June 2012 at 5:11 pm

        And the other problem is that you have no one standing up and saying this what we HAVE to do. There isn’t a credible leader in the opposition parties, ( I prefer Cunliffe). And I reckon he has the charisma to set a common goal. Shearer just does not have it. at the moment the opposition parties are only working for them selves, when they should unite and fight for the good of the country, and all New Zealanders, and until they do this, and show they care then the voter apathy will continue. You have to show you give a fuck for the little man, not kick him when he’s down. And until this happens then the Nats will be able to run roughshod over us.

        • KhandallaMan 37.1.1.1
          27 June 2012 at 10:57 pm

          As with Phil Goff, the Labour “strategists” have one objective and that is to get high “favoured PM” ratings for Shearer.  They failed before and are failing again. And if one keeps doing the same thing and expects a different outcome one is an idiot. That is why Winston and Norman are getting the air times.  Shearer has to prove he has cojones.  I doubt that the dimwits around him have a single testicle between them. Some said Shearer should be given more time. Bollox. The “little man” is despairing and will vote for Winny or stay at home.  
          David Cunliffe is doing what we expect all the top brass to doing, that is openly examining the issues and putting forward ideas.  All that the rest of the front bench is doing is trying to win small points.  Cunliffe would pull a strong opposition together and give “the small man” hope. 

        • KhandallaMan 37.1.1.2
          27 June 2012 at 11:17 pm
          As with Phil Goff, the Labour “strategists” have one objective and that is to get high “favoured PM” ratings for Shearer.  They failed before and are failing again. And if one keeps doing the same thing and expects a different outcome one is an idiot. That is why Winston and Norman are getting the air times.  Shearer has to prove he has cojones.  I doubt that the dimwits around him have a single testicle between them. Some said Shearer should be given more time. Bollox. The “little man” is despairing and will vote for Winny or stay at home.  
          David Cunliffe is doing what we expect all the top brass to doing, that is openly examining the issues and putting forward ideas.  All that the rest of the front bench is doing is trying to win small points.  Cunliffe would pull a strong opposition together and give “the small man” hope. 
          • fender 37.1.1.2.1
            28 June 2012 at 12:07 am

            With Shearer so far all we have seen mostly is the smile and wave stuff he/they think is required. If thats what they think their supporters want, only time will tell on that. I’m reluctant to bag him as he seems like a top bloke trying his best at something, despite often looking like hes out of his depth. He is improving and needs to continue the progress hes making.

            The talent that is Cunliffe cant be under-utilised and its great to know Labour have a natural leader ready if they decide they want one of those.

            • Jenny 37.1.1.2.1.1
              28 June 2012 at 5:58 am

              In my opinion, all we have seen from Shearer so far, is a re-run of Goff. The impression is growing that Shearer was a “clean skin” with no identifiable links to the Rogergnomic past, brought in to continue carrying the neo-lib banner inside the leadership of the Labour Party.

            • Jenny 37.1.1.2.1.2
              28 June 2012 at 6:01 am

              Hear, hear.

  38. urban_rascal 38
    27 June 2012 at 10:27 am

    So I have a question maybe someone can help me with. There’s alot of Rhetoric thrown around on the asset sales and I am fundamentally against transferring our dividend flow into the 10% of kiwi’s investing in the stock exchange. However I feel like there has been alot of seemingly unfactual statements from the blogs I read. Power prices will jump, we will lose infrastructure etc.
    It is my understanding that power prices should remain competitive in the mixed model, even in the private model (I know that’s based on a larger market in the USA though). Also the infrastructure for our grid is owned and maintained by Transpower, correct?, on the right they claim that power has increased 7% a year for however long failing to mention that the increase is “apparently” due to Transpower upgrading the Grid due to be complete in 2015. I’m guessing that power prices won’t fall back 7% after 2015 and this will lead to increases in the MOM’s profits as Transpowers charges decrease. So I can’t assume that prices will rise, but more transpowers charges will drop and the Government won’t be able to be held accountable for no drop in power rates as they would have been.
    Lastly on Cambell Live, Key mentions that our Kiwisaver and Super are heavily invested in Aussi Stocks. Is it not prudent to move them into our markets. It has been said that this is in essence a NZX bailout, but economically doesn’t it make sense to grow this exchange when Aussi growth is about to plummet on the back of China’s financial elephant in the room later this year?
    Also worth noting, nowhere in the SOE law does it mention that these companies are owned for the good of the people. They are stated to be run as profitable as possible and AirNZ seems to show that their model has been much more profitable than the previous model.
    I welcome these comments getting pulled the F*** apart. As these are just a collection of points I can’t decide on

