Prime Minister John Key has hit back at a TV3 report which claimed he misled the public about National's intention to sell shares in four state-owned energy companies and make cuts to jobs in the public service.
TV3 last night showed footage of a speech Key gave in 2008 when he was still leader of the opposition, in which he said National may not sell any SOEs, and that the government's dividend stream from the energy companies was large. Key also said the government did not have a debt problem at the time.
During the 2011 election campaign National said if re-elected it would sell up to 49% stakes in Mighty River Power, Genesis Energy, Solid Energy, and Meridian Energy, as well as selling down the taxpayers' 75% stake in Air New Zealand to no less than 49%.
Today after a speech on reforming the public sector, Key told media he gave the speech referred to in the TV3 story before the 2008 Pre Election Fiscal Update from Treasury.
“Back then I said we didn’t have a debt problem. Actually when we gave that speech it was before the PREFU in 2008 came out. In fact, we do have a debt problem now – that’s the first thing," Key said.
"Secondly, having had a closer look at it, my personal view now is the mixed-ownership model is a much better model [for the energy companies]," Key said.
"Having looked around a number of government departments, I don’t think the dividend returns are excessive. I’m not say they’re not bad, I think these are good assets, and that’s one of the reasons why I think they lend themselves to the mixed-ownership model. But they’re not actually excessive returns if you start taking out the issues like the one-off returns that Meridian had," he said.
In fact there was more likelihood of maximising those returns through the mixed-ownership model.
"Overall the closer I’ve had the chance to get in there and actually look at them all, we’re going to get better outcomes through the mixed-ownership model. That’s why we campaigned on it for a year before the last election, that’s why we were so upfront about it," Key said.
That was the same when it came to public sector change and job cuts in the public service.
“We had an election in 2011, we’ve been extremely transparent about what we’ve done, and we intend to follow through on it," Key said.
(Updates with video)
58 Comments
He certainly did warn us that they planned to sell the SOE's and the foolish public still voted him in. However I disagree that he has a manadate to sell them as polls have consistently revealed that over 80% of the public are against the sales.
Roll on the petition and referendum.
yep, more fool the public, they had their chance, key made it clear as did our local wannabe national constituancy MP even though no one else in the candiates meeting agreed with her, they were going to sell. So while I certianly think the SOE sales are a bad idea ........for the energy companies anyway we voted for it...However I'd sell 100% of Air NZ tomorrow for $1......its a dead duck.....
regards
Air NZ - I'd still hang on to 51% . How would you like the Aussies dictating our tourist access!
Solid Energy would benefit from some independent ownership as I think it is hamstrung in goverment hands and suffers from a lot of politically correct government influences. say 60% govt ownership. As for the power companies hang on to 100% of every one. (and merge them to stop the silly gaming and waste of free renewable energy)
Currently Air NZ is a strategic asset, don't see how anyone can see it any other way. People need to stay in the moment... even if it is not a sustainable business model in the medium term. I know most here don't have a clue about business here however for now those that disagree make me wonder if they have a clue how business is currently conducted, that may be forced to change in time...... even if they are right and international trade/business falls off a cliff in 8 years time why give up on life now!
Speckles - that neatly encapsulates the stupidity I shake my head at. You got kids? Feel any obligation to give 'em a chance?
Secondly, who says anyone is 'giving up on life'? My bet is that I do more, challenge myself more, contribute to society more (that includes the reverse contribution of resource-depletion, by the way), and think outside the square more, on any given day, than most.
If you've followed the discussions here, we don't think things are going to 'rise' from here on either. Some of us have asked the fundamental what-is-it question, not of business, but of money, the aquisition of which appears to be business' goal. The answer appears to be - correct me if I'm wrong - a proxy for goods and services yet to be purchased. Some of us made the short-circuit, got ourselves the goods/services we required, while holding life values perhaps lees shallow than how-much-you're-worth.
I feel sorry for someone who thinks the acquisition of wealth is 'life'. Good luck to you.
