web analytics

Ryall confirms asset stripping on the cards

Written By: - Date published: 9:50 am, March 2nd, 2012 - 136 comments
Categories: energy, infrastructure, privatisation - Tags:

So, National wants to re-assure us that, when they sell our assets against our will, they’ll keep 51% and control. But, um, minority shareholders have rights and private boards have to maximise profits ahead of the national interest. If they decide to sell off the dams later they can, and the Nats won’t stop them.

See the companies called Mighty River, Meridian, Genesis, and Solid Energy could still exist and be 51% government owned but everything they own of value could be hocked off if their boards decide that’s the best way to make a quick buck.

When Russel Norman asked Tony Ryall if the government would put anything in the legislation to stop the boards of part-privatised companies liquidating their assets, our power generation capacity, Ryall was …. less than convincing

Dr Russel Norman: Will the legislation to establish these partially privatised energy companies include explicit provisions that prevent these companies from selling major New Zealand electricity-generating assets?

Hon TONY RYALL: The legislation will pretty much reflect the existing situation, where directors of State-owned enterprises not only operate under the requirements of the Companies Act but also are expected to act within the confines and requirements of listing requirements on the New Zealand stock exchange.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the legislation to establish these companies include explicit provisions that prevent those companies from selling major New Zealand electricity-generating assets?

Hon TONY RYALL: The proposed legislation does not need to include any additional features to address the concern that the member has, because the Companies Act already requires that any significant transactions would involve consultation with the shareholders. The Government is retaining 51 percent majority ownership. [so, before selling assets, the boards would have to consult with a government that’s obsessed with selling assets]

Dr Russel Norman: Is he saying that his Government will provide no legislative guarantee that major New Zealand electricity-generating assets will not fall into foreign ownership after partial privatisation?

Hon TONY RYALL: There are requirements in the Companies Act that significant transactions require the support of the majority shareholder, and there are similar requirements in respect of the listing requirements of companies. So the Government is retaining 51 percent majority control…

Dr Russel Norman: Is it his understanding that section 131 of the Companies Act requires directors to act in the best interests of the company, whereas if it is determined that it is not in the best interests of New Zealand to sell those assets, those directors will be required to act in the best interests of the company, not in the best interests of New Zealand?

Hon TONY RYALL: The directors’ acting within the best interests of the company also requires them to act within the other provisions of the Companies Act. The Companies Act, in respect of the question that the member asked in the first part of this exchange, does provide express provisions for majority shareholders to have a say in significant transactions, and the directors will be aware of that.

Hon David Parker: What percentage of the company’s assets have to be sold before it is a major transaction that requires shareholder approval?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Companies Act sets that out to be around 50 percent. [so, a board could sell, billions of dollars of hydro-dams and not even have to get the approval of the government…]

Looks like part-privatised companies would have a licence to asset strip under National.

136 comments on “Ryall confirms asset stripping on the cards”

  1. This episode blew a further hole in the Nats’ propaganda on the issue.
     
    Ryall called it a “significant transaction” but the phrase used in the Companies Act is “major transaction”.  Under section 129 a Company may not enter into a “major transaction” without a special resolution being passed either approving the transaction or validating the transaction.  A “major transaction” includes “[t]he disposition of, or an agreement to dispose of, whether contingent or not, assets of the company the value of which is more than half the value of the company’s assets before the disposition”.
     
    So for Mighty River Power which own 8 hydro electric power stations it could sell the power stations one by one without needing shareholder approval unless the constitution provides otherwise.  The directors could have this power without restriction.  It seems from Ryall’s answer that there will be no restrictions placed on the directors.
     
    And a director acting in the best interests of the company is duty bound to accept an offer if the price is right.
     
    Privatisation by a thousand cuts awaits us …

    • queenstfarmer 1.1

      a director acting in the best interests of the company is duty bound to accept an offer if the price is right

      With all due respect, that is not just blatantly incorrect, it also shows a dangerous naivety. I for one would not want to be advised by someone who tells me I am “duty bound” to accept an offer the instant that some Joe walks into my office and puts down a cheque for $1 more than any item is worth.

      As for Russell: please stick to the rivers and the lakes you’re used to.

      • McFlock 1.1.1

        But if, say, Joe came in and offered you a cheque for substantially more than the market rate for one of 8 power stations, your minority shareholder might not think you were acting in the best interests of the company when you turned it down. So they could sue your ass, and anyone from whom you habitually took instructions.

        • queenstfarmer 1.1.1.1

          Yes they might. Anyone can be sued for anything at any time – what’s your point?

          your minority shareholder might not think you were acting in the best interests of the company when you turned it down

          Well unfortunately for your argument, the law isn’t whether you act in what a minority shareholder thinks might be the best interests of the company. It is whether you act in what you consider to be the best interests of the company.

          • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1

            “Yes they might. Anyone can be sued for anything at any time – what’s your point?”

            Some cases are more likely to succeed than others.

            “It is whether you are acting in what you consider to be the best interests of the company.”
              
            Yes indeed.
            So you’re relying on a tactic along the lines of “we can break the law if we want to, we almost certainly won’t get caught”.
            Personally, I always loved the look of surprise on people’s faces when they found that wasn’t the case.
               
            But more importantly, for many people even the slight possibility of getting caught was enough to keep them in line. See, you’re not ricking the court case. You’re hoping that future directors of a 51% enterprise will be prepared to work towards the benefit of the nation, not the company, on the probability that they won’t get made accountable for it. You’re also asking that of people whom the directors habitually take instruction from, like ministers. 
                  
            So really what do you think is more likely in the real world, in an instance where the two are mutually exclusive – will the directors put the good of the nation ahead of company profits, or vice versa?  
                 
            Hint as to my position: we couldn’t even rely on them to work for the good of the nation when the SOE was 100% govt owned – they still laid off NZ workers to purchase sub-par rolling stock from overseas.

      • Lanthanide 1.1.2

        queenstfarmer – if you were in a sales process, and the offer was exactly identical in all ways to another offer except for $1 more, then I think you would be required by the board to take the $1 greater offer.

        Obviously if you aren’t actually in a sales process, someone making a offer for your asset is meaningless.

        • queenstfarmer 1.1.2.1

          if you were in a sales process, and the offer was exactly identical in all ways to another offer except for $1 more, then I think you would be required by the board to take the $1 greater offer

          Usually yes, but not necessarily. Many tenders are often on the basis that “highest offer may not be accepted”. There are lots of reasons for this. Sometimes you don’t want to sell to a competitor, or a potential competitor, there may be credit concerns, etc.

          Obviously if you aren’t actually in a sales process, someone making a offer for your asset is meaningless

          Not according to Mickey & Russ, and McFlock. According to them, if someone walks up and offers you more than the market rate, you are “duty bound” to just sell it. Go figure.

          • mickysavage 1.1.2.1.1

            QSF you have chosen to read my statement in a particular way and that is your prerogative.  But don’t you agree that if the price is right, the contract is sound and all financial and strategic imperatives are favorable that a director acting responsibly would have to consider approving such a transaction?

            The point being that one by one the dams could be sold without the Government as shareholder voting on the transaction.

            Good attempted diversion though. 

            • queenstfarmer 1.1.2.1.1.1

              But don’t you agree that if the price is right, the contract is sound and all financial and strategic imperatives are favorable that a director acting responsibly would have to consider approving such a transaction?

              Yes, I think that a responsible director should consider it. That is not the same as your earlier claim that they would be “duty bound to accept an offer”.

              Good attempted diversion though

              Diversion how? It’s strange statements like that which detract from the issues. I called you out on an incorrect claim, and you are suggesting it was an attempt to “divert”. From what? How? Why?

              • QSF my original comment was not meant to be a treatise on a director’s legal responsibilities.  “The price is right” is shorthand for a deal that in commercial terms makes so much sense that a director is pretty well duty bound to accept it.

                Besides you are diverting from the primary issue which is that the corporate model proposed can result in significant power generating assets being sold to overseas interests.  

                I am certain you realise this.  Your insistence on the language being technically perfect deflects from the point.

                Do you agree that the model proposed could result in our dams being sold to overseas interests even though the Government owns 51% of the shares?

                • queenstfarmer

                  Do you agree that the model proposed could result in our dams being sold to overseas interests even though the Government owns 51% of the shares?

                  Yes. Just like dams could be sold to overseas interests if the Govt owns 100% of the shares.

                  • And do you also agree that if the current privatisation model is followed then a decision to sell a dam to an entity which is not majority owned by the Government can be made by the directors.

                    • queenstfarmer

                      If the relevant conditions are met yes, just like a decision to sell a dam to an entity which is not majority owned by the Government can be made by the directors currently.

