Hot Topics: Budget 2013 | Unitary plan
NZ POLITICS DAILY: Asset sales - where National went wrong
National lost the public debate on asset sales a long time ago, but it pushes forward regardless.
Surely if the government could turn back the clock it would not bother going down the path of partial privatisation at all. After all the whole exercise has turned out to be so fraught.
This was emphasied yesterday by John Armstrong’s column, National has failed to conquer foreign ownership bogey, in which he intelligently outlines all the ways in which National has lost its way on the issue.
But has the opposition actually ‘won’ the debate? It’s true that National has been unable to sell the policy programme to voters who appear to remain unconvinced and unenthusiastic about the asset sales.
And this has certainly allowed the government’s opponents a strong weapon to hit National over the head with, which it continues to do with success.
Yet the opposition parties are possibly not as successful as they might think. Yes, the public is unenthusiastic about the sale of assets, but there’s no evidence that the electorate is as angry about the issue as Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First all make out.
In fact, the whole debate about asset sales has been rather weak and shallow, with both sides appearing to have descended into purely tribal partisanship, finally enjoying the fact that the issue provides a strong ideological "litmus test" in which the "left" can argue for greater public ownership and the "right" can argue for less government.
Yet it is hard to believe that either side in the debate really feels as strongly about the issue as they make out.
The issue has become a highly technocratic one – will the government’s books be better off if it sells the assets or continues to receive the proceeds of dividends?
There has actually been no overwhelmingly convincing answer to that question. Essentially, all sides have failed to convince the public.
For yesterday’s most detailed coverage of the asset sales debate, see Adam Bennett’s Asset sales bill down to the wire, which provides an outline of the Government’s view and the "dissenting voices" on all the major elements of the debate.
There have been other challenges raised – most notably the question of rising power prices. But as detailed in Wednesday’s very good article by Nicholas Jones, price increases are already extraordinary high under the Labour’s SOE model – see: Power switches show market works: Ryall.
Although Labour has really owned the debate, National is now attempting to turn the tables by putting the focus back on Labour’s own position on asset sales and its performance in this area. See for example, David Farrar’s blogpost Asset Sales Labour v National which deals with Labour’s past privatization programme.
Furthermore, National is asking a fair question of Labour and other opponents: If you oppose the sale, will you commit to buying back what is sold? New Zealand First has announced that it would indeed do exactly that – see: Opposition fails to slow progress of asset sale bill.
But until Labour answers that convincingly, it has credibility problems in its attacks on National. See also: Greens undecided on asset buy-back policy.
Given National’s weak position on asset sales, could it perform yet another U-turn on this major policy? John Armstrong thinks that it is still possible that the process might be cancelled by the Government before or after the first asset (MightyRiverPower) is put up for sale. But few others see the Government yielding on such a central policy platform.
So why has the government been less inclined to pragmatically give in to public opinion on this issue?
After all it has been uncharacteristic for this National administration to unnecessarily push forward with unpopular policies. Bryan Gould credibly answers this question today in his column, Maori leaders have the right idea.
He says that the government is reliant on the sales proceeds for its electoral strategy: "It is essential to the whole of the government’s strategy. Without it, there would be a huge hole in the Government’s finances, and any chance of eliminating the deficit by 2014-15 would have gone. Whatever other arguments are pressed into service, the truth is that the sales are needed if Key’s strategy is to retain any credibility in financial terms".
Other important or interesting political items yesterday include:
- Guyon Espiner’s Interview with John Key in this weeks’ Listener is well worth a read.
- ACC continues to be a political hot potato. Patrick Gower reports that "the ACC-Bronwyn Pullar privacy scandal has now claimed its sixth casualty" – see: Sixth ACC casualty as board member leaves. But the bigger policy debate continues, especially with an excellent backgrounder by Colin James explaining how the ambiguities and different political perspectives on what the scheme should be for has led to recent controversies – see: ACC's unresolved policy paradox. And now the whole question of whether ACC should be a pay-as-you-go-scheme versus a fully funded scheme seems to be back on the agenda, as discussed in Vernon Small’s ACC changes could return $1b to workers, the Dominion Post editorial, Don't discard good with bad, and the Press editorial, Reforming ACC.
- Yesterday was World Refugee Day, and so the Race Relations and Human Rights Commissioner Joris de Bres made atimely critique of the Immigration Amendment Bill before Parliament – see: Refugee detention plan threat to NZ's good name.
