Over at Homepaddock, Ele blogs:
While the Green Party is wasting money attemtping to get enough support foraCitizen’san MPs’ Initiated Referendum, and Labour is threatening to hold up legislation for the Mixed Ownership Model for state assets, Trans Tasman says:
Mighty River Power Looks Even More AttractiveState-owned Mighty River Power expects electricity from its latest geothermal project to be lower-cost than normally assumed for new geothermal power stations, and well below the assumed cost of new wind farms. MRP, soon to be partially privatised, says it expects the $466m Ngatamariki plant with an installed generating capacity of 82MW to produce electricity with a real longrun marginal cost less than market estimates of $80 to $85MWh. Most wind projects are assumed to require paybacks of around $100MWh. The project remains within budget and on track for commissioning in mid-2013. MRP’s success with geothermal power enhances its competitiveness in the local market and is also strengthening its international operations, both in the US and in Chile, making it a highly attractive investment proposition.
Why doesn’t the left want to allow superannuation funds, community trusts, Iwi, other groups and individuals to invest in this business?
Don’t tell me we already own it. We don’t, the state owns it on our behalf but that is very different from having a private shareholding.
We've made our thoughts on the Mixed Ownership Model abundantly clear. We will be applying for a small shareholding in Mighty River Power because we reckon that our energy SOE's will be an excellent long-term investment as we plan for our retirement.
We had to drive over to Palmerston North airport yesterday afternoon, and we listened to most of the Second Reading debate on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. Even yesterday, Labour continues to repeat an untruth which they themselves proved to be an untruth; that once assets are sold, they are gone forever. All we can say to that is this; Kiwirail.
Labour and the Greens meanwhile are putting their energies into securing signatures for a Citizens' Initiated Referendum. This is nothing more than a political response, in our ever-humble opinion. The Government's Mixed Asset Ownership proposal was the hottest election issue last year, and despite reported opposition to it, National received its highest ever MMP level of support. And Labour, whose entire campaign seemed to centre around its opposition to asset sales (remember the imitation stop signs?) received its lowest-ever vote in six MMP elections; little more than a quarter of the party vote. The people spoke on Election Day last year, but the Labour Party doesn't want to listen to what the people were saying.
12 comments:
"All we can say to that is this; Kiwirail."
Fay, Richwhite, Toll.
What do you have to say about what happened to Kiwirail and what do you think of Cullen buying back Kiwirail? It's relevant to the post and would illuminate your reasoning behind wanting other strategic SOEs being hocked off to the private sector. (Your own possible windfall via a share parcel aside).
Kiwirail has been an albatross for this current government, which was quite possibly Michael Cullen's intention. Having been sold in its entirety (as were other assets in both the 80's and 90's), it was run down by its owners. The Clark government paid way over the odds to buy it back, prompting a comment from a Toll executive that "You only get one Helen Clark in your lifetime".
The givernment's proposal guarantees the Crown majority ownership, and accordingly majority control. I'm much happier to provide for my own retirement via investment in a gilt-edged long-term New Zealand investment.
Dunne's covered in dung through his support for this.
You too.
I'm sorry KS, that made no sense in relation to the post and the question. You contradicted yourself or didn't understand the question or both?
Please can you clarify.
Your comments about Kiwirail in an attempt to justify the current round of privatisations are utterly hilarious IV2. You're saying that an argument in favour of selling is that the new owner can wind down the value of the asset to the point where the government has to buy it back, or the country loses the services. You're going to have to do better than that. I'm sure your mates in the National Party research unit can provide you with better talking points.
Nonsense Judge; Labour keeps saying that once they're gone, they're gone forever. Kiwirail proves the exact opposite.
But should Cullen have bought Kiwirail back? No; not now and not ever.
It was that or it continued to be run down and eventually ceased to exist. Can you explain how else to get goods to and from ports?
Anyway, that's a nonsense argument. You're saying that it's silly to suggest that the assets can't return to public ownership because we had to buy back one of the assets once, at enormous cost. If it hadn't been given away in the first place we would never have had to have taken such a bath on it.
KS The only New Zealanders who could benefit from the partial sale of assets are those who have already received extensive tax cuts. Most New Zealanders will just lose the long term value of the dividends.
The only reason I can think of to sell some of an SOE is to generate capital to improve the company's worth and this is not the case here. I have written this linked post to track how the National Party and the Government have progressed the sales. The process has been hugely undemocratic and we have yet to see any detailed analysis supporting the policy.
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-gb-ja-x.html
I would be grateful if you, and any of your readers, could read what I have written and comment on any errors of fact.
you know your own blog is crap when you have to advertise it on other peoples
Towak, I guess I could cut and paste my contribution to the discussion, it's just easier to provide the link if I've already said it elsewhere. It was supposed to be a challenge rather than an advertisement and so far I've had nobody question my interpretation of events.
This government is doing a huge amount of damage to some of our most important institutions and infrastructure. Our education system, ACC, DoC and our energy companies are under threat because of poor governance. What is happening with the asset sales is just typical of what has happened elsewhere, a litany of poor process and untruths!
@ bsprout - you and your Green colleagues do yourself no favours when you over-egg the pudding.
The education system is not "under threat"; the government's investment in education is more than it has ever been, but they are demanding accountability and value for money. Is that not the role of government; to be careful stewards of the public purse?
KS I do agree that there has been a large investment in education but increases were mainly directed to buildings. National's removal of building regulations in 1991 meant that a huge number of leaky schools were built and if you looked closely at the details of expenditure a good part of the education budget has been spent repairing and rebuilding these substandard buildings ($1.5 billion). http://www.newswire.co.nz/2011/09/leaky-school-repairs-costing-govt-millions/
This fact makes the attempted savings of $145 million by cutting teacher numbers seem petty.
As a country we still spend less on education per child than other top performing (education) countries. Considering the level of resourcing and salaries our teachers receive and the level of child poverty we have, our teachers perform better than any other OECD country. We can do better, but sacking our advisors, shutting down our residential schools, narrowing professional development to only literacy and numeracy and trying to increase class sizes won't help that improvement.
Post a Comment