  39. Frank Macskasy 39
    27 June 2012 at 10:49 am

    Without spending a couple of hours going through each and every point you raise (and which you might be able to find out for yourself with a bit of judicious research), I’ll address your last point,

    “Also worth noting, nowhere in the SOE law does it mention that these companies are owned for the good of the people.”

    I had a quick, cursory look at the SOE Act 1986 and couldn’t find any specific reference to any social clause. However, that’s not to say that individual SOEs, like Genesis for example, don’t contain social clauses in their respective :”Statements of Intent”,

    “To manage impacts on communities in which the Company operates
    and to engage meaningfully with key stakeholders including iwi in the areas in which the Company
    operates; ”

    and,

    “Community and Iwi
    Genesis Energy will continue to partner with, and support, the communities in which it operates. This
    will include localized community sponsorships and initiatives. The Company also has a range of broad
    based community initiatives which include the Genesis Oncology Trust, Schoolgen and Curtain Bank.
    Genesis Energy is committed to working with iwi and looks forward to building on established
    relationships and working on new opportunities as they arise.”

    Source: http://www.comu.govt.nz/resources/pdfs/gp/gp-sc-12.pdf

  40. Urban Rascal 40
    27 June 2012 at 11:12 am

    Fair enough, I have seen these points come up in open mics etc over the last months and have never really heard a sound argument against them Bar the “bailout scenario”.

    If it’s in a companies charter that’s great, I would argue that in this day and age these companies will not be removing these with a 51% government stake. But mainly because consumers are reasonably expectant of large companies assisting community and trying to minimise the impact on environment. It wouldn’t be a prudent business choice to stop this. You would find similar statements in companies like The Warehouse, Telecom etc.
    Whether they do them is another thing but I’d argue that as SOE they are just as likely not following their statements to the letter.

    • fmacskasy 40.1
      28 June 2012 at 3:18 pm

      Actually, Urban Rascal, I doubt if any private company have charters that include reference to Treaty and Iwi matters. Private company Charters might refer to respecting customers’ needs, but that’s not entirely the same thing.

      As for saying that ” in this day and age these companies will not be removing these with a 51% government stake” – again, this may not be the case.

      A treasury report actually pointed out that in a partially privatised SOE, that any social and/or Treaty considerations would be removed and “Once a minority shareholding in each company is sold, the government proposes that the company will be governed in the same way as other listed companies and that they will be subject to the Companies Act 1993 and other relevant legislation, the NZX listing rules and the companies’ constitutions.”

      The sole purpose of any partially-privatised business would be profits – not any social or long-term strategic considerations. Which means that if it’s more profitabvle to have power shortages because it drives up prices… You can figure the rest out for yourself.

      More here on my blogpost on this issue: http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/government-sprung-on-soe-sale-plan/ – Note that my post was based on leaked Treasury documents.

      • Urban Rascal 40.1.1
        28 June 2012 at 4:07 pm

        Ok that’s great and all but we are really only speculating on whether they would drive for power shortages and play a lesser role in the communities.
        I note in your blog that the act only states:

        “…an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.”

