by Gareth Hughes
I was interested to hear a new community group is challenging Peter Dunne to use his crucial vote to halt the unpopular state asset sales.
They say: ‘Ohariu People’s Power started with a band at Johnsonville mall and then the tying of balloons, ribbons and posters, to every power pole from Dunne’s electorate office to Parliament. Because Peter Dunne’s one vote may decide the result of the asset sales debate the group is setting up a Citizens’ Select Committee to ensure that Dunne’s constituency are able to have their voices heard.’
It’s not smart to sell these important assets returning good dividends and Peter Dunne is making this possible. He has a reputation as a busy constituency MP who goes to the ‘opening of envelope’ so it will be interesting to see how he responds to community pressure to block asset sales and if he fronts at the public meeting at the Johnsonville Community Centre, 7:45pm on the 1st of March.
Do you think it’s a Dunne deal or will Dunne back-down to keep our assets?
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Gareth Hughes on Fri, February 24th, 2012
Tags: asset sales, Dunne, Ohariu, SOE
More posts by Gareth Hughes | more about Gareth Hughes
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Dunne will be banking on his electorate forgetting his decisions (as usual).
That and the knighthood he is no doubt gunning for.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
They had their chance to make their voices heard, and they voted for asset sales. They voted Dunne in, knowing that if asked Dunne would support National, and knowing that National were committed to asset sales if returned to power.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2 (+11)
Yeah, so as their neighbours lose their jobs in the public service and put the house on the market, just as assets go up for sale, they can consider the impact on their property values of this (or their neighbours wife receiving clients while he is out for a walk).
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Dunne will be relying on his electorate I feel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@dbuckley
I tend to agree that we got what the ‘majority’ (less the 35% who didnt bother) voted for. BUT fingers crossed that Dunne is actually, leading a seperate party & will either vote “no” or abstain. I have no doubt that Banks is a Key-Party “yes”man !~
Kia-ora
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
dbuckley says: “There was no space for interpretation, for wiggle room, or doubt, or lack of clarity.”
Where I think your argument falls down, dbuckley, is where Key and English touted asset sales as one thing (bright and shiny) to the voters, thus succeeding in slipping into Government (only just) but now with more detail of the plans available, the shiny has gone and people can see that the plans are very much lacking in lustre. The spun-story has gone and the reality of asset sales can be seen by the public, therefore they don’t want them to go ahead. Your ‘mandate’ claim relies on us all believing unconditionally what Key and English were saying, and ignoring what we have learned since. Your view seems very naive.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
By way of an example of what is now being revealed about the proposed asset sales, dbuckley, and where New Zealanders who voted for national would have very good reason to change their view, read this comment lifted from The Standard this morning:
“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 …”
http://thestandard.org.nz/ryall-confirms-asset-carve-up-on-the-cards/
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Mandate Schmandate!
I want to remind people who talk about the Government having a mandate for asset sales that over 50% of voters at the last election voted for one of the parties that oppose asset sales (Green, Labour, NZ First, Maori, Mana and Conservative).
The only reasons (assuming Dunne continues to support asset sales) that there is a Parliamentary majority for asset sales is that the electoral system denied representation to the Conservative Party and effectively gave National 2 MPs more than their party vote justified in support of their asset sales policy via the rorts in Epsom and Ohariu.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Toad,
If the mandate to govern is a required 50%+ votes off a coalition of parties then it is possible that in future No government will have a mandate (in fact how many past governments had a “mandate”?).
One could quite easily see a 30% Labour, 35% National, 15% Green, 20% The Rest parliament where the minor parties would create a “mandate” for the ruling coalition to govern (bring in Bill and Ben!!).
Whereas the Labour/Green coalition could not govern effectively (even though it had more votes than National) because it has no “mandate” without minor party support.
Not a leading question but did Labour have the “mandate” to buy what is now KiwiRail?
I think we need to be careful about the “mandate” as it may stymie and future government.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
@Gerrit 12:09 PM
I’m not questioning whether National has a mandate to govern. They clearly do have the confidence of the majority of Members of Parliament. But I do question whether they have a mandate for the particular policy of asset sales. They (or their cheerleaders) keep saying that they announced the policy of asset sales before the election, and that voters voted them back into Government on that policy. What I’m pointing out is that the majority of voters actually voted for parties that oppose asset sales.
As for the Kiwirail purchase, the question of a mandate doesn’t come into it. That policy was developed and the purchase carried out within a Parliamentary term, so there was clearly no voter mandate for it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Toad,
If the government of the day is to make decisions “un-mandated” (such as buying Kiwirail) surely the current government can sell assets “un-mandated”?
Where does the requirement for a “mandate” come from? Either a party or coalition is in government or it is not.
Saying if over 50% of the voters are against a particular government initiative, it has no “mandate” requires surely a binding citizen referendi (plural sp?).
Neither major party has EVER shown any adherence to those principles.
Interestingly if you asked voters on what they voted on you need to breakdown their preference for the various electoral parties manifests.
For example last election I prefered 60% of Nationals manifest, 35% Greens and 5% Labour.
So I voted National as opposed to the previous election where it was 55% Green , 45% National.
Key actually has done his homework in recognising that you only need to get over 60% of the voters preferences in the party manifest to get their vote.
If you asked many National voters, they would be against asset sales but not enough in favour of the Labour or Green party manifests to change their vote.
MMP alows one to have a foot in either camp and split vote between two parties depending on their manifest. Possibly the preference in the party vote to the party whose manifest you support at 60%.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Perhaps people mandated National to do one thing at the time of the election, but that ‘one thing’ has since been shown to be something else – not something people would mandate now, knowing what it really means.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
@greenfly 12:43 PM
Indeed.
