Leighton slays Goff

November 21st, 2011 at 12:38 pm by David Farrar

tried his lie about how it costs a family $500 a year more to be with Contact. Leighton reads out the figures from Consumer, and slays him.

Goff-Asset-Sales-Flaying by whaleoil

Goff should front up with this so called data from Fairfax which shows Contact currently costs more than $500 a year. I trust the Consumer NZ data. All I can find on the Stuff website is this story:

Marybank resident John Stark said Contact needed to try harder to retain customers.

“I emailed Contact Energy on June 3 after determining on the Power Switch website that I could save over $500 a year by changing from Contact Energy to Just Energy.

So unless there is some other story I can’t find on Stuff, the basis for Goff claiming the average family of four pays $500 a year more with Contact, is a story about one individual family in Nelson.

But Goff’s spin gets even worse. The $500 quoted in that story for that one family was comparing Contact Energy to Just Energy. Just Energy is owned by Pulse Utilities NZ Ltd, which is shock horror listed on the NZX!!! Fail!

Now some may argue that Contact used to charge more in the past, and they have lowered prices to keep customers. Well yes they have, and isn’t that a good thing.

As I posted earlier today power prices increased massively under Labour and they raked in $3b in dividends from the power SOEs.Goff is spreading desperate lies when he repeats his claim Contact costs an average family $500 more a year. They are the cheaper than the three SOEs in Auckland.

Tags: ,

32 Responses to “Leighton slays Goff”

  1. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    Surely the more important driver of electricity prices is the banning of all new non-renewable generation. That’s what Labour did in the 2000s.

    By far the biggest reason prices rose so much is a decade of no new generation other than that which is the highest-cost. Whether Contact is owned by people who do not hold NZ passports is irrelevant by comparison. Prices, Mr Goff, are decreasing in supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. hannity (151 comments) says:

    Still focusing on policy , DPF

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rick Rowling (801 comments) says:

    Yep, he is, Phil’s mis-statement of the impact of National’s policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. 3-coil (1,200 comments) says:

    It is hard to decide if Goff is just a simpleton, or if he is a devious lying prick.

    One wag suggested that he lies through his teeth so often that he’s worn a gap between his front choppers – I’m starting to think that the “devious lying prick” option is the more accurate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Australis (99 comments) says:

    The main driver of power prices is the insidious ETS. It’s not confined to coal or gas-fired generation as the highest price station in any half hour sets the price for ALL power during that period.

    And, by law, the ETS will double over the next 3 years. If the carbon price goes up, as expected, it could increase four-fold between now and 2015.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mavxp (494 comments) says:

    Power prices increased under Labour and National and will continue to increase significantly because:

    1) Cheap Maui gas has all but run out. No replacement has been found.

    2) Because of the RMA and ETS, power companies have had to invest in alternative sources of energy from hydro (e.g. Project Aqua was scuttled by the Greens) and coal (ETS). Nuclear is a non-starter. Wind is more expensive to obtain than other sources, but have been built recently because it is recognised by power companies that power prices will be going up and up until wind becomes more economic. However, when we have years with low rainfall & hence low lake levels we will also have reduced wind (same weather pattern), so wind power does not reduce the risk to our power network in dry years; reliance on it actually increases our risk. The pricing of this risk into our power prices will increase the cost of power to end users.

    3) Power companies are required to make a decent profit, whereas under ECNZ (prior to separation into separate providers) no profit take existed. Profits on state owned assets currently are essentially another form of taxation on the people of NZ who own them. Selling them will not in itself increase power costs on NZers but in fact transfer tax to private sector profit, which is primarily of benefit to investors – e.g. Kiwisaver funds, NZ Super fund, other private super funds.

    National should be frank with the public that power prices will continue to go up regardless of private or public ownership or joint public-private partnerships because of these reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Black with a Vengeance (1,552 comments) says:

    Damn…Going off the thread title, i was thinking Leighton had actually murdered Goff for real.

    but it’s just some muckraking bullshit from Whaleoil echoed here.

    oh well…as you were

    cue nutjob sycophants in faux outrage symphony in D minor in 3 – 2 – 1…

    [DPF: And 10 demerits for trolling]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. JamesS (352 comments) says:

    I bought contact shares when they listed on the sharemarket 12 years ago and have done well out of them; I think it is a bit rude to single out Contact and claim they are expensive as it harms mum and dad shareholders and is unfair especially as Contact cannot respond.