I was referring to Steven perspective as usual. Which you appear to always chime in on. A balanced and changing policy from current technology i.e air travel in this case would throw less over the cliff than ignore how the world works today. Smart people learn from other people mistakes and then innovate. Don't assume anything on me, which reveals a great deal about you. You have to be pragmatic how the world works now, how we care for people now and how we move from that. It not all about you or me,
Speckles - heard and understood, but my appraisal of the time available, and the magnitude of what has to be done, suggests that we have run out of time for 'balanced' and 'changing'.
The business model requires a pay-back-time from every morph-stage, for instance. We didn't get from wax cylinders to I-Pods without records, reel-to-reel, casssette, CD, all paying for their own stage-development.
My argument is that we don't have that luxury of time, and that we have to adopt a record-like technology. Note, not go backwards, but go longer-life, easier-made, more locally produced/repaired.
My return question is a simple one: Given the remaining time to powerdown - if any - is it valid to squander the get-ready time chucking the remaining easily-gotten energy attempting to continue BAU?
Seems like a waste of time to me. The concern - and I was at yet another 500-odd person lecture last night at Otago Uni (haven't checked the paper, but my betting is that it went unreported as usual) where it was raised at Prof level - is that is we sqyuander the easy energy not getting ready, no following generation will have the like available to them to re-start. It took millions of years to form, we're burning the lot in 200.
If that ain't selfish, I'm not sure how you define the word.
"Is it valid to squander the get-ready time chucking the remaining easily-gotten energy attempting to continue BAU?"
I agree no...why waste a moment or opportunity... however the way humanity is I suspect it is a given. I have had the frustrating opportunity to meet a number of people of influence in world affairs and it is clear to me they will do nothing.
So you are left like me to help who you can...for me that is helping people via BAU get set up...especially the young that have had no say in all of this.
Ah, there we are fellow travellers. I don't so much 'set them up', but I give them skills. Anything I can pass on I do, and for free.
You're right, it is a given, and the young are the ones who will suffer. I try and go easy on them when they're here (we're almost never hosting someone, usually it's young, thinking couples) but they're smart enough to envisage the consequences. A young Canadian lass actually photographed the Club of Rome 'World3' graph straight off my laptop last week. They get it.
We just realise we're of the luckiest generation perhaps ever, and that we've got the ability to share what we have here. Interesting, given that our combined income probably wouldn't equate to the pension we'll never get.....
go well (just don't expect to fly :)
So crony capitalism is ok then, short termism is OK because thta's what you are saying....No it isnt, and yes ppl can see it another way. Your reply is off on so many levels...not least is sinking $s into a non-viable "strategic asset" that has no future and will be worthless shortly, no business would do that...they would cut their losses and move on. I hear ppl saying pork barrel politics is wrong......WINZ is wrong etc. typically ppl like you, yet what you are saying is corporate welfare is OK, sorry no it isnt.
Its not about giving up on life now or more importantly, then....adjust business and society gradually now with little or medium level pain or carry on with none and yes fall of a cliff and go out of business....and hurt a lot...
like duh...
regards
I disagree that he has a mandate to sell them
Yeah, this 'mandate' thing is "spin" (but he's certainly not the first PM to use it) as it implies 'a majority' of NZers agree with the intention.
Here's a calculation: Coalition has 64 seats (incl Maori Party), Opposition has 57. Maori Party who fence sat on it prior to the 2011 election have 3 seats.
Only 73% of eligible voters (NZers 18+) voted in the last general election.
Total number of eligible voters in NZ = 3,088,467
So the 'mandate' (percentage of the population 18+) calculation goes like this:
[(3,088,467*.73)(.528)]/3,088,467 = 38.7% of all NZers voted for asset sales
Above assumes Maori Party voters were in favour
[3,088,467*.73)(.504)]/3,088,467 = 36.8% of all NZers voted for asset sales
Above assumes Maori Party voters were against
If anyone sees a flaw in the logic/calc let me know!