          • mikesh 1.1.2.1.2

            The point is that a future government who wanted to sell assets anyway would claim they had no choice but to “act in the best interests of the shareholders”.

            • queenstfarmer 1.1.2.1.2.1

              Why would they claim that? The Govt doesn’t have to act in the best interests of other shareholders. You are still confused on this basic issue.

              • RedLogix

                The government is only a shareholder. The Directors are still obliged to act in the best interests of the company.

                And as the exchange between Norman and Ryall shows.. the interests of the government as a shareholder, and the company can well be defined as two different things.

                Besides you can argue the strict legalisms of this to your hearts content… the fact remains if the government of the day is happy to see major public assets part-privatised… then the reality is that it’s also very unlikely to object, even as a ‘major shareholder’, to further sell-downs of assets in a piecemeal fashion either.

                If each hydro dam is sold individually, the government can cheerfully claim to still be the ‘majority shareholder’ of the remaining company… and continue this claim right up until the point where the entire company is sold. The fact that Key has categorically refused to ammend the proposed legislation to close this blatant loophole tells us pretty much that they intend to do just this.

                • queenstfarmer

                  The Directors are still obliged to act in the best interests of the company.

                  Yes. Thank goodness, please cast this in stone so we can all refer to it next time someone else (like mikesh above) starts claiming directors are required to act in the interests of shareholders.

                  the fact remains if the government of the day is happy to see major public assets part-privatised… then the reality is that it’s also very unlikely to object, even as a ‘major shareholder’, to further sell-downs of assets in a piecemeal fashion either.

                  A conspiracy theory should at least try to make sense. Yours doesn’t. The directors can sell off dams right now. The don’t need to partially float the companies to do that. So they could do that already, and the Govt could still “cheerfully claim to still be the ‘majority shareholder’ of the remaining company”. In fact floating the companies makes it harder to sell core productive assets, because of all the disclosures.

  2. Key is here on a mission and that is to sell nz off,cut thousands of jobs which in turn
    puts the country under more pressure financially via the tax take,spend up large on
    ‘nice to haves’ creating the books so that key can have the control he has come to
    nz for,it is widely known that he is an employee of goldman sachs,what he is
    doing is in line with GS agenda world wide.,Investigations,wire taps need to
    reveal just what is really going on.
    Where is ‘wiki’ when you need him?
    It does not take much to find the correlation between what has been instigated
    in other country’s where GS is involved to realise that the same is going on here.
    If there are 70-80% of nz’ers against asset sales,where the hell are they,why are
    they not protesting,these are strategic assets that kiwis have worked their butt
    off for,that are bringing is close to $1b a year for the tax payers and yet appart
    from a discussion in parliament,there is nothing,key and GS are going to rob
    NZ of precious assets.
    Air NZ was partially sold,this airline was not strategic in comparison with
    dams,electricity companies etc,key’s penchant for bringing nz to its knees
    is obvious.

    • Gosman 2.1

      “…it is widely known that he is an employee of goldman sachs”

      Ummm… I suggest you have no evidence for this at all. Both that John Key is an employee of Goldman Sachs and that it is widely known. It might be thought to be the case amongst a small group of nutty lefty conspiracy theorists but much of the rest of us prefer to rely on facts.

      I’m just waiting for you to claim that Goldman Sachs was also responsible for helping Greece get into the EU.

      • taxicab 2.1.1

        Gosman ,
        suggest you watch “Media7” last nights episode on line Goldman Sachs , according to Rod Oram , was in fact the very organisation that fudged the figures so Greece could join the Eu

        • insider 2.1.1.1

          Rod’s a nice guy but he probably is just repeating what he’s read in the paper. I doubt he has any insight on this. So just cos he said it doesn’t make it so.

          • mikesh 2.1.1.1.1

            I have just watched Media 7 and Rod Oram did say that there was evidence, and that there were reports, that GS did (in effect) help Greece fudge figures, and that they took millions of dollars in fees for doing so. I guess that settles the matter.

            • insider 2.1.1.1.1.1

              I’m not disputing he said it, but rod is just a journalist in nz; he is not an oracle on the Greek economy or it’s history. I suspect he ‘knows’ this because he read it in the ft or economist, like most of us. He may be right, but I doubt he’s done any original research on the issue (and that’s not intended as any sort of criticism of him).

          • mik e 2.1.1.1.2

            BBC world actually reported this!

        • Gosman 2.1.1.2

          Someone like you I can understand making such a fundamental error but Rod Oram seems like a pretty intelligent guy so I suspect he didn’t state that Goldman Sachs fudged figures to enable Greece to joing the EU.

          • taxicab 2.1.1.2.1

            Gosman ,
            watch the show dickhead !! You can see it “on demand” before you make statements like that . You might also be elightened to what is actually happening in the real world not the right wing bullshit news bites you obviously regard as gospel .

            • McFlock 2.1.1.2.1.1

              But if gos watched the show, he would know what he was talking about, and therefore he would run the risk of knowingly uttering an untruth. Much better for him to “suppose”, “assume” and “doubt” about the topic at hand.

              • Gosman

                You don’t think I know what I’m writing about here McFlock do you?

                Hmmmm… I’m pretty sure you have followed my discussions on this very topic in numerous other threads. You should have a pretty good idea that I do know what I’m talking about when I state categorically Rod Oram won’t have stated that Goldman Sachs fudged figures to enable Greece to joing the EU.

                Regarding the matter that taxicab is likely too stupid to realise that he/she actually means, I have already dissected a very good BBC news report on this that travellerev kindly linked to. If you have any issues with the points I raised there then bring it up. I suspect you just wish to waste more of your obviously not very valuable time trying to score points.

                By the way did you work out was a lie was and were my tips explaining how you show someone has lied in any way helpful. I aim to please.

                • McFlock

                  But until you actually watch the show, you don’t really know, do you?
                    
                  “I aim to please.”
                  Another lie…

                  • muzza

                    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html – The fraud has yet to be elucidated, but it will come out eventually!

                    They didn’t just decide to commit fraud overnight in 2002 did they, and I will take a punt an take my position on GS, along with others being as guilty as fcuk of fraud pre euro for Greece, and others!

                    You can hold me to that position Gosman!

                    • Gosman

                      Come back when you have actual evidence then muzza.Considering you were one of the people who kept insisting that a single transaction in 2002 enabled Greece to join the European Union when they had been a member since 1992 (and the EEC for much longer than that) I don’t think I’ll just take your word on this topic.

                    • muzza

                      The fact you are still claiming a trivial victory, of which I had been lazy in my terminologies, and admitted as much to you, only illustrates that you know there is more to this, but will stand your ground, fair enough, just keep splashing around in the little girls pool of naivity gossie!

                      I was not telling you , you had to “take my word for it”, I’m only pointing out what would be simple logic for most people, given the track history of GS going to back a very long time! They have previous form, and have been caught out, over this issue relating to 2002, so lets just see how things come to light.

                      The actual evidence will be being destroyed as I type, but enough will remain, and come out in time, and I’ll leave the evidence gathering to the “SEC’s, FSA’s” of the world, even though they too are full of ex bankers etc such as it is. Yes I know this, I did a contract at the FSA in London many years ago, no you don’t have to take my word, I could not care less how stupid you end up looking, you have that well covered already.

                      Splash splash!

                • taxicab

                  Gosman , again I say take 25 minutes out of your obvious spare time to watch the show before mouthing off .Yes the word “fudge” I inserted but see if you can put a different spin on what was said . After all it was you who put out the challenge about GS and Greece no one else !!!

                  • Gosman

                    A couple of points you might like to consider.

                    The EU is not the same as the Eurozone.

                    The single transaction that you are probably meaning here took place in 2002. Greece joined the Eurozone prior to this.

                    Now would you care to revise your statement that Goldman Sachs , according to Rod Oram , was in fact the very organisation that fudged the figures so Greece could join the Eu?

                    • McFlock

                      Not so sure taxicab will – it looks like Mikesh actually watched the programme and has agreed with taxicab.
                           
                      you might have to watch the programme and actually know what you’re talking about Gos.

                    • Gosman

                      Ummmm….

                      What actually Mikesh stated Rod Oram said was this

                      “…what GS did (in effect) help Greece fudge figures, and that they took millions of dollars in fees for doing so”

                      I have no problem that Rod Oram most likely stated something along those lines. In fact I have discussed a very good BBC news article about this just a few days ago, (which I told you about), that basically goes into detail about the 2002 deal including the fees Goldman Sachs got for it.

                      What you failed to pick up, even though it has been pretty well telegraphed by Insider and myself, was that I basically set this up by rehashing a BS view that people have been pushing here about Goldman Sachs and Greece entry into the EU not membership of the Eurozone. As insider pointed out I have been having a good chuckle at your and others expense.