- Is New Zealand complicit in slavery? The latest US State Department report says so – see Michael Field’s NZ slammed in US 'slavery' report.
- Following on from the "Wellington Declaration" signed in 2010, today the New Zealand Government is signing the "Washington Declaration" with the US. This all signals the much closer defence relations with the US as well as the US’s much greater interest in the Pacific – see Audrey Young’s New Zealand, US to sign new defence pact.
- Diplomatic relations between Britain and New Zealand became slightly frosty this week after British High Commission's First Secretary, Tony Clemson, published a critical opinion piece in the Dominion Post: New Zealand too slow on green growth. The prime minister has described this as "bad manners" and questioned whether diplomats should be engaged in such domestic political activities – see John Hartevelt’s British diplomat ticked off for criticising NZ.
- Finally, the online Encyclopedia of New Zealand, Te Ara is today launching its latest section: Government and Nation, which contains a wealth of excellent entries that will be of great use and interest to politicos. I’ve even contributed one of these: Elections and Campaigns. All the entries are written by experts in their fields, and include a variety of vibrant and fascinating images and media. Highlights of the new Government and Nation section include entries such as Stephen Levine’s Political values, Kate McMillan’s Media and politics, Jennifer Curtin and Raymond Miller’s Political parties, Peter Aimer’s Labour Party, Colin James’ National Party, John E Martin’s Parliament, Richard Shaw’s Public service, Raymond Miller’s Interest groups, Peter Clayworth’s Intelligence services and Prisons, Basil Keane’s Māori protest movements, Mark Derby’s Conscription, conscientious objection and pacifism, Ben Schrader’s Public buildings, Housing and government and Public protest, and Jock Phillips’ Visitors’ opinions about New Zealand.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions17
You betchya life we are angry. This particular voter (and I am well within the potential National voter metric) has vowed NEVER to vote for them again over the issue. There is a hell of a lot of anger.
What I can't understand is:
1) Labour sold 9.5 Billion dollars worth of state assets with less controls in place than National's...but not a peep from the commentariat
2) Labour have refused to pledge to buy back the assets that are sold...speaks volumes
3) We have a brainwashed little Wellington socialist at Rio+20 advocating changes in 'governance'. Wow. UN Agenda 21 want's to turn the world into a communitarian prison planet and we should be happy with that? UN Agenda 21 seeks to ultimately tax private proerty out of existence and destroy all industry.
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
Which is advocated by Helen Clark and David Shearer (former UN apparatchik...and the Greens).
And we're worried about NZ assets when UN documentation clearly states that they will ALL be redistributed anyway (if their global prison planet Agenda becomes hard law).
There is no Left or Right. There is only Freedom or Tyranny.
try and stick to reality, not fantasy.
Follow your own advice matey.
Wakey wakey rise and shine and welcome to the socialist fantasy world!
"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level."
- UN Agenda 21
"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
- United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment
"A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
- Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor
"One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it's just as bad not to say it."
- Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
"The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
- UN Commission on Global Governance report
"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must
assume some aspects of a world government."
- Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum
"In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways."
- Dr Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General,
"Regionalism must precede globalism.
We foresee a seamless system of governance from
local communities, individual states, regional unions
and up through to the United Nations itself."
- UN Commission on Global Governance
It really grieves me that UN knobs such as Helen Clark, and all the faux "civil society' organisations peopled by her leftist mates are enjoying an all expenses paid trip to the latest global dictatorship jamboree.
The people of the world cannot and will not accept their perverted solutions of limiting energy and water use by driving the price ever higher. There is no reason why we cannot use our engineering skills to provide cheap and abundant power and water to everyone.
Ultimately Helen and her greeny fabian fellow travellers will have the death of many many people on their hands, its already happening with food crops being used for bio diesel and thus starving people to death.
The Clarkist/Shearer/Norman Marie Antoinette moment is fast approaching, and I for one will be volunteering to man the guillotine (and no, you won't hear about this corrupt totalitarianism on Red Alert will you Clare Curran...) .
I know that ICLEI were promulgating UN Agenda 21 in NZ at Regional/Local government level. Remember Harvy Ruvin one of ICLEI's Vice Chairs saying "Private Property will have to take a back seat for the good of the collective".
Sounds a bit Marxist to me. Or should that be Watermelon (Green on the outside and red on the inside)?
The UN's central planning ethos is modelled on the soviet system. It failed. You work here, you do this, you obey that, you earn this, you can't do that. Vote for any of our candidates.