Your calculation is fine. Your logic that he doesn't have a mandate doesn't neccesarily flow. If you do the calculation from the other perspective, only 36.2% (1-0.504)*0.73 voted against them. Not exactly his fault that the other 27% dont care. If 80% of the population are against them, why did only 36.2% vote against them. I can think of a few reasons;
- there are a lot of stupid kiwis (80%-36.2%) - hopefully not that many - almost half!
- Or asset sales wasn't their number one priority when deciding who to vote (or not) for - possibly due to the lack of a credible alternative
Unfortunately Key is right on this one; he told us, he said vote for me and I will sell em. We as New Zealanders either voted for him or didnt vote against him and therefore he has the power to do what he said he would. Its a bit rich, especially for the 63.8% (100%-36.2%) who didn't vote against him to now complain that he is going ahead with it. Citizens normally hate it when politicians reneg on campaign promises, in this instance we are complaigning that he is keeping his word. Get a grip people, the best you can hope for in a democracy is that a politician keeps his word. Grill him, destroy him when he doesn't like raising GST et al, but this time we have to collectively suck it up and acknowledge he's only doing what he promised. (the bastard)
Asher, the real problem is the voting system.
By the way - MMP review is beeing undertaken at this moment so have your say.
Go to www,mmpreview.org
Anyway back to the voting system
First we have an MMP system witha first past the post result.
Second we have a voting system in which half of the voters waste their vote because they voted for an opposition party.
Note that opposition parties have no say in the running of government and so a wasted vote. An opposition MP has no more power to influence government decisions than you or I
Why would you bother to vote if you have a 50% chance of wasting your vote?
If anyone sees a flaw in the logic/calc let me know!
The logic is wrong. Of course not all voters for National want, or even know what their political program is or what it was at the election. Not all National voters want to see asset sales. The same it true for Labour voters, some Labour voters would be happy to see asset sales.
You can only really gather if there is a government mandate with a referendum or opinion polls, when these devices are not used then the government must make some assumptions about policy support in order to make policy. Thats why representative democracy tends to come down to style over substance so much of the time.
A better functioning of democracy would be for the electorate to put forward some policies that they want to see. Now the politicians will pledge which policy choices they will implement, from the policies put forward. Finally the politicians are selected and the winners are given a mandate to implement their policy choices in parliament. If they deviate from their pledges then they can be thrown out of office. Unfortunately this is somewhat complicated to achieve in practise however.
This would be better, because if the Labour ministers were simply incompetent so un-suitable to be elected on principal, then you can select a National party government to implement a non-asset sale manifesto. This way there doesn't have to be a gap between National and Labour policy, simply so that either red or blue can be the winner of the election.
Yes we can. He would like us to accept that it is a job lot but at the end of the day it is our country and we are the boss. Pettitions and refferendums are our ligitimate tools and if he chooses to ignore yet another one then nationals political future will be limited and I suspect that members of his own government may well rise up against him.
Many people I have spoken too weren't voting for sales, but against a CGT. Wouldn't want the people to think govt would bow to public pressure. At least we all had a chance to have our say on election day, and the media made sure we knew what the real issues were.
Hadn't thought of that one - it's why I don't buy this electoral 'mandate' type justification, particularly where such critically important actions are likely to affect generations of NZers going forward who had no say - sins of the fathers, eh?
Surely the issue is not asset sales but energy security. And as pdk pointed out elsewhere - we haven't even got near to asking that question.
The trouble is nobody wants to sell assets or drill or mine or have salmon fisheries or pay higher rents or have less public servants but neither do they want to pay more taxes (although they are keen on other people paying more tax). But they want to catch up with Aussie and have better living conditions for all New Zealanders and keep everything clean and green and get rid of GST on veges.
In fact most people seemingly would vote everyone in the world a standard of living equivalant to the standard the rich West enjoys. Of course if all the wealth was pooled and spread over everyone in the world it wouldn't drag anyone up much at all, it would just drag the relatively affluent down (including all New Zealanders.)
