by Catherine Delahunty
(because the Government rationale resembles reality TV and really bad movies)
“The GC – greedy corporates go shopping Bill”
“Project Runaway – steal our assets!”
“Flight of the Conmen”
“NZ’s Next Top Rip Off”
“The Biggest Loser – Citizens of Aotearoa/NZ”
“Survivor Asset Sales – no one gets immunity”
“Masterchef Asset Sales – How To Cook the Books”
“Outrageous Fortune”
“Oprah – When your PM is a problem gambler”
“Queer Eye for a Straight Lie”
“Extreme Makeover – a family wakes up to find they’ve been privatised”
Old favourites:
“Diamonds Are Forever – Unlike the National Government”
“Quantum of Sophistry – The Asset Sales”
“Honey I Shrunk Your Assets”
“Maggie’s Garden Show – Weeding out your assets”
OK, it’s trivial but so are the arguments for asset sales!
Published in Parliament by Catherine Delahunty on Thu, June 21st, 2012
Tags: asset sales, Keep Our Assets, Mixed Ownership Model bill
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Good onya Catherine.. what about :
Funding the rich people’s tax cuts Bill
Flogging the Family Silver Bill
OR
Selling our country off to RICH foreigners Bill ??
Kia-ora
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Hi Catherine. That may be so but with respect, I much prefer to read the frogblog posts that have substance and include more complete arguments. I’m not a Green Party member, but I’ve come to enjoy Frogblog because I’ve found the discussion here is often quite rich and constructive, and some visitors are open to considering and discussing a wider range of ideas. This list just reminds me of something shallow I might expect to see on a blog like The Standard or Red Alert. (I don’t look there often, though, so maybe I’m behind the times.) I appreciate the frustration but I don’t think it reflects so well on the GP to encourage such shallow arguments even more. Maybe that’s just me.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
Oh and obviously thanks for the work you and others have put into debating the Bill. It’s really only the style of this post that I wanted to comment on.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
This post unfortunately looks like something from the Clare and Trevor School of Political Message Management.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
I know its was frivilous but it is necesary for me at least to take a light hearted view sometimes. I appreciate not everyone will agree.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
Fair call, Catherine.
I just didn’t want to see this post become Slater or DPF fodder, considering what stirling work you and your colleagues perform in Parliament and on this blog to promote reasoned political discourse across so many issues that are important to New Zealand’s future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Another reason to support NZ First on the buy back of the assets?
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/bribing-their-cronies.html
PS It is no surprise that the party that wants us to pay more for our power, to enrich those with the capital to own shares amd make untaxed CG, is determined to run down free for view public television here – no doubt at the behest of the corporate investors in private media.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
From NZ First: “New Zealand First is committed to buying back the shares at no greater price than paid by the first purchaser.”
I’m not well versed in this area but is the intent here to legislate that everyone owning shares be required to sell them back to the government at that price? If so, what other precedents have there been for similar actions, and did they have noticeable effects on the stability and interest in NZ’s sharemarket as a whole? eg. Who’d want to invest in a country where there’s a perception that the government might simply come along and say “we’re taking back your ownership at a price much less than what it’s worth”?
If that’s the idea then it’s something I’m very uneasy about, warning or not. If the market value’s gone up, it could as easily be because investors have actually worked and spent their own effort improving their investment, or at the very least forfeited dividends, in which case legislating that they be required to sell back at a loss is invalidating their work and usurping it back for the government without proper compensation. Otherwise it seems to me that just sends a signal that investors should take no interest whatsoever in what they own and hold out for the most they can get in dividends in a short time? If the government weren’t keeping 51% I’d expect the most enticing thing for investors to do under a threat of a compulsory below-purchase buy-back would be to just asset strip the thing (as happened with the Railways) and run it into the ground as quickly as possible.
I’d find a compulsory buy-back easier to accept if there were at least a reliable way to ascertain market value in the event that the government had no interest and then offer owners that price instead, just to discourage people wanting to own shares in full expectation of a big capital gain entirely from the government’s buy-back policy.
It might be that the current government is screwing people over (and I think it is), but I’m not convinced that a blind commitment to reverse the sell-off in future years will do anything but screw people over even more. If a National-led government sells off everyone’s assets, it’ll be water under the bridge one way or another, and with some assessment in the future there might be more effective ways to curb the effects.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the government weren’t keeping 51% I’d expect the most enticing thing for investors to do under a threat of a compulsory below-purchase buy-back would be to just asset strip the thing (as happened with the Railways) and run it into the ground as quickly as possible.
Good point though the practicalities of asset stripping power generation infrastructure might be problematic.
However, I see this as a political ploy from Peter’s rather than a serious policy position.
The most practical solution rather than buyback once the inevitable occurs is to signal regulation. Buyers will then take this into account in the purchase price – something they are unlikely to do based on NZF rhetoric as Peters will never be in power to implement it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gregor says “However, I see this as a political ploy from Peter’s rather than a serious policy position.”
Correct.
NZ First would not screw over all the superannuation funds and 1.8 million Kiwisaver accounts who will own a large proportion of the privately owned shares (along with ACC and NZ superannuation fund).
Otherwise they would be screwing their own demographic.
Can anyone really see Peters destroying the value of part of the retirement funds of nearly 2 million people? (every Kiwi if you count the NZ Super fund)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“Good point though the practicalities of asset stripping power generation infrastructure might be problematic.”
True. On the other hand it’d still seem practical to cut back largely on necessary maintenance and future infrastructure investment, though, if there were good incentives to do so like a threat of losing out with future government usurping back the shares.
“However, I see this as a political ploy from Peter’s rather than a serious policy position.”
I think you’re right, unless a party like Labour were ever chided into also committing (as I saw Bill English mocking Labour for not committing during yesterday’s question time), but I can’t see Labour committing to a buy-back at purchase price, and for now at least I hope the Green Party also wouldn’t do so. I guess NZ First could keep its policy for political reasons, but without serious expectation of having it implemented. At best it might swing some agreement in a coalition to have assets bought back in full or part at market value, and then claim it was [some other party]‘s fault for not doing the whole thing properly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The retired person (demographic of NZ First?) has no interest in the investment funds.
As for those with Kiwi Saver Fund investments and the like (half of workers?) it would be a surprise of power company shares would constitute that large a share of any portfolio – funds don’t operate in such a way as to be vulnerable to any one investment sector. So the impact of a buy back at sale price would be negligible, especially when this would be within 3 years of the sale.
Given most favour retention of the assets and these factors there are in fact few political risks to supporting the NZFirst position.
In the end it’s the we cannot frighten the markets mantra to dictate acquiescence – and this is more superstition than reality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)