                      Regardless of my set up what Goldman Sachs did was entirely legal and was even widely known about in the market. That the Eurozone regulators didn’t understand it or act on it is hardly Goldman Sachs fault. Goldman Sachs actually wrote to the regulators asking whether this type of deal would be allowed and was advised it was okay. The problem is with Greece not cutting their expenditure, (or raising more revenue), not with Goldman Sachs.

                    • McFlock

                      So in summary:
                        
                      There was fudging;
                      but the victim of the con was actually a close relative of the victim named;
                      and the actual victim failed to out-imagine GS in how to abuse the system;
                            
                      So it’s all ok, and you can have a smug chuckle as to how folks were wrong in detail.
                      Tool.

                    • Gosman

                      Ahhhh….no

                      There was no con and there was no victim. There was fudging but it was legal fudging. No difference to accountants doing a little fudging to reduce tax liabilities. As stated Goldman Sachs ran this past the EU regulators at the time.

                      The fudging was small compared to the total over all debt and it didn’t impact on Greece’s entry into anything. The most it did was to delay the Eurozone regulators from getting on to Greece’s case about the size of their Sovereign Debt. However they should have been doing this anyway.

                      Really this is a case about failure of Regulators and Government inability to live within their means rather than some nasty bank causing problems. You should actually watch the BBC news piece on this that was provided by travellerev. It is very informative and makes the case that Greece’s problems were not caused by a single deal back in the early 2000’s.

                      But then again I only brought it up to allow someone like taxicab and yourself to make fools of yourself by getting you to argue that there was evidence that it was about Greece’s entry into the EU when it wasn’t about entry into anything (EU or Eurozone) at all.

                    • McFlock

                      So the response was delayed because the regultors failed to imagine how GS would advise greece to abuse the regulations.
                          
                      And the delayed response allowed the situation to get even worse before intervention occurred. 
                       
                      You seem to be missing the important point of the story – companies like GS make money by (among other things) advising clients on how to fudge figures and otherwise abuse regulatory frameworks that were put in place to prevent economic crises. Shit really does float to the top.
                        
                      So feel free to whack off at elements of detail. You’re still a tool.

            • insider 2.1.1.2.1.2

              Out of interest, what is your understanding of Rod’s expertise in Greece’s economy? Has he studied it? Has he written extensively on it? Has visited and interviewed many of the key players? What is it that makes his words carry the weight of truth?

              • taxicab

                Insider ,
                the comment was about Gosmans assertion that someone would next suggest that Goldman Sachs would get blamed for assissting Greece into the EU which is an irrefutable fact not that Rod Oram was the fountain of all knowledge on the subject I don’t suppose you have spent the 25 minutes to view the program either you are both right wing dickheads . Again I challenge you both to watch the show rather than make dumbarse comments .

                • insider

                  Before you start going around calling people dickheads, you might want to look up what the EU actually is, then look in the mirror if you really want to see a dickhead. Gosman was setting you up and you fell right for it. A similar bunch of dickheads did the same thing last week, hence his prediction. No doubt he is laughing into his beer tonight. It’s kind of sad having to spell this stuff out to an adult.

    • muzza 2.2

      The fact a moron like Gosman is not able to join the dots should be of no real surprise, the agenda is clear for all who open their eyes to see!

      Its not widely known that key works for GS, and I would imagine that its the fact that he is highest level banking insider, ML/FED Global FX Committee Alum, which means he is party to the agenda, and has not one shred of excuse for any missunderstanding over the GFC. He has never claimed anything other than stating that is was “not hard to predict” etc. He is as high level as you will find!

      • The Baron 2.2.1

        Something in the water today, evidently.

        I expect this sort of unsubstantiated crazy from Eve, but I must admit I am enjoying the addition of a few new nutty bars.

        Muzza – good arguments are ones that make sense and are verifiable. Bad ones that damage your cause are the ones that you’re making. The crazy conspiracy angle really doesn’t help anyone.

        • muzza 2.2.1.1

          Thats ok Baron, given some of the utter nonsense you spout on here, I could not care less what you think.

          I have no idea what you have done with your work/personal life, you might well know some very high level information for all I know, and I could say the same of myself, except I know what I have done, don’t I!

          Some people can join dots champ, and some can’t. Thats life!

          • Gosman 2.2.1.1.1

            Some people have their facts straight and are in touch with reality and some people don’t. That’s life. You just happen to fall within the later category. Don’t worry too much you obviously have a number of other people keeping you company in this area.

      • Gosman 2.2.2

        So no evidence that John Key is an employee of Goldman Sachs. Thought not. Thanks for confirming this muzza. Nice rant by the way. Your style is getting more froth at the mouth crazy all the time.

        • McFlock 2.2.2.1

          Once again you concentrate on one assertion and ignore the rest of the post, which is simply that John Key is in the process of selling this country’s economy in the same way other economies have been sold to major international financial houses, of which Goldman Sachs is one. 
            
          Looters one and all, and Key’s actions are certainly aiding and abetting.

          • Gosman 2.2.2.1.1

            “Once again you concentrate on one total and utter fabrication and ignore the rest of the mindless consiratorial rant that makes the writer seem like a complete nut bar,”

            FIFY

            😉

            • McFlock 2.2.2.1.1.1

              Unlike you, at least starlight managed to make one or two actual assertions about current real-world situations. You tend not to – mostly because on the few occasions you’ve tried, it turned out that you were either a liar or merely completely incompetent. Sometimes both.
               
              In that single post Starlight has probably outnumbered the statements of fact you’ve made all week.

              • Gosman

                I have never lied on here McFlock. You may disagree with my opinion but that is different from lying. I thought someone like you that looks like they might have an academic background of some sort might have realised this.

                • McFlock

                  Some people might disagree that your assertions of fact here (while incredibly rare, I grant you) have always been perfectly accurate and objectively true.
                        

                  Edit: – much lols. I post this acomment and the next one I href=”http://thestandard.org.nz/ryall-confirms-asset-carve-up-on-the-cards/comment-page-1/#comment-442684″> see…

                  • Gosman

                    There s no lie there McFlock. There is two people disagreeing on what happens on a blog. You do know what a lie is don’t you? You know a deliberate mistruth.

                    • McFlock

                      One of you is adamant but wrong about an objective fact – deletion of comments.
                           
                      meh.
                        
                      But here’s a serendipidous one.

                  • Gosman

                    Let me help you work out how to show someone has lied.

                    First off you take something that someone has stated that you think is a lie such as me stating that the sky is green and I have always thought it was green. Then you find an earlier statement from me where I state that I know the sky is blue. Then you present this and say with assurity ‘That man has lied’. Nothing you have linked to is remotely like this at all.

                    • Gosman, if I were you, I’d knock off the BS about alleging others lying.

                      I’ve caught you out on two occassions telling untruths, which is why you’re no longer welcome on my Blog. I suggest if you cease and desist.

                    • McFlock

                      Option b:
                          
                      Observe a statement where person has made a patently obvious untruth.
                        
                      Examine their previous statements – do they have a history of blatant untruths, misinterpretation of others comments, or making obvious attempts at misleading people or derailing conversations?
                       
                      If they habitually deflect,distract or dissemble, is it always in a direction that serves their apparent objective?
                         
                      Are the two most likely explanations for their behaviour A) they are stupid to the point of a sea sponge; and B) they are purposefully attempting to mislead?
                         
                      If so, how likely is it that they have the intellect of a sea sponge? 
                            
                      While only you can 100% identify your intent, you’d have to be a major moron to believe everything you say. At least Jimmy3 is barely literate, so I think he probably believes his own crap.

                    • Gosman

                      You haven’t caught me out in a lie Frank. As for the reasons you banned me if my memory serves me correct it was something to do with me making a light hearted comment about maths not being someone’s best subject. This is in contrast to other comments such as someone calling me a racist which you didn’t seem to have aproblem with. In short you just don’t like people expressing different viewpoints to yours on your blog. Fair enough it is your blog. Don’t think it means you won’t get pulled up on it though.

    • DH 2.3

      I think people need to stop putting all this down to John Key. Key is just the party figurehead, this asset sales business is National party policy and Key doesn’t make party policy. National have been pushing for this since long before Key came on the scene, Brash would have sold the country off if given the chance.

      John Key is best likened to a CEO, he’s the Rob Fyfe of politics. He runs the show & is in charge of day to day stuff but the board make all the major decisions. IMO blaming Key all the time just keeps the real culprits hidden in the shadows where we can never see them.

      • KJT 2.3.1

        Correct. Key is just another, not too bright, puppet that was wheeled into play when Brash proved unelectable.
        Mostly because, Brash, to give him his due as a true believer, was too honest about the real intentions.