No one wants salmon fisheries? yet more nimbies? damn it its under water, you cant even see it!
You cant catch up with Ozzie......the only way to do so is have an equal population....and simialr population densities.....
This is the second gilded age where the top 1% take what is estimated as all the growth "gains" for the last 1 or even 2 decades...So actually getting rid of that top 1% would probably be a huge advantage for the other 99%....From what I can read and see its pretty much conclusive evidence they are really mostly parasites killing the host (society).
regards
John Key is 100% correct, he always said he wanted to sell the assets , and I was never in any doubt about this ,
AND
Thats why I voted for National ( Twice)
AND
Its the right thing to do , the Government has no business running businesses like Airlines , Railways and energy Companies .
Boatman, you're simply wrong. Govt - as you prove by voting - is us. Productivity is irrespective of ownership, so really you are arguing from the premise that you, personally, are going to be 'better off', at the expense of someone else, presumably.
The joke is that you won't. Nobody will. Compared to real incomes, energy demand - and nothing repeat nothing repeat nothing happens without energy - will escalate increasingly from here on. Those who expect to get richer at the expense of others (investore vs customers) are assuming the customers will be able to 'pay'. Same delusion obsesses landlords, and it's the same empty pockets you can't get blood out of once, let alone twice.
No real money is earned wothout expending the stuff - it's jointly-owned gold, indeed more than gold, in that it's essential. I guess, at some trigger point, the disenfranchised always turn ugly, and at the point where they have nothing (more) to lose, they are unbeatable.
Better they think they have ownership/buyin.
So......using your logic I guess government have no right to tell YOU how to run your business, it's finances, it's GST returns.....etc etc?
You want "small government" well hey........I AGREE, but why draw a line?
I'm sure many people are saying "I'm sick to death with government invasiveness on all levels" and I would agree. Stay OUT of my business, my property and my home.
BUT....... when it comes to "strategic assets" that we ALL (in theory) own and many of our previous generations help construct and pay for.....then we must protect this investment at all costs.
NZ is borrowing 300-400 million a week, Is that not exactly the amount of revenue they hope to get from each of these partial asset sales? ONE WEEKS worth of debt paid each MINUS the interest on that initial 300+ mil borrowing.
Governments all over the world, either (or in combination) own, run, micro manage, heavily regulate, control and dictate on pricing, construction of nearly all of the electricity generation in the world. There is really no real free market, unencombered in a really big way by government, for electricity anywhere in the world. Why because of the way electricity is generated and distributed.
I wouldnt say it was becasue of how and the way its distributed, its about it being there 24/7. This is the most important thing, an essential so we have to guarantee its there ie heat, light, food are direct needs but jobs rely on there being electrical power at the processing point too.....no power and then there is no heat, light. food and no jobs....
An individual business is different, its focus is about about making a good so efficiency and optimisiation are key. These needs are the opposite of spare capacity, redundancy and resiliance this isnt what a business really cares about too much. Since most businesses generally are competing with others, a small 1 going out of business due to say a fire wont effect availability too much, maybe prices will increase a bit.....GDP will hardly notice, no one will be cold. hungry some will lose jobs but there are others to move to.........Lose a section of the transmission line or a big power plant and the effects will be serious....
regards
While I dont agree with the sales, ppl voted for the package....he has a mandate.
Otherwise on ownership, well that is you political opinion.. My one is there is a case for and against depending on the well being of NZ. Airline, yes it isnt needed from what I can see...its a luxury I cant see that there is any real for a Govn to go near it. Railroad and energy are different, these are necessities, core transport and essential power, these have long term and strategic aspects that only a Govn is really concerned with. Now the SOE model seems to be a winner as the longer term goals are met and to do that you need to not run them too business like but having a business input they are cost effective.....
regards
What a total moron!. No explanation of why its the right thing to do, no understanding therefore of monetary policy, or the fact that in the case of energy, the only way to make a private owner increased profits which is what will be demanded, is to raise the price of power..
