QuentinTodd
Since: Sep 2008
Posts: 27
Peter,
In the context of John Key's State of the Nation address, I thought his honesty about the true state of the economy was pivotal for me to understand the depth of borrowing we have taken ($300m per week - not sure if this is over above budget borrowing, eg. extra borrowing) and this allowed me to see the share float of 50% of Government assets as a way to control the borrowing and deficit problem as we are still in recession mode. I understand that the recession is not over yet by a long shot. House prices here in Hamilton have not regained 2009 levels (good in one sense though as prices were a bit over-inflated). So I am in favour of partial floating of the shares to NZers - however, a concern would be the path taken by the power companies in question for such a float, who would love to start putting up consumer power prices. I would be keen to see a clause in this new arrangement whereby those companies will not rise their prices for whatever reason they always find.
Second, we have to address this share float question in the larger context Prime Minister was addressing -that is more important because this is so not like the 1980s 1990s. As Revenue Minister I am quite sure you are privy to information regarding the true extent of our finances. For example, is the Revenue level up or down? Are we truly able to balance the budget with the revenue we are getting especially given 2010 was a rather bad year for Christchurch, Pike River, Finance company bailouts, etc. This share float idea is an important GOOD step towards redeeming our finances, making it beefy for times thick or thin. If we are not able to "recover" from the recession then we could end up in pickled glue. I find the negative media attention on the share float has pulled away from the CONTEXT of what Prime Minister was trying to say.
Christopher Wingate
Since: Jan 2011
Posts: 1
The sale of many NZ state owned assets in the past was poorly thought through and many would suggest motivated by personal relationships between Bankers Fay Richwhite and Cabinet members. A sad legacy in our history.
I agree certain assets need to be sold but only after controls on fiscal policy are first put into place. Assets to be sold in part or full by government need to be selected on the basis to ensure any sale will not harm strategic macro & micro economic engines needed for GDP growth.
Utility assets sold from the state to the private sector will only add to inflationary pressures as the new private owners would seek to exploit their monopoly/cartel position as seen in NZ and other nations already.
I think utility energy assets are best controlled by the state because their growth to help build the country requires government consents which are almost impossible to obtain without legislative power to overcome the endless red tape. Although lawyers advising Cabinet in that regard would argue the RMA does allow planning applications a clear path- …but only after the lawyers have robbed everyone blind which is the part they don’t tell Cabinet.
Peter, New Zealand is in dire problems. I came back in 1989 to help build my country and now since 2004 I live in Perth where the economy is booming without pause. This link - http://worldeconomy-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/08/billionaires-millionaires-why-invest-in.html - outlines in some detail what is wrong with NZ in my experience.
And until those issues are addressed and sale of certain SOE will not help remove the basement rot which erodes business confidence towards NZ.
On the 1st of May I begin a protest at Parliament in Wellington. Sad that my business career and family life is being disrupted in this way but sometimes in a man's life a man has to do what a man does, fight for what is right. A never had I been more right.
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/01/may-1st-idiots-in-power-protest-at.html