    Contact is not on the ballot this Saturday so leave them alone Mr Goff

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. alex Masterley (1,490 comments) says:

    Thats funny, driving through the Taranaki over the weekend i saw two wells buring off gas.

    Looked kind of like replacements to me. May be smaller in scale but still replacements. And the word from those on the ground in New Plymouth is that there is a lot more to be put into production than people think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,362 comments) says:

    Poor Goff cuts a lamentable, pathetic figure with all his anti-private enterprise rubbish.
    Image the tragedy if this socialist non-entity becomes the next Prime Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mavxp (494 comments) says:

    @ Alex,

    Yes there are other finds, but they are tiny compared to what Maui did for NZ from the 1970s till very recently. Cheap plentiful gas is over, and our prices reflect that realisation. We still have gas being extracted from reservoirs, and we still have have some oil, but nothing on the scale of Maui. Hopefully we do make more finds in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Black with a Vengeance (1,552 comments) says:

    Hey Manolo…

    seems i offended DPF’s sensibilities with my reply in kind so just wondering if you want to split the difference on my 50 demerits over at the Wellywood thread ?

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/11/wellywood_gets_just_10.html#comment-905042

    chur

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. wreck1080 (3,730 comments) says:

    Sounds like Goffs memory is not as sharp as previously.

    I truly wonder , if he is showing some age related dementia. Recall the kerfuffle he made over whether he’d been shown some papers by the SIS.

    And, the lack of figures during the debate where he was caught short.

    Goff did have a point about the contact directors though. It was outrageous what they did .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Manolo (13,362 comments) says:

    BWAV, you deserve each one of the 50 demerits points awarded. Enjoy! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    Goff was asking why you’d sell assets returning 17-22% p.a. to pay off government debt at interest rates a lot less. Surely even the dimmest of people realise that the asset sale price will relect the rate of return, and therefore that the sale price will be significantly higher than the asset value that the government currently use.

    I could have figured that out when I was 13 years old. It’s pretty basic secondary school economics. Why is Goff so confused about something as simple as market value?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. alex Masterley (1,490 comments) says:

    MAX, noted, – NZOG is pretty bullish about the gas fields off taranaki, and the fields in the Waitara area havn’t been fully explored. Also solid energy is looking at coal field gas in the mokau coal field whcih is extensive but not that economic to mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    “BWAV, you deserve each one of the 50 demerits points awarded. Enjoy! ”
    Don’t be too much of a tightass Manolo. He deserves many, many more but, for the time being, the recent allocation may seem him consigned to the naughty boy’s corner. I wonder if Pollywog makes a return.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Nigel (511 comments) says:

    Genesis 2011 – 1.8% profit after tax
    Mercury unknown
    Meridian 2011 – 14.9% profit after tax
    Contact 2011 – 6.7% profit after tax

    Genesis is way to low ( fuel costs maybe ), Meridian are gouging & Contact would be about right for a Utility company.

    I just don’t see how Goff can justify govt owned corporations price gouging his core constituents as being good for them.

    It really gets to the core of Labour vs National, National to me is keep the cash flow simple, Labour wants to take money from one person give it to another & another & another. The fundamental issue with Labours approach is the clipping of the ticket on each transfer & the politics involved in those transfers, all you do is create jobs for people who are likely to be union members who are likely to vote Labour, mmmm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fletch (6,021 comments) says:

    Sorry, but Phil just sounds like a complete w*nker here…
    How embarrassing….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dc (173 comments) says:

    Regarding the source of the $500 figure, Google finds Goff quoting it in Hansard on 13 July 2011, and I found a Fairfax article on that date headlined “Contact shares hit as users swap suppliers” in the ProQuest database. It doesn’t contain the $500 figure but there was an attached graphic “Are you paying too much?” which presumably did.