    • johnm 2.4

      Yes starlight. A connection with Goldman Sachs was clearly shown when one of their reps came over here met Shonkey shook hands with him and gave him a million bucks freebie for the CHCH restoration fund. For those mega crooks a million bucks is tea lady chump change. GS are Jewish so is Key. Key is on a mission he supports the immensely destructive rort posing as an ideology of neoliberalism which is for Charity but totally ignores the real basis of a society: The Common Good.

      • Johnm 2.4.1

        Goldman Sachs Criminality?

        The People vs. Goldman Sachs
        Matt Taibbi: A Senate committee has laid out the evidence. Now the Justice Department should bring criminal charges

        Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511#ixzz1o1kkRbuz

        Goldman Sachs: Master Of The Universe

        By Stephen Lendman
        Link: http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman200410.htm

        “The scheme was to sell toxic asset-backed securities (ABSs) to unwary customers (including foreign banks, pension funds, insurance companies and others), then apparently use credit default swaps (CDSs) to profit when they defaulted, or in other words the equivalent of buying life insurance on an undisclosed terminally ill patient. More still, given Paulson & Co.’s role in helping to structure and select assets, then buying CDSs to short them, betting they’ll decline. Paulson thus far faces no charges. Goldman’s so far are civil. If criminal ones are filed, prosecutors will have to prove intent, perhaps coming given enough evidence to proceed.”

  3. Hmmm, deflection abounds here…

    It’s a critical issue that has notr been adequately canvessed and debated in NZ; that privatised SOEs could be forced to sell power stations, dams, etc, if minority shareholders believe they can make a profit.

    If not, the majority shareholder (us, the people) can be sued.

    I believe this is precisely the same tack which National took over the Crafar farm sales; that preventing their sale to offshore interests could not be stoppedf because of the threat of legal action.

    If our country and assets are at risk from corporate legal action, then we’ve lost a part of our sovereignty.

    • KJT 3.1

      Hence the screaming form the RWNJ’s on frogblog when the possibility of just such a legal action was outed.
       
      They claimed it could never happen despite being referred to academic legal opinion on the likely result of such a court action.
       
      No such action has been taken in a NZ court to date, (one similar one, where the majority shareholder lost) but if NZ law follows UK and Canadian cases, which it usually does, the minority shareholder would win.

    • muzza 3.2

      Frank, that was always going to be the case, it was outed at the very early stages of the announcements during the policy promotions. Mixed model will not work, and will not be controlled because , it can’t be, and they wont! Bill English already admitted that much months ago.

      Fraud comes in many forms, and lying to a gullibale public to sell and agenda is a classic technique, like hiding the TPPA details for 4 years citing commercial sensitivity. Running up debt with no audit, and jeopardizing NZ’s “rating” while allowing the cities to have the mechanisims (LGFA) to run themselves into further debt also, is another!

      The end result of course is that foreign entities, which will have proveable links to foreign banks will take ownership should the sales go ahead. It could take a period of time, or perhaps not, but the one thing is certain should our assets fall into foreign hands, is that the laws/rules will be used to their absolute nth degree to ensure that the companies use their leverage, and this will be against the interest of the country.

      I am not sure what is so hard for some to understand on this issue. There is now plenty of reading around the place which shows the govt will lie about and ignore, anything that does not fit their agenda!

      The Crafer Farm deal should be ringing alarm bells nationally, as it relates to asset sales, in case people needed a recent example of the lies to support an agenda!

      • Gosman 3.2.1

        So mixed ownership models don’t work. Why did noone raise this when Labour sold around a quarter of Air NZ?

        • McFlock 3.2.1.1

          If noone raised it, then someone did, although anyone might not have.
            
          Care to be more specific, tool?

          • Gosman 3.2.1.1.1

            Care to get a life McFlock.

            Perhaps your time would be better served looking for actual evidence that supports your nonsense like the view that National party policies kill people.

            Alternatively you could possibly waste it here trying to engage in pointless debates with me to try and soothe your battered ego.

            I can pretty much guess which one you’ll do.

        • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1.2

          Incorrect. Labour did not sell a quarter of Air New Zealand.

          If they did, please provide the source for that claim. (I’ll warn you now – you won’t find any credible source.)

        • lprent 3.2.1.3

          What are you talking about? That comment is
          a. completely incorrect in fact.
          b. stupid in interpretation.
          c. and shows that you must spend too much time in fantasy land.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand#History

          In the madness that was some of the decision making in the 4th Labour government, Air NZ was privatised.

          The 5th Labour government largely renationalised after private ownership damn near killed it with stupid decisions. They left 25% in private ownership, mostly I suspect because they didn’t have the money for the whole lot. The reason for renationalising was because exporters like the companies I work for are absolutely dependent on reliable air freight. The other airlines coming in and out of NZ aren’t particularly reliable. Airlines drop in and out of airfreight for NZ all of the time.

          There are some interesting conditions on the agreements between the government and AirNZ. Perhaps you should look at them. They don’t look a lot like the hands off stuff that National wants to try. In fact they look more like regulation – you know the stuff that the mixed ownership model that National wants is not going to have in it.

          You are comparing apples with oranges .. Had a stupidity attack today have we?

          • Gosman 3.2.1.3.1

            I stand corrected. I initially thought they had nationalsed the entire company and mistook the proposal of selling around a quarter of the company to Qantas which never eventuated. However the point remains that under the current ownership set up the minority owners could essentially do what people are fear mongering over the power companies (i.e. asset stripping). Please tell me why this isn’t a concern?

            • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1.3.1.1

              If it becomes a problem, Gosman, I’m sure that the upcoming Labour-led government will sort it out. Re-nationalising the remaining 25% shouldn’t be a problem. We can pass legislation in one day to do it, and get Royal Assent the next.

              • insider

                Impossible! We would have lost all that sovereignty…

                • McFlock

                  interesting question as to what sanctions we might get via our FTAs and WTO membership, though.

                  • insider

                    Well when Cunliffe carved up Telecom there were no such sanctions. Would nationalisation be illegal if fair value is paid?

                    • McFlock

                      I have no idea. 
                           
                      But I do know it’s not as simple as passing a law that says “the people now own this. No correspondence will be entered into”.
                        

                    • lprent

                      A ridiculous assertion.

                      He didn’t carve it up. From what I understand he just said that their monopoly power was sufficient to require considerable regulation. Telecom agreed to break itself up rather than be regulated.

                      Th actual breakup I think happened under National if I am right about the timing. Cross party

                    • insider

                      You’re probably right. All I remember was him hacking $1b off Telecom’s value by regulation. he pretty much set the path for separation. The point was I don;t recall overseas shareholders running WTO type arguments

                    • lprent

                      Quite frankly the investors in telecom ripped off consumers for several decades using their effective monopoly and delaying tactics. The investors knew the risk in doing that. Their problem.

                      If I had a choice I’d have done it a decade earlier when their tactics to stave off the commerce commission became obvious.

                      They charged for growing the wired network, and barely managed to maintain at their peak in the early 1990s – despite all of the costs dropping.

                      I don’t buy anything from telecom directly. Even indirectly I avoid them where I can. The taxes I have paid them above a reasonable rate for crap service in the last 20 years personally, in business, and these days for the site is crazy…

                    • burt

                      lprent

                      Quite frankly the investors in telecom ripped off consumers for several decades using their effective monopoly and delaying tactics. The investors knew the risk in doing that. Their problem.

                      Unfortunately this statement is also true for the last few decades of state ownership under the banner of The Post Office.

                    • lprent []

                      So? The argument that two wrongs make it right when you are talking about something from 20 years ago is more than faintly ridiculous.

                      The problem then was more lack of service rather than failing to invest in the network. They wound up rebuilding the 1940’s infrastructure successfully

                      Telecom largely fixed the service and completely stopped the investment except where there was direct competitors. Effectively increasing the risks in the network over time. Good example is the ridiculous risk levels and costs of the southern cross cables.

                      Neither business model were any good. Are you suggesting that Telecom could have not done better?

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Unfortunately this statement is also true for the last few decades of state ownership under the banner of The Post Office.

                      Wrong. When it was still state owned Telecom’s total surplus went into growing and updating the network and without that we wouldn’t have the network we have now. It was only after the sale that the dead weight loss of profit was added.

            • lprent 3.2.1.3.1.2

              Apples with oranges. Reprise…

              The government is the majority shareholder under a more normal stakeholder agreement than the Nats are proposing.

              • mik e

                Bulls hit Burt the post office charged reasonable rates telecon just kept putting the price up

          • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1.3.2

            “The reason for renationalising was because exporters like the companies I work for are absolutely dependent on reliable air freight.”

            Indeed. The impact on exporters, such as the flower industry, would have been disastrous.