A lot of the detail about the proposed asset sales wasn’t out there for debate at the time of the election. For example, it was only a few weeks ago that we learned of the uncertainty over whether the equivalent of Section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act would apply to the mixed ownership model as far as Treaty claims are concerned.
And it was only from Russel Norman’s and David Parker’s questions to Tony Ryall in Parliament yesterday that we learned there would be nothing to prevent the partially privatised SOEs from themselves completely selling off substantial assets such as dams and power stations.
Those issues simply were not out there during the election campaign.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
More good arguments for a real democracy.
http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/
And electoral recall when it becomes apparent that the ruling party lied like flatfish during the election campaign.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One: Why is everyone getting their knickers knotted beyond belief over the word “mandate”?
Selling off the silverware was an manifesto commitment, no more, no less. We the People put a National led government in place, and thus they are now going to fulfill their manifesto commitment to asset sales.
END OF STORY.
Two: The asset sales are our fault: Those of us who understood they were bad failed to convince those who didn’t think that way. As I noted pre-election – if National get back they will fuck the country over way more than any government in the history of New Zealand.
It’s worse than that: I’m on record as saying that they will win the next election, and the one after that. So get used to being fucked. Over, under, sideways, and down.
Three: What were those great bastions of the left, the Labour Party, doing whilst The Charm Offensive was selling asset sales? Oh yes, The Reds Great Idea was CGT. CGT????? Without rehashing the merits or otherwise of CGT, telling people “vote for us and we’ll put your taxes up” is hardly conducive to winning an election. Labour shoots self in foot, scores own goal, and thus helps the asset sales programme along nicely, and thus helps fuck us over. Nice one Labour.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
What I’m hearing from Greenfly is that governments lie.
Yep.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
…and that mandates from the people are negated when they do.
Yep.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
It’s a good job I deleted the very idea of a “mandate” then, isn’t it, as election manifesto commitments are so much more easily understood and not subject to interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is. Manifesto committments should change, as circumstances change and those who voted you in, call for a new and more appropriate response. Claiming ‘you agreed back then’, is a classic Authoritarian ploy and needs to be challenged vigorously.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Interesting interpretation of “committment”
If these “committments” were discarable just like that, then one wonders if there is actually any point in a party saying prior to the election what it is planning on doing?
Surely the idea of a manifesto and the comittments contained therein is so you know what you will get if and when a party comes to power?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Putting a different slant on this: Asset sales have always been controversial, and The Smiling One guaranteed there would be no asset sales in the first term, and guaranteed that there would be in the second term.
Because these things are contoversial, you need to be quite upfront and decisive about this, hence my “no room for wiggle”. Otherwise there would never be a definite decision. Perhaps we could have a televised coin toss.
For the reasons stated too many times already, we now have that definite decision.
I know its bad, I know I voted against it, but a bunch of people, too many for them all to be morons (and even some that think its the right thing to do) returned the asset sellers. Thats what being in a democracy means; I don’t always get my way.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
While I’m slanting
Assume hell froze over and Goff and the boys got in last election. Thats asset sales over with.
Then Goff goes “Right – CGT”. The TV polls would be saying most people were against GST, and it was an unpopular move, and even Labour voters didn’t like it. Would you (and by “you” I mean the Left Wing in general) be arguing against the imposition of CGT? Or would it be a “manifesto comittment” and therefore a done deal.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I don’t know dbuckley… if you ask about a CGT and push down the GST a point at the same time. the balance might well work out positive.
What I want and it is a simple thing, is for people to quite describing this as a mandate. If you want a mandate you do a proper referendum on that single topic… or you go to a gay bar. Don’t claim something you don’t have otherwise.
Moreover, if you run on something like CGT and then find out it isn’t wanted by MOST of the electorate and you aren’t smart enough to reconsider, the question of your intelligence (or the intelligence of the voters who elected you) has to be raised.
ciao
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I follow your argument, dbuckley and largely agree, with the rider that, should something come up in the interim that casts your promise/mandate/manifesto commitment into great doubt, you’d be foolish not to take the new situation into account and represent the possibilities to those who rely upon you to make the best decisions for all concerned, as i think bj also implies. That said, and i feel we’ll be in agreement here, National/Key are very unlikely to behave in this way, as their motivations are not as I describe an ideal decision-maker’s would be. I’m wanting to talk about selling out, vested interests, ideological blindness and so on, but why upset myself over that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Dbuckley. Labour should have to persuade the majority that CGT is a good idea, just as NACT should have to do the same thing with asset sales.
Game changers at that scale should be subject to Swiss style referenda.
Instead of our ill informed and self interested rotating dictatorship.
In fact more reliable polls than the TV ones had up to 60% in favour of a CGT.
It would help if the right refrained from lying propaganda so that people could make informed decisions.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
@Kerry Thomas 5:42 PM
And we may just have one on this issue. Russel Norman is seeking support for gaining he signatures for a referendum under the CIR Act on this.
Sure, it won’t be binding, but it would be a very silly Government that ignored a referendum on an issue like this, which I suspect would be overwhelmingly against asset sales. Doing so would almost certainly result in the Government’s demise at the next election, and give a mandate (oops) to a future Government to renationalise any assets that had been privatised in the meantime.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“…so it will be interesting to see … if he fronts at the public meeting at the Johnsonville Community Centre, 7:45pm on the 1st of March.”
So did he?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)