        Community social responsibility is a common corporate value these days. And by and large the act states they are to be competitive with the private companies. Your blog doesn’t mention iwi in the act so i’m not sure if these companies charters would change. These companies will be under alot of scrutiny for a few years and I don’t think from a business point of view that it would be in their interests or shareholders to cut out clauses that will attract media heat, and with 4 other competitors it would be picked up.

        But i’m not a fan of using the maori water argument to halt the sales either so I might be a little biased. I think it is as short sighted as the sales themselves. Essentially moving water assets in to private iwi finances. I’m still disgruntled about seabed/foreshore.
        Last paragraph is abit off topic though

  41. Observer 41
    27 June 2012 at 11:32 am

    Thanks Frank

    You are so correct. The inter networking between parties on this nationwide Assets issue could only strengthen each party. Maori need not abandon their political ideas and aspirations. Nor Greens theirs. Neither the party of decades – Labour. The elder community trusts W. Peters – and for good reason.

    This is a common issue for the Common Man. If the parties network, they can Declare an End to Asset dumping. Their supporters and New Zealand will be grateful.

    I think also that the breadth of the four parties can begin to draw in additional Professional support from Doctors, from Academics, from Educators, from Carers, from Tradespersons, Suppliers and Retailers.

    The reason being, that the fewer resources and cash flow the Common Man has, the less he can afford to spend with the above sectors. You won’t keep a University going at strength if you freeze out the Common Man. The economy, whatever else it is, is a pool of producers and consumers. Ordinary people do nearly all the hands on work in production, and they also do the great bulk of consuming. What a resource they are!

    It is time for all leaders of all sectors – excluding the financial sector – to step up to the plate and realise that they are very dependent on the common man for their own success.

    Well, all that is just primmer grade, but they are the sort of fundamentals which are so often overlooked while the few wealthy get wealthier.

  42. vto 42
    27 June 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Nobody wants to sell these assets and everyone wants to buy them…

    What does that say?

    nutshell

    • chris73 42.1
      27 June 2012 at 3:03 pm

      Some people want to sell the assets, some people don’t want them sold and most want to buy them is probably more accurate

      • mike e 42.1.1
        27 June 2012 at 3:39 pm

        chris 73 Stuff .co today 60% against.
        Considering poorer people don’t have access to vote online.
        I would say your little story is BS!

        • chris73 42.1.1.1
          27 June 2012 at 4:18 pm

          52.4% against v 47.6%

          I’m guessing you can work out for yourself its closer to a 50-50 split then 60-40 so it’d be fair to say that my point is more accurate and your point is BS

      • tracey 42.1.2
        27 June 2012 at 6:36 pm

        If you think most kiwi have a spare $1000 for shares you live in la la land.

  43. Robert Atack 43
    27 June 2012 at 7:19 pm

    I would like to see a ‘send up’ by say the Concords, picture this
    John Key in his Easter Island high priest costume telling his tribe that because his people were starving he was going to sell 49% of their statues, a % will be bought by the starving tribe, and the rest will be bought by the other starving tribes. High priest JK guaranteed after the sales went through he would be able to buy lots of pigs to feed his tribe, ignoring that there hadn’t been a pig on the island since they clear felled all the trees.
    Then up pops the ‘opposition’ high priest David and claims the statues should stay in the hands of the tribe, and be used as tourist attractions, to attract the other tribes, “We could charge them a pig each time they visited”
    Then the Greed priest says “If everyone only keeps up their Kiwi Saver payments, in just a few short years the tribe would have enough savings invested in the other tribes statues that they will be to build a pig farm”
    You can have the rest of the tribe standing around scratching their balls, picking their noses, nodding their idiot heads, going ug and da???? “lets vote on it”

  44. Robert Atack 44
    27 June 2012 at 7:31 pm

    “lets vote on it” then we can have a feast and eat lots of pigs

  45. dividend stocks 45
    21 July 2012 at 7:36 pm

    I like to say that dividends are measured being a percent of your stock. For instance, if a stock are at $50 and it pays a $2.50 dividend that stock is considered to have a 5% dividend.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.