            This was a prime lesson to New Zealanders (or should have been) that nationalising strategic state assets upon which other industries depend, is crazy in the extreme.

            I still recall certain right wing idiots who insisted that Air NZ should be left to fail, as per market forces. The impact on our economy would not have been pleasant, and illustrates to me why extremist political ideologues should not be allowed within arms-reach of our SOEs.

            RWNJs – playing silly-buggers with other peoples’ jobs and lives.

            • Gosman 3.2.1.3.2.1

              Having a nationalised airline is no guarrantee of that. You just need to look at the problems with Air Zimbabwe to see that.

              If a private company doesn’t find it efficient to provide air freight services in New Zealand then I fail to see why the Government should do it.

              • Or, Air Somalia?

                Oh, that’s right – the Libertarian Paradise of Somalia doesn’t have an airline. For some reason, their lack of government doesn’t permit the development of infrastructure…

                • Gosman

                  We’ve had this discussion before Frank. Somalia is not libertarian. Given the fact that it has a number of clans enforcing various degress of laws in the areas they control it isn’t even anarchy. It would be like me trying to argue that Cuba is the model social democratic state.

                  • By Jove, I do believe you’re starting to understand it, Gosman.

                    You’re right; Somalia only exhibits two out of three traits of Libertarianism; minimal government and no taxation. The third “leg”, the rule of law is missing.

                    And you know what, Gosman? You cannot have a strong rule of law without a strong State to back it up.

                    In effect, the quintessential Libertarian State is a contradiction; it cannot exist because without Government and taxation; plus all the offices of the State, you cannot have institutions that allow the rule of law to thrive.

                    Otherwise, you get a place like Somalia; anarchy.

                    There’s your explanation as to why no nation in modern times has ever existed using the Libertarian model. It don’t work.

                    There’s your lesson in Reality, Gosman.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Otherwise, you get a place like Somalia; anarchy.

                      Oh, come on, you should know better than that. Anarchy is not chaos which is what Somalia has now. It’s not libertarianism either as it does have a “government” – it just happens to be one where everyone discusses and agrees to what laws there are rather than a small, dictatorial parliament whereas libertarians seem to want to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want without restriction.

                    • Gosman

                      See D.T.B’s reply to you below Frank. Somalia is not an Anarchist society either. It would be more accurate to equate it with the mutiple statelets and feudal realms of Germany under the later period of the Holy Roman Empire (just with more guns).

                      By the way, you don’t need taxation for a modern state to exist. All you need is a revenue stream. Many modern countries have virtually no taxation at all. They do take royalties from resource extraction though.

              • McFlock

                Public good vs private good, gos.
                   
                Failure to recognise the difference between the two is an amazingly basic mistake for you to make. Almost … well, I shrink from saying “intentional”, but …

                • Gosman

                  Air travel is not a public good in my book. If it is, and if it is true about peak oil, then the Government will be stuffed trying to provide it.

                  • “Air travel is not a public good in my book.”

                    *facepalm*

                  • McFlock

                    okay, so transport infrastructures with different strengths and weaknesses have no public good. Stupid. 
                      
                    But what’s also stupid is the apparent belief that if something is a public good now, funding it to the point of national bankruptcy (is that what you meant by “the Government will be stuffed trying to provide it” in a peak oil environment) will occur. Does the concept of “investment until the risks balance the rewards” ring a bell?
                         

                       

                    • Gosman

                      I understand the concept. The trouble is Government is not terribly good at determining where that tipping point is in my mind. That is why I prefer provate sector to make those decisions based on profit motives rather than some sort of fuzzy ‘Societal benefit’ calculation.

                    • McFlock

                      Apart from the fact that the “profit motive” revolves entirely around private good, and therefore public good is not a market consideration.
                        
                      You’re a tool.

                  • mik e

                    Goose name the countries many of them which don’t have taxation.
                    Another out and out lie GOOSEMAN

              • mik e

                goose Because the only Airline with enough cargo carrying capacity was air NZ.
                high value exports would have been lost had air NZ been liquidated.
                The tourism business would have suffered also .
                Goose for an investment banker who’s worked in Europe your economic naivety astounds .Obviously the w should be where the b is!

              • mik e

                Singapore Airlines

        • KJT 3.2.1.4

          Because they did not??

        • mik e 3.2.1.5

          Groseman that’s a lie

    • insider 3.3

      The government gets sued all the time. Min Health is getting sued by disabled carers and corrections by victims of the RSA murders. How is that a threat to our sovereignty?

      Quite a few power stations in NZ are owned by private organisations. Some were even formerly owned by the govt. How has your sovereignty felt since then?

      • It’s a threat to our sovereignty when policy is removred from our elected representatives and placed under control of corporate interests and subject to judicial review.

        This may not bother you – but it bothers the rest of us.

        The Ministry of Health being sued by caregivers for disabled is just a wee bit different to a corporation trying to arm-twist us to divest a state asset.

        “Quite a few power stations in NZ are owned by private organisations.”

        So what? Irrelevant deflection.

        “Some were even formerly owned by the govt. How has your sovereignty felt since then?”

        Loss of profits; and impact on our Balance of Payments, etc, etc.

        • insider 3.3.1.1

          SO what you are saying FRank is that one group using the law of the land to protect their rights is ok but others using similar laws to protect their rights suddenly becomes an assault on national sovereignty and arm twisting, even if the law was not written by those carrying out the ‘assualt’. How are the two different beyond your labelling them as such? Where is this policy removal you talk about?

          How can mentioning privately owned power stations be irrelevant when the topic is the sale of power stations to private owners? Is it irrelevant or an inconvenient fact?

          Explain to me how a loss of profits and impact on balance of payments etc has affected sovereignty. Sounds like a bunch of slogans but no thought. WHat did the hundreds of millions of dollars transferred to the govt for those assets do? They surely increased its sovereignty, whcih is a good thing isn’t it?

          • Frank Macskasy 3.3.1.1.1

            SO what you are saying FRank is that one group using the law of the land to protect their rights is ok but others using similar laws to protect their rights suddenly becomes an assault on national sovereignty and arm twisting, even if the law was not written by those carrying out the ‘assualt’.

            Correct. Because the two situations are not the same. But you already knew that, Insider.

            • insider 3.3.1.1.1.1

              In what way are they not the same? You seem to have a handle on this so I’d appreciate you explaining the difference between the rights under the law of a group of individual and the rights under the law of a company and its shareholders.

      • McFlock 3.3.2

        The fact the government can be sued is a good thing, and goes back to King John. 
          
        The government being sued because a government asset it once 100% owned is not maximising profits by fucking up the rest of the country is a bad thing. Government assets shouldn’t fuck up the country regardless of whether they’re 15%, 51% or 100% government owned. 
           
        Ryall has no intention of stopping minority shareholders suing the government to make the shared asset fuck up the country because to not fuck up the country would result in reduced profits.
           
        Government assets fucking up the country because the government has an obligation to minority shareholders to fuck up the country (at a massive profit), even though the government (let’s give the fuckers the benefit of the doubt) doesn’t want to fuck up the country, is a reduction in fucking sovreignty.
           
        Oh, and speaking of the current electricity system, I note that my bill fucking skyrockets even though my fucking usage has remained constant.
           
        Nice fucking attempt at distraction.

        • insider 3.3.2.1

          How would selling a power station formerly owned by the govt fuck up the country? About 30% of the power in NZ comes from similar pwoer stations now. I see my state owned supplier is putting up its prices 10%

          • McFlock 3.3.2.1.1

            But we’re not talking about “a” powerstation, are we? Incrementally, we’re talking a significant chunk of them.
              
            And the entire sovreignty point is that while any SOE might raise power prices 10% to maximise profits, a 100% owned one has the option of, without fear of court cases, a government instructing the company to take less profits in order to serve the interests of the country, not the SOE.
                  
            And yeah, I think pretty much all electricity generation and distribution should be government owned 100%.
                 

            • insider 3.3.2.1.1.1

              But 35% have been sold – I’d call one third a sizeable chunk – and the world didn’t end. Nor did we suddenly become the subjects of another state or lose sovereignty in some other way. (You might make an argument about price but I think it;s a lot more complex than a simple relationship)

              HAve you noticed what has been done to Telecom and the lines companies in recent years around price control and corporate structure. How did that happen to private companies when we have all this lost sovereignty?

              Ironically one of the big drivers of electricity pricing at the moment is the state monopoly Transpower’s grandiose powerline construction which it has the legal right to force us to pay for.

              I have no problem with your belief; it’s your fears that don’t seem to stack up.

              • McFlock

                No the world didn’t come to an end.
                     
                But power prices skyrocketed, investment in infrastructure stalled, and the govt then had to pick up the bill when our largest city went lights out.
                   