Their concept of social justice is not justice,. Their concept of social democracy is not democracy.
Evil pillocks all and totally unelectable. Which is why you never get to vote on it.
The Green Party advocate support of UN Agenda 21 on their website.
Shearer is a UN shill.
Labour MP Clare Curran is the Labour/green liaison coordinating the two parties.
Helen C is number 3 at the UN. This is what she just said;
http://cnsnews.com/blog/paul-wilson/un-official-western-nations-dont-need-more-cars-more-tv-whatever
Rebranded collectivist slavery kicked off in 1992 by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party who coined the UN's position on Sustainable Development.
How can the forces of anti-freedom claim to serve our interests when they are shills for an alien power and an anti-nation state philosophy.
Theirs is the road to serfdom.
I got it the first time! But I agree entirely.
The UN want to turn us into a Global Village run by their 'Elders'.
Funnily enough Gro Harlem Brundtland is the main anti West Marxtoid on their very own website http://theelders.org/gro-brundtland
In their own words "The Elders are independent global leaders" who seem to ALL be big government statists!
They are the smiling face of soft maternalist communitarian fascism.
At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 Gro Harlem Brundtland proudly told Dr. Dixy Lee Rayas that Agenda 21 was the agenda of the International Socialist Party for the 21'st century.
Of course the lefties support it.
Whilst Gro joined the Labour Party at the age of 7 she is married to Arne Olav Brundtland, a prominent member of Norway's Conservative party. They have four children.
She's also a member of the club of madrid, as is Maurice Strong...and Jenny Shipley from the Nats.
The guy at the top was correct. there is no Left or Right anymore. Just freedom or tyranny.
All leaders of all parties are Communiatarians now. Amitai Etzioni would be proud.
We're doomed :(
http://americanfreedomwatchradio.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/05/4es.pdf
That was a great article by Guyon Espiner.
It is good to see something that shows the positive for a change. It is clear that some people see the glass half empty all the time - but it is the people who see the glass half full that make a difference.
Sure Key has his faults but Labour and the Greens are just doom and gloom.
Everything is bad, everything is wrong.
I think it is real tough right now both inside NZ and outside - its even getting tough in Australia.
We need positive people to lift the spirits. Imagine Richy MaCaw saying to his team in the huddle - give up guys everything is going bad we are going to lose.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
Diversionary tactics Freedom hating Marxtards!
Yours, the 'environmental movements, and every green Lib-tard from here to Rio and back again.
You have blown this, nobody else.
At Rio 92 you had the ear of more world leaders than any other meeting in history. Goodwill flowed from all corners of the earth.
The world was there for the taking. Same with Copenhagen...with every major world leader present.
But just before Copenhagen your eco-marxist world caught one right where it hurts. Truth came smashing down the front door and kicked every one of you right in the ********. Oh deary me...when truth comes a-calling, he can be a very hard taskmaster.
So 20 years after Rio 92 the world is sick to its back teeth of squealing self-indulgent, foot-stamping tossers who claim they want to Save The Planet, but actually want to run it.
Your side has exaggerated, deceived, tricked and outright lied across the green board.
Seas level rises to temperature armageddon to polar bear collapse to humankind facing oblivion within a century.
All of it clap-trap.
All of it fatally exposed by the almost complete failure of IPCC computer models to accurately predict reality.
You tried to shut down debate. (It was 'over', remember?)
You tried to close down scientific rigour. (It was 'settled, remember?)
You tried to ostracise those who wished to see empirical evidence.
This failure - if that's what it is, is entirely of the green movements own doing.
You've no one else to blame but yourselves.
national went wrong by revealing themselves as liarbour dressed in blue. national went wrong by legitimising ignorance of the electorate voice (smacking) and by implementing liarbour's emissions scam. a scam national said was a hoax. national is the hoax.
I actually think it is too early to tell if they have lost the debate. - The debate is ongoing, and will continue to be recycled.
If the sales go well and lots of Kiwis buy up shares and Europe continues to decline or even accelerates that decline with a general increase world wide in lending rates to governments running significant welfare systems. Then the public debate may well change.
I guess we will finally know at the next election. Sufficient time would have passed to see the short term impact of Europe and to see how the initial sales proceed. Plus at that stage all the issues get grouped in to one, 2 part poll. i.e. party/individual
And if the people decide that asset sales is an over-riding issue and really do want them stopped then we will see a change of government.
Personally I think the battle will be on other issues, and mainly how well National has been able to do against what they said they would do.