Hand over our power assets which are performing almost at optimum already as has benen written about previously, is simple a staggeringly stupid proposition...
That makes you staggeringly stupid, and voting national then being proud of it for ignorant reasoning, pretty much sums up the average kiwi voter.
Well done!
Amazing, well not really. John Key upset over claims that he mislead the public on asset sales and public service cuts.
The same John Key who has mislead us over tax cuts (broadly fiscally neutral), not increasing gst, not cutting the public service, not changing kiwisaver, the state of the economy, the level of borrowing that has occurred under his government, the surplus under labour, and on and on.
Thats because he's of the economic school that says privite debt is neutral in effect (1 debtor and 1 creditor so the net is zero) and not bad where Govn is bad, always....
The debt taht really worries me right now is council debt....its looking like its running amok....rates are going up twice if not 3 times inflation AND lots more debt.....thats plain crazy.
regards
While your run of the mill politician would dismiss a broken promise or a misleading statement in regard to policy with casual disregard......and infact collect the moments like badges of honor ,as Key has in his brief tenure...I fear Shearer has not yet, even got the firestarter badge....there appears to be an unwillingness to take Key on ,in regard to issues that divide us .
It is not as though he has lacked opportunity to build his profile ,with a number of events of late , but has not found his mongrel..? fears being drawn into a gaff...?is a lttle unsure wether he actually disagrees with Key on certain issues...? has not yet truly sorted out the factionaism within his own ranks....?.................all of the afore mentioned...?
At this stage Key gathers experience and momentum....Shearer will need to find his own Coyote and quickly before his opponent becomes a little to wylie for him.
As to Key having been misleading in terms of his percieved fait accompli asset sales.....yes he was misleading in terms of it's finality and that is the guts of it.
I agree with Chris M in that (I) don't feel he has a mandate to proceed with the sales given the levels of public disatisfaction................. but I also agree with Steven in that the voter , ultimatley has a duty of care...that requires a certain amount of dilligence when casting ,..or even worse abstaining from voting...as both are equally responsible for outcomes.
But in terms of "divide us" what difference is there bewteen them? Both parties say the are close to the centre, yet both pander to their more extreme core. Both think they can live off more growth, it wont be there so they are going to hurt. both deny their is a problem with that due to lack of energy if only by ommission....so both are equally useless.
Key I would say is floundering and not gathering momentum, he's in and getting pretty heavy weather IMHO....
Yep, abstaining is as bad.....the voter turn out was poor, if the "poorer" voter had bothered to turn out we would have probably seen a considerably different outcome....more fool them.
I must admit I dont know why he seems so hell bent on asset sales, but he seems to have nailed himself to the mast on that and indeed seems hell bent on seeing it through. I cant for the life of me fathom why he's so fixed. Maybe its a backroom deal? a condition he or BE agreed with the ratings agencies, so avoiding a credit downgrade? being idalouges selling state assets would be right up their street....
regards
I do agree Steven , he..Key is shakeable....I've seen him rattled and that is exactly the time to start pouring the borax on him....Shearer is not, I repeat not seizing opportunities to expose Key's weaknesses...although a smug little git he, Key see's himself as a popular guy and thrives on adulation....under sustained pressure (I believe ) you would see the real Key,...a Corporate entity through and through, where it's only the bottom line on the agenda all of the time..........When I say he has the momentum( I believe) I'm right ..the tracks are laid the propganda train in full chunt behind the sales...while he sceams from somewhere in the background.."stoke this bastard thing along and ditch the passengers.
Shearer needs to derail it .....that is all.
Does Shearer need to try and take on Key? also lets say Shearer see's what I see but cant say it....keeping his cards in his hand as it were keeps his options open.
Key I think will as we head to re-election in 2014 show himself up......he'll step on his own land mines....I think there will be a lot of them....
If he was honest and competant I'd pity him because he's the PM in NZ's worst moment IMHO, wont be seens asuch for some yeasr though anyway he's neither so i dont.
regards
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.