                I’m not entirely sure you’ve done your case a service by reminding us of how things have changed…

                • insider

                  Mcflock you should go an look at the number of power stations built in the last 15 years before you make such silly statements, which really just demonstrate ideologically blind ignorance. It’s about 1700MW worth from memory, but you can check it up on the MED website.

                  Why did the lights in Auckland go out? State owned infrastructure monopolies didn’t do their primary jobs – maintaining the networks we are forced to pay them for. We ended up paying additional hundreds of millions of dollars to fix basic poor management practices they were already being paid to do well.

                  And I’ve said prices are a point that could be argued, but you should bear in mind before you do that 40% of your bill is monopoly lines charges. Most of those are owned by the state or community/council enterprises.

                  I’m not entirely sure you’ve done your case a service by reminding us how poorly informed you are…

                  • McFlock

                    Oh okay, you’re right then – selling off power generation and the attempts at introducing competition into the electricity market have been an unbridled success, with no problems whatsoever.
                       
                    I didn’t just get a letter saying my power prices were going up again, either.

                    • insider

                      But it’s state providers that are putting prices up just as much as private ones. It’s not a straight line relationship between private ownership and pricing. I looked at the long term prices on the MED site and tehy have been up under all regimes over the last 35 years – about 2.8% a year which was less than inflation for much of that time. And, Like it or not, they did go down after bradford’s reforms, but again I think the relationship is not that simple, even though Max would like to claim it was.

                    • McFlock

                      this?
                        
                      That’s in 2009 prices, i.e. inflation adjusted?
                          
                      Basically, I see an oil shock, muldoon (bless his cotton socks 🙂 ), a bump in Lab4, then residential price increases subsidising commercial price cuts. Similar under Lab5, but with a bump for residential and commercial in the early 2000s which is I assume the “oh shit we broke it” period, and then about the same level of cross-subsidisation as before.
                        
                      But the point is that 100% ownership gives the govt the power to publicly and honestly say “this is a shitty situation. Fix it, even if it hurts your profits”.

                    • KJT

                      @Insider.
                       
                      Did you have your ears disconnected when the ROI and dividend to the Government for SOE power companies was gerrymandered to allow the newly privatised companies to compete.
                      Joyce has already stated that this dividend requirement will be increased again to enable the next round of private shareholders to make money.
                       
                      So much for the private sector being more efficient??

                    • insider

                      mcflock

                      Similar but the 2011 version with 2010 prices. It’s in real prices. Is that inflation adjusted or dollar adjusted meaning 2009 dollars (not the same thing are they?)

                      Not sure about your commentary on the changes but you are effectively agreeing with me of a slow and relatively steady rise and countering your own view of skyrocketing prices. Note that retail don’t subsidise commericial; up until the mid 90s it was the other way round because MEDs were voted in and they rigged prices to gain votes. Retail rises then were a rebalancing. The 2000’s rises were driven by the increase in gas costs due to the redetermination of Maui reserves.

                      My point which I will reiterate is, how much of Telecom was 100% publicly owned when the govt told it to fix things? If that can be done to Telecom, and if price controls can be put on lines monopolies, why do you think it would be so hard for powercos?

                    • McFlock

                      It was intriguing that power prices were falling in real terms prior to our gloorious revolution in the 80s. And yeah, if 5 or 6% per annum – I think there was a 9% there somewhere – in 2009 dollars (inflation-adjusted vs “dollar adjusted”? What is the difference as a matter of interest) I think can be regarded as skyrocketing.
                           
                       But as to the telescum vs powerco question, I think that the government had to wait until things lagged behind so badly that it justified trying to get it fixed. As opposed to taking a ore efficient, consistent long term view of keeping things on the right course, which is how things intrinsically necessary for NZ should be done.
                       

                  • mik e

                    Insider trading BS again .The reason the network was run down was because Mad Max’s privatisation reforms lead to the disbanding of the planning arm of the old electricity dept .So no overall planing lead to these disasters no investment throuht out the nineties when National was in POWER Michael Cullen reinstated an infrastructure planning dept when he came to parliament.
                    Thank you Mad Max and National fore once again fucking up!

          • mik e 3.3.2.1.2

            Thats to make them more saleable you idiot.
            “Insider “trading its called

    • Gosman 3.4

      So why was this possibility not discussed in regard to Air NZ or is it only a problem with Power Companies?

      • Why do you think?

        • Gosman 3.4.1.1

          Because it really isn’t much of a problem probably.

          Essentially all this fear mongering that you lefties are doing looks a bit ridiculous when the chances of this happening are slim to non-existent.

          On top of that the Government of the day could just pass a law making any attempt to force them to do something they didn’t want to do null and void.

          • Frank Macskasy 3.4.1.1.1

            Because it really isn’t much of a problem probably.

            The majority would disagree with you on that point.

            “On top of that the Government of the day could just pass a law making any attempt to force them to do something they didn’t want to do null and void.”

            In which case, why did Key & Co state that they couldn’t stop the Crafar farm sales from proceeding, without opening themselves up to a lawsuit?

            Why do you think this government can pass laws in some areas – but not others?

            And you ignore the Treasury report which stated quite clearly,

            “Intitial public offerings (IPOs)

            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 crown will not reserve any special rights to itself, except that it is still to decide whether it will a have any special power to approve the chairman of the Board, as it has for Air New Zealand.”

            • Gosman 3.4.1.1.1.1

              The majority didn’t vote in enough quantity to stop National from implementing their cornerstone policy did they. Anyway just because you potentially have a majority supporting something doesn’t detract from the fact you are scare mongering with little basis.

              • McFlock

                They did.
                  
                You forget the rotten boroughs of Epsom and Ohariu distort the representation of parliament.

        • muzza 3.4.1.2

          Some people don’t and can’t think frank, that is the problem!

          As usual the craving that some here exhibit for the sell off of whats left of revenue genarating in NZ, is bizarre! Why would a country want to LOSE control of its abilty to produce energy, and have some degree of energy security, and price control inside its influence!

          There is no fear mongering, just an understanding that foreign ownership will take profits offshore, lead to a hamstrung government owner, and of course the unintened consequences that will inevitably flow outwards.

          “There isn’t much of a problem, probably” – THINK MUCH!

          Government passing laws against corporate interest – There is a novel thought. Why would we sell in the first place if we thought it might come to that!

          Why is selling such a good idea to these fools?

      • mik e 3.4.2

        because Air NZ is not a regular profit making business.It needs partners in the international airline business to be successful I thought you would Know all this being an international banker.
        Obviously just another one of your lies!

  4. KJT, Muzza…

    Indeed. The more we learn about the privatisation policy, the more “fish hooks” we find.

    It’s interesting that Treasury’s report on this issue was quite illuminating…

    “Intitial public offerings (IPOs)

    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 crown will not reserve any special rights to itself, except that it is still to decide whether it will a have any special power to approve the chairman of the Board, as it has for Air New Zealand.”

    Source: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/20125/Treasury%20asset%20sale%20draft%20document.pdf

    Interesting eh?