    Anyway shortly after that the exodus of customers, prompted by the government’s campaign to encourage consumers to switch, brought down Contact’s prices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    Fletch

    Whats a “winker”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dc (173 comments) says:

    This is the story from 13 July 2011 I mentioned above, with a different headline: “Contact’s shares hit as clients switch to rivals”. It also lacks the infographic and the $500 figure though, so it seems Goff was wrong when he claimed this was on the Fairfax web site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. SHG (362 comments) says:

    God, that was painful to listen to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. backster (2,076 comments) says:

    NIGEL……..The yields you quote were distorted by one of the SOEs selling some assets to another of the SOEs the seller then paying the proceeds to the shareholder (Government) by way of a special dividend resulting in the illusory total dividend that Goff claims as normal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,794 comments) says:

    Nookin @ 2:16

    A wanker who drinks excessively.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nigel (511 comments) says:

    backster, I believe you’re wrong, I was was basing Meridian’s income on operating revenue which doesn’t include asset changes & they were minimal anyway ( 70 odd million overall change ). Though if you provide evidence to the contrary feel free, I based my numbers on http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Meridian-Annual-Report-2011.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. adamsmith1922 (888 comments) says:

    Goff is totally unreal. Under Labour these power companies gouged the consumer and he proposes to go on doing that. Various ones were made from memory to pay special dividends to inflate the so called Cullen surpluses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RightNow (6,658 comments) says:

    Nigel, the 2011 dividend is 4 x that of the 2010 dividend:
    http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/assets/PDF/Company/Investors/Reports-and-presentations/Annual-reports/2010/2010Annualresultsannouncement.pdf

    Dividends
    The Board of Meridian have declared a final dividend of $68.5m to be paid on 29 October 2010,
    following an interim dividend of $89.6m paid in April represents a total dividend of $158.1m

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. insider (1,000 comments) says:

    Power prices will always go up until a cheaper form of generation is found. Wholesale power prices tend to reflect the long run marginal cost of generation, which is the cost of building the next power station. Unless the cost of that station is much lower than the cost of existing assets, power will always go up, because there is no point building a more expensive power station than you have to, and the next power station will nearly always as a result be more expensive than the one you built before (the ETS may be changing the perception of cost). But that only accounts for 30 to 40 per cent of the cost to consumers; the rest is transpower and lines company charges (a govt monopoly and mostly local monopolies), govt levies and taxes, and retail margins.

    YOu might save $500 if you were a big user on the wrong tariff and shifted to a better one elsewhere – like the saving you’d get switching from buying 98 petrol at BP to 91 at Mobil for your Honda Civic – but the usual saving advertised by powerswitch is about $150 between companies based on equivalent tariffs.

    @rightnow

    The Meridian profit was inflated by a payoff for the Tekapo power stations. This was offset by a profit fall for Genesis which was forced to buy them. Last year was not ‘typical’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nigel (511 comments) says:

    Yep 4x & frankly who cares, earnings are what matters & how that earnings number would compare with other Utilities globally ( private or govt ) and 17% I thought was high, Apple is 23%, First Energy ( US power utility ) 16.7%, NextEra ( US power utility ) 17.1%, PG&E ( US power ) 5.25%, Edison ( US power ) 11%, GDF ( worlds largest Power company ) 5.6%, Western Power ( western oz ) 9.38%

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. annie (537 comments) says:

    Actually, I think Goff slayed Leighton on that one. He has been extensively media-trained and has a very effective technique – keeping on with the dominating monotone no matter what the interviewer says or is trying to say, and denying, denying, denying even things he said himself earlier in the interview. And above all, answering part of the question, or another question altogether.

    The upshot is that anyone not familiar with the issues being discussed, or only half listening, would come away with the impression that Goff was authoratitive and credible.

    We really really need interviewers who assert themselves and deal with points rather than letting interviewees run the interview. Moving on to the next point rather than insisting on a straight answer is losing. Maybe they should read ‘Straight and Crooked Thinking’/Thouless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    Annie, which recording were you listening to? Not the one above I take it……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.