    • DH 4.1

      That’s not a fish hook. That’s full privatisation, no mixed ownership there. Just because Govt retain some shares doesn’t mean it isn’t being privatised. They really are deceitful bastards.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Foreign Minister announces two diplomatic appointments
    Rt Hon Winston Peters, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters today announced two diplomatic appointments: New Zealand’s High Commissioner to India and Consul-General to Hong Kong. “As New Zealand recovers from COVID-19, our diplomatic and trade networks are more important than ever. That is ...
    18 hours ago
  • Week That Was: Recover and rebuild
    We started the week by announcing free apprenticeships to support Kiwis into work and to help get New Zealand moving again - and we ended the week by extending the wage subsidy to 40,000 more businesses, helping to protect businesses and workers alike.  ...
    18 hours ago
  • How Budget 2020 is backing businesses
    We’re confident in the ability of Kiwi businesses to succeed in the face of COVID-19, and our Government is committed to doing our bit to enable that success. Kiwi businesses have always been innovative and resilient, and the COVID-19 pandemic has proven this yet again. Many businesses are finding new, creative ...
    19 hours ago
  • New Zealand First confirms its first tranche of candidates
    New Zealand First is pleased to release the names of its first tranche of candidates for the 2020 election. The includes all sitting New Zealand First Members of Parliament except Clayton Mitchell MP who earlier today announced he will not be seeking re-election. In alphabetical order they are: MP ...
    19 hours ago
  • New Zealand First MP Clayton Mitchell not seeking re-election
    Clayton Mitchell MP, New Zealand First List MP based in Tauranga New Zealand First MP Clayton Mitchell has decided not to seek re-election in this year’s General Election.  “After serious consideration and discussion with my family, I have decided to pursue other passions in my life and spend a lot ...
    19 hours ago
  • Five new Lockheed Martin Super Hercules aircraft to replace ageing fleet
    Defence Minister Ron Mark has announced that new Lockheed Martin Super Hercules aircraft would replace the outdated and costly 1960s Hercules fleet. The $1.521b project will include a flight simulator for staff training and other supporting infrastructure. "This fleet will ensure the Defence Force can continue to support New Zealand's ...
    20 hours ago
  • Greens urge police to rule out armed police patrols following George Floyd’s death
    The Green Party is urging the New Zealand Police to rule out the use of Armed Response Teams, following their recent trial in communities around Aotearoa. ...
    1 day ago
  • NZ First fought for changes to “poorly-targeted” rent dispute policy
    New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has described Labour's original COVID-19 commercial rent dispute proposal as "poorly targeted". Justice Minister Andrew Little has announced a temporary law change to force commercial landlords and renters to consider COVID-19 in disputes over rent issues, almost two months after the Government first floated the idea.  But ...
    2 days ago
  • New Zealand First ensures commercial rent dispute clause fairly applied
    Rt Hon Winston Peters, Leader of New Zealand First New Zealand First acknowledges that some small businesses have been struggling to meet fixed costs due to the loss of revenue by COVID-19. We also know some businesses are at greater risk of insolvency when they cannot come to a reasonable ...
    2 days ago
  • New Zealand First disappointed that Section 70 spouses won’t get relief
    Rt Hon Winston Peters, Leader of New Zealand First New Zealand First is disappointed that the removal of the spousal deductions has had to be delayed by the Ministry fo Social Development, due to COVID19 workload pressures. “New Zealand First has always stood for fairness when it comes to superannuation ...
    4 days ago
  • Winston Peters receives petition demanding more protection for nurses
    Rt Hon Winston Peters, Leader of New Zealand First On the steps of Parliament today the Leader of New Zealand First, Rt Hon Winston Peters received a petition from registered nurse Anna Maria Coervers, requesting an amendment to the Protection for First Responders Bill which will ensure the legislation also include registered ...
    4 days ago
  • Week That Was: Getting our economy moving
    It's been a busy seven days as we start to rebuild New Zealand together. From delivering extra support for small businesses, to investing in our artists and arts organisations, to cutting red tape on home DIY projects, we're rolling out our plan to get the economy and New Zealand moving ...
    4 days ago
  • Winston Peters: If protests condoned ‘why are we not at level 1?’
    Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters says alert level 2 restrictions have to be discussed during today's Cabinet meeting. Thousands gathered across the country, including at Parliament, yesterday for Black Lives Matter marches where social distancing and mass gathering rules were flouted. Mr Peters said the breaching of Alert Level 2 rules at ...
    4 days ago
  • Northland rail work to help create regional jobs
    Rt Hon Winston Peters, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of State Owned Enterprises KiwiRail’s Northland rail upgrade steps up another gear today and will help Northland recover from the impacts of COVID-19, State Owned Enterprises Minister Winston Peters says. The Government is investing $204.5 million through the Provincial Growth Fund to ...
    5 days ago
  • Green Party statement on the death of George Floyd
    “Today and every day we stand in solidarity with George Floyd’s family, friends and community who feel pain and fear about his untimely death at the hands of Minneapolis police”, said Green Party Co-leader and Māori Development spokesperson Marama Davidson. ...
    5 days ago
  • Lake Brunner’s Mount Te Kinga to go Predator Free
    Fletcher Tabuteau, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Regional Economic Development Hon Eugenie Sage, Minister of Conservation The West Coast forests of Mount Te Kinga at Kotuku Whakaoho/Lake Brunner are the latest predator free project to receive Government funding, announced Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage and Under Secretary for Regional Economic Development Fletcher ...
    1 week ago
  • Green Party welcomes crucial financial support for creatives
    The Green Party says new government support for creatives and artists is a vital lifeline for a sector struggling to survive the COVID crisis. ...
    1 week ago
  • Strongest ever water reforms mean swimmable rivers within a generation
    The Green Party says major freshwater reforms announced today provide the strongest ever protections of our waterways, to help ensure the next generation can swim in the rivers of Aotearoa. ...
    1 week ago
  • Greens work to secure inquiry into Wild West student accommodation sector
    The Green Party has begun the process for a Select Committee inquiry into student accommodation, which has been exposed during COVID-19 as an under-regulated sector that straddles students with unfair debt. ...
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand joins global search for COVID-19 vaccine
    Rt Hon Winston Peters, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs Hon Megan Woods, Minister of Research, Science and Innovation Hon Dr David Clark, Minister of Health Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods,  and Health Minister David Clark today announced a COVID-19 vaccine strategy, ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Budget 2020: Five things to know
    Budget 2020 is about rebuilding together, supporting jobs, getting business moving and the books back into the black. It’s an integral part of our COVID-19 economic response, and our plan to grow our economy and get New Zealand moving again. Here’s a quick look at the five top things you ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Green Party unveils its candidate list for the 2020 election
    The Green Party is pleased to reveal its candidate list for the upcoming election. With a mix of familiar faces and fresh new talent, this exceptional group of candidates are ready to lead the Greens back into Government. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government approves essential upgrades on Ōhakea Air Base
    The Coalition Government has approved $206 million in essential upgrades at Ōhakea Air Base.  Defence Minister Ron Mark said the money would be spent on improving old infrastructure. He said safety issues would be addressed, as well as upgrades to taxiways, accommodation and fresh, storm and waste water systems. "This ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Attributable to the Rt Hon Winston Peters
    Rt Hon Winston Peters, Leader of New Zealand First “I am not persisting with this case just for myself, but for all people who have had their privacy breached. Privacy of information is a cornerstone of our country’s democracy. Without it our society truly faces a bleak future. We now ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Forestry Minister Shane Jones moves to protect sawmills
    Forestry Minister Shane Jones has introduced a Bill to Parliament that he says will "force more transparency, integrity and respect" for the domestic wood-processing sector through the registration of log traders and practice standards. The Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill had its first reading in ...
    3 weeks ago

  • Great Walks bookings open next week
    This summer presents a great opportunity for New Zealanders to get out into nature with bookings on Great Walks for 2020/21 set to open next week, says Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage.  Bookings for the Great Walks will open between 9 and 11 June, excluding Milford and Routeburn tracks which ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 hours ago
  • Ministerial Diary April 2020
    ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    19 hours ago
  • Govt extends support schemes for businesses
    Extra 40,000 businesses to be eligible for wage subsidy extension Small business cashflow support application period extended The Government is today announcing further support for businesses that continue to be affected by the global COVID-19 pandemic, as the broader economy becomes one of the most open in the world following ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    20 hours ago
  • Five new Super Hercules to join Air Force fleet
    The Coalition Government has confirmed five Lockheed Martin C-130J-30 Super Hercules transport aircraft will be purchased to replace the existing fleet, Defence Minister Ron Mark announced today.  “Last year, Cabinet selected these aircraft as the preferred option to replace the current Hercules fleet. Procurement of the Super Hercules has been ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    21 hours ago
  • New public housing sets standard for future
    New public housing that will save tenants money in energy bills, and provide warmer, healthier and more comfortable homes, is setting the standard for the Government’s future public housing programme, Housing Minister Megan Woods said. Dr Woods opened the new Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities complex, which has a ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    24 hours ago
  • Wairarapa Moana seeks international recognition as vital wetland
    The Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage is celebrating World Environment Day with an announcement of a major step towards Wairarapa Moana being recognised as an internationally significant wetland. “Wairarapa Moana is an ecosystem of 10,000 hectares of wetland and open water that provides a home for indigenous fish, birds and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    24 hours ago
  • First Police wing to complete training post lockdown
    A new-look Police graduation ceremony to take account of COVID19 health rules has marked the completion of training for 57 new constables. Police Minister Stuart Nash attended this afternoon's ceremony, where officers of Recruit Wing 337 were formally sworn in at the Royal New Zealand Police College without the normal support of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government makes further inroads on predatory lenders
    Mobile traders and truck shops must adhere to responsible lending requirements Interest rate cap on high-cost loans Lenders prohibited from offering further credit to an applicant who has taken two high-cost loans in the past 90 days The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Kris Faafoi, has signalled an end ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New survey shows wage subsidy a “lifeline” for businesses, saved jobs
    94% of firms say wage subsidy had positive impact on cashflow 62% of firms say support helped to manage non-wage costs like rent A survey of business that have received the Government’s wage subsidy show it has played a significant role in saving jobs, and freed up cash flow to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Tax changes support economic recovery
    New legislation introduced to Parliament today will support growth and assist businesses on the road to economic recovery, said Revenue Minister Stuart Nash. “The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill proposes that businesses can get tax deductions for ‘feasibility expenditure’ on new investments,” said Mr ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • $4.6 million financial relief for professional sports
    Sport and Recreation Minister Grant Robertson has welcomed the first release of funds from the $265 million Sport Recovery Package announced as part of Budget 2020. Sport NZ has announced that $4.6 million in funding will go to the Wellington Phoenix, NZ Warriors, Super Rugby teams and the ANZ Premiership ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Critical support for strategic tourism assets
    An iconic New Zealand tourism attraction and the country’s 31 Regional Tourism Organisations are the first recipients of support from the $400 million Tourism Sector Recovery Plan, to help position the sector for recovery from COVID-19, Tourism Minister Kelvin Davis announced today. The plan includes a Strategic Tourism Assets Protection ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Supporting Kiwi businesses to resolve commercial rent disputes
    The Government will legislate to ensure businesses that suffered as a result of the COVID-19 response will get help to resolve disputes over commercial rent issues, Justice Minister Andrew Little announced today. A temporary amendment to the Property Law Act will insert a clause in commercial leases requiring a fair ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Prompt payments to SMEs even more urgent
    The Minister for Small Business says new data from Xero highlights the urgency of prompt payment practices to small and medium enterprises as we move into economic recovery. Last month Government ministers wrote to significant private enterprises and the banking industry to request they join efforts by government agencies to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Free period products in schools to combat poverty
    Young people in Waikato will be the first to have free access to period products in schools in another step to support children and young people in poverty,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said.  During term 3, the Ministry of Education will begin providing free period products to schools following the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Response to charges in New Plymouth
    The Minister of Police Stuart Nash has issued the following statement in response to charges filed against three Police officers this morning in the New Plymouth District Court. “Any incident involving a loss of life in Police custody is taken very seriously. The charges today reflect the gravity of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Govt boosts innovation, R&D for economic rebuild
    $196 million for Crown Research Institutes $150 million for R&D loan scheme $33 million for Māori research and development opportunities $12 million for the Nationally Significant Collections and Databases $10 million to help maintain in-house capability at Callaghan Innovation New Zealand’s entrepreneurs, innovators and crown researchers will benefit from a ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Temporary changes to NCEA and University Entrance this year
    Further temporary changes to NCEA and University Entrance (UE) will support senior secondary school students whose teaching and learning have been disrupted by COVID-19. “The wellbeing of students and teachers is a priority. As we are all aware, COVID-19 has created massive disruption to the school system, and the Government ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Extended terms for the directors of the Racing Industry Transition Agency
    Minister for Racing Winston Peters today announced that the terms for the directors of the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA) have been extended to 30 June 2021. Due to the COVID-19 crisis the transition period has been extended to ensure that the Racing Industry Bill can complete its progress through ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Healthy Homes Standards statement of compliance deadline extended
    The deadline for landlords to include detailed information in their tenancy agreements about how their property meets the Healthy Homes Standards, so tenants can see the home they are renting is compliant, has been extended from 1 July 2020 to 1 December 2020.  The Healthy Homes Standards became law on 1 July 2019. The Standards are ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Criminal Cases Review Commission board appointments announced
    Justice Minister Andrew Little today announced details of further appointments to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. “I am pleased to announce Paula Rose QSO OStJ as Deputy Chief Commissioner for a term of five years commencing on 15 June 2020,” said Andrew Little. “I am also pleased to announce the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Release of initial list of supported training to aid COVID-19 recovery
    The Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund (TTAF) will pay costs of learners of all ages to undertake vocational education and training The fund will target support for areas of study and training that will give learners better employment prospects as New Zealand recovers from COVID-19 Apprentices working in all industries ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Emission trading reforms another step to meeting climate targets
    The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will finally start to cut New Zealand’s greenhouse gas pollution as it was originally intended to, because of changes announced today by the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw. The changes include a limit on the total emissions allowed within the ETS, rules to ensure ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Queen’s Birthday Honours highlights Pacific leadership capability in Aotearoa
    Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio says the Queen’s Birthday 2020 Honours List provides an abundance of examples that Pacific people’s leadership capability is unquestionable in Aotearoa. “The work and the individuals we acknowledge this year highlights the kind of visionary examples and dedicated community leadership that we need ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Govt backing horticulture to succeed
    The Government is backing a new $27 million project aimed at boosting sustainable horticulture production and New Zealand’s COVID-19 recovery efforts, says Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor. “Our horticulture sector has long been one of New Zealand’s export star performers, contributing around $6 billion a year to our economy. During and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Applications open for forestry scholarships
    Applications have opened for 2021 Ngā Karahipi Uru Rākau – Forestry Scholarships, which will support more Māori and women to pursue careers in forestry science, says Forestry Minister Shane Jones. “I’m delighted Te Uru Rākau is offering Ngā Karahipi Uru Rākau – Forestry Scholarships for the third year running. These ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Excellent service to nature recognised
    The Queen’s Birthday 2020 Honours List once again highlights the dedication by many to looking after our native plants and wildlife, including incredible work to restore the populations of critically endangered birds says Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage. Anne Richardson of Hororata has been made an Officer of the New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Wetlands and waterways gain from 1BT funding
    The Government will invest $10 million from the One Billion Trees Fund for large-scale planting to provide jobs in communities and improve the environment, Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor and Forestry Minister Shane Jones have announced. New, more flexible funding criteria for applications will help up to 10 catchment groups plant ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New fund for women now open
    Organisations that support women are invited to apply to a new $1,000,000 fund as part of the Government’s COVID-19 response. “We know women, and organisations that support women, have been affected by COVID-19. This new money will ensure funding for groups that support women and women’s rights,” said Minister for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Govt supports King Country farmers to lift freshwater quality
    Healthier waterways are front and centre in a new project involving more than 300 King Country sheep, beef and dairy farmers. The Government is investing $844,000 in King Country River Care, a group that helps farmers to lift freshwater quality and farming practice, Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor announced today. “Yesterday ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Libraries to help with jobs and community recovery
    A major funding package for libraries will allow them to play a far greater role in supporting their communities and people seeking jobs as part of the economic recovery from COVID-19. “Budget 2020 contains over $60 million of funding to protect library services and to protect jobs,” says Internal Affairs ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Support for arts and music sector recovery
    A jobseekers programme for the creative sector and four new funds have been set up by the Government to help our arts and music industry recover from the blow of COVID-19. Thousands of jobs will be supported through today’s $175 million package in a crucial economic boost to support the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Legislative changes to support the wellbeing of veterans and their families
    Minister for Veterans Ron Mark has welcomed the First Reading of a Bill that will make legislative changes to further improve the veterans’ support system.  The Veterans’ Support Amendment Bill No 2, which will amend the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, passed First Reading today. The bill addresses a number of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Christ Church Cathedral – Order in Council
    Views sought on Order in Council to help fast track the reinstatement of the Christ Church Cathedral  The Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Hon Poto Williams, will be seeking public written comment, following Cabinet approving the drafting of an Order in Council aimed at fast-tracking the reinstatement of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealanders’ human rights better protected in new Bill
    The law setting out New Zealanders’ basic civil and human rights is today one step towards being strengthened following the first reading of a Bill that requires Parliament to take action if a court says a statute undermines those rights. At present, a senior court can issue a ‘declaration of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Deep concern at Hong Kong national security legislation
    Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters today reiterated the deep concern of the New Zealand Government following confirmation by China’s National People’s Congress of national security legislation relating to Hong Kong. “New Zealand shares the international community’s significant and long-standing stake in Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability,” Mr Peters said. “New Zealand ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government invests in New Zealand’s cultural recovery
    Thousands of artists and creatives at hundreds of cultural and heritage organisations have been given much-needed support to recover from the impact of COVID-19, Prime Minister and Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Jacinda Ardern announced today. “The cultural sector was amongst the worst hit by the global pandemic,” Jacinda ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Better protection for New Zealand assets during COVID-19 crisis
    Key New Zealand assets will be better protected from being sold to overseas owners in a way contrary to the national interest, with the passage of the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Bill. The Bill, which passed its third reading in Parliament today, also cuts unnecessary red tape to help attract ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Cleaning up our rivers and lakes
    Setting higher health standards at swimming spots Requiring urban waterways to be cleaned up and new protections for urban streams Putting controls on higher-risk farm practices such as winter grazing and feed lots Setting stricter controls on nitrogen pollution and new bottom lines on other measures of waterway health Ensuring ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Record year for diversity on Govt boards
    The Government is on the verge of reaching its target of state sector boards and committees made up of at least 50 percent women, says Minister for Women Julie Anne Genter and Minister for Ethnic Communities Jenny Salesa. For the first time, the Government stocktake measures the number of Māori, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago