Will the Government delay

August 2nd, 2012 at 1:17 pm by David Farrar

My column:

My initial reaction was that of course the Government should delay the float until it receives the Tribunal’s report, due in September. This might be a delay of a few weeks only, and what does a few weeks matter.

It seems the timing is more sensitive than one may initially think. The rules around issuing shares in a company require the most up to date set of financial accounts. If the flat is held too long after the annual accounts have been finalised, then the company has to prepare a special more recent set of accounts. This is no minor job and can take a month or two.

Preparing the accounts can’t really be done over the summer break, as too many suppliers and the like close down, so what this means is that if Mighty River Power is not listed by perhaps October, then the delay would have to be until March or April next year. So a delay of a few weeks may be a delay of six months or so. This is undesirable for the Government because they want the five partial sales done well before the 2014 election.

I conclude:

However there is a view by some in Government that the is acting in bad faith. The Government has been negotiating with Iwi leaders on issues around water rights for some time, and they are committed to resolving those issues. They do not believe the number of shares they hold in an SOE is relevant to their ability to resolve those issues. This is why there has been little support from Iwi for the claim by the . There is also some anger at the fact that the waited until the last possible moment to go to the , considering the policy was announced 18 months ago.

What this leads to is the alternate view that the Maori Council are going to eventually go to court regardless of what the Waitangi Tribunal says. Hence, if that is your belief, then the sensible thing is to get them into court as quickly as possible. Therefore saying you will not wait for the Waitangi Tribunal report could be a way of achieving that. It is like demanding your competitor in poker show their hand. 

There are risks either way.

Tags: , , , ,

84 Responses to “Will the Government delay”

  1. CJPhoto (219 comments) says:

    Solution is simple. Only float 25% at this stage. That leaves plenty of room for any incentive shares and IWI claims. Once listed the subsequent sell down is easier and hopefully they will get a better price with no need for incentives. The only issue with this is the subsequent sell down may overlap with the other SOE IPO’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Steve Wrathall (281 comments) says:

    Why have a Maori Council?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. smttc (736 comments) says:

    Why the fuck should the Government cave in to brownmail and dish out shares in MRP to Iwi and others just because the Maori Council claims ownership of water? The Government should simply continue to negotiate with Maori over the use rights they are seeking. That has nothing to do with MPR’s use rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Yvette (2,768 comments) says:

    Christopher Finlayson 6 MAY, 2010
    Waikato River Settlement Act passed
    Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Christopher Finlayson welcomed the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act, which was passed by Parliament today.

     “This Act provides the framework for a new era in the relationship between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui and for restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for future generations,” Mr Finlayson said. 

    “The search for justice by Waikato-Tainui has been a long one. Settlement of the Waikato River claim with its positive and clear focus on the future of this major natural resource is a major shift that is cause for considerable optimism not only for the Crown and Waikato-Tainui but for the region’s community as a whole.”

    The Act provides for a $210 million clean-up fund for the river over the next 30 years.

    Taupo National Member’s PR sheet says $220 million

    Other important features of the new Act include joint management agreements between Waikato-Tainui and the local authorities, participation in river-related resource consent decision-making, recognition of a Waikato-Tainui environmental plan, provision for regulations relating to fisheries and other matters managed under conservation legislation (including cultural use of wildlife materials and marine mammal materials) and an integrated river management plan.

    Does the settlement affect other iwi?
    Other iwi along the Waikato River share similar goals for the Waikato River and its major tributary, the Waipa River, and excellent progress is being made with their own arrangements with the Crown.

    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/waikato-river-settlement-act-passed
    ________________________________________________________

    Why is Settlement not mentioned all in connection with the Mighty River Power deal?
    And one assumes the $220 million is taxpayer money – what are Maori putting towards this co-govenance?

    Also, DPF, you are the only commentator I have seen question why Maori concerns were not presented to the Waitangi Tribunal the moment National was elected last November 26.

    Any possible shares to quell Maori concerns should take into consideration the $220 million above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    Government are pushing for a quicker response from the Waitangi Tribunal.

    Full quote from Bill English (also explains timing constraints):

    Government seeks information from Tribunal
    02 August 2012

    The Government has written to the Waitangi Tribunal seeking further information on the Tribunal’s findings, recommendations and supporting reasoning with respect to its inquiry into national fresh water and geothermal resources.

    Ministers have also clarified timing constraints under which the Government is operating for the proposed sale of a minority shareholding in Mighty River Power in 2012, Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall say.

    “The Government wants to consider the Tribunal’s recommendations and the reasons behind them as part of its decision on the Mighty River Power share offer this year,” they say.

    “As we have said, we want to act in good faith and carefully consider the Tribunal’s recommendations.

    “However, we appreciate the Tribunal’s interim direction on 30 July did not make substantive findings on any of the issues it identified. So we have today asked the Tribunal to provide its recommendations and reasoning by 24 August.

    “To proceed with a Mighty River share offer in 2012, ministers would need to make decisions by the first week of September.

    “We would do this on the basis of all the information available to us at that time, including the Waitangi Tribunal’s memorandum of 30 July.

    “However, ministers would welcome the opportunity to consider the Tribunal’s detailed findings, its recommendations and its reasoning, which we do not have at this stage.”

    The Government has also clarified the timing constraints it faces in making decisions about proceeding with the Mighty River Power share offer in 2012.
    “The Tribunal expressed a view that there would be minimal or no delay to the share offer if it reported on stage one of its inquiry by the end of September,” the ministers say.

    “However, there are a limited number of windows each year in which a share offer can take place.

    “Delaying a decision beyond the first week of September and losing the 2012 window for the offer would have significant consequences, not only for the Mighty River Power offer, but also in delaying the rest of the share offer programme over the next two years.

    “We have said consistently that we would welcome timely recommendations from the Tribunal. With that in mind, we have asked the Tribunal whether it is able to provide its recommendations and supporting reasoning by 24 August, so ministers are able to consider them alongside all other relevant information.”

    http://www.billenglish.co.nz/archives/834-Government-seeks-information-from-Tribunal.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Portia (175 comments) says:

    The NBR has been surmising whether John Key’s decision to sign NZ up to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples could come back to bite him.

    Article 25 reads:

    Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

    The article’s behind a firewall, but for those with online access, here’s a link:

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/hamstrung-national-deal-winning-hand-maori-over-asset-sales-rv-p-124865

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,872 comments) says:

    I understand the once respectable Maori Council has been taken over (hijacked) by the Harawira family. If that is so, nothing more needs to be said. Just get on with the sale, full steam ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Mark (1,474 comments) says:

    This is potentially a huge test for the Key government. It could be a defining moment for Key’s leadership on how he works through this one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    Backing off now would be a sign of political weakness.

    Can’t see it happening for that reason alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > the Maori Council waited until the last possible moment to go to the Waitangi Tribunal

    Did they, or are you just making that up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    In May 2009, John Key said Maori had “specific rights and interests” in regards to water. So clearly this issue has been around for quite some time. One wonders, given its policy of state asset sales, the government didn’t act with some urgency to get the issue resolved. Maybe it thought it could ignore the issue and it would go away.

    http://mediacentre.maramatanga.ac.nz/content/m%C4%81ori-legal-rights-water-ownership-management-or-just-consultation

    http://maorinews.com/karere/2012/key-acknowledged-water-rights-in-2009/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (13,519 comments) says:

    It´s time for the government to tell the Maori Council to take a hike and to fuck off in no uncertain terms.
    Will it happen?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Cunningham (837 comments) says:

    ross69 (635) why didn’t they go when Contact was floated? Or Prior to the election when they knew it was coming up? Don’t try and bullshit this one Ross69. Anyone with half a brain can see the timing of this is designed to fuck the government as much as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    I have three words for Bill English & his Kiwiblog redneck chorus:

    High court injunction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Cunningham (837 comments) says:

    ross69 the government is not ignoring the issue. The Iwi leaders forum has been working through it. The Maori Council has come in and make dicks of themselves by forging ahead like this. Alot of maori from what I can gather are pretty miffed with the Council for bulldozing the issue like this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Cunningham (837 comments) says:

    fish_boy (95) so disagreeing with the Maori Council decision to do this makes someone a redneck? You really do like to make a fuckwit of yourself on these blogs don’t you??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Looks like it’s all over for asset sales. It was always going to be a failed policy when 92% of the electorate hates it. Time for Peter Dunne to step up to the mark and destroy this failing government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Cunningham (837 comments) says:

    Hamnida (94) 92% of the electorate? Did you pull that figure out of your ass?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    “…fish_boy (95) so disagreeing with the Maori Council decision to do this makes someone a redneck..?”

    Errr, no. Saying:

    “…it´s time for the government to tell the Maori Council to take a hike and to fuck off…”

    and

    “…Why the fuck should the Government cave in to brownmail…”

    and

    “…I understand the once respectable Maori Council has been taken over (hijacked) by the Harawira family…”

    is what makes this a redneck chorus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Grendel (993 comments) says:

    ha, fish idiot tries to claim that disagreeing with the maori council does not make one a redneck (whatever he defines that as), and then his examples of what makes one a ‘redneck’ are disagreeing with the maori council.

    moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    TV3 poll – 92% against state asset sales.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > ross69 the government is not ignoring the issue.

    They aren’t now. But John Key knew this was an issue back in 2009. To be fair he needed to get his priorities sorted, such as tax cuts for the wealthy. I guess we can’t expect him to multi task.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Yvette (2,768 comments) says:

    Hamnida – TV3 poll – 92% against state asset sales.

    There is a link to that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    “Why have a Maori Council?”

    Read the 1962 Maori Community Development act, it’s all in there:> (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1962/0133/latest/DLM341045.html)

    Here’s the short version, I guess you could argue the claim they have lodged might just fall under economic advancement, but maybe not.

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    The general functions of the New Zealand Maori Council, in respect of all Maoris, shall be—

    (a) to consider and discuss such matters as appear relevant to the social and economic advancement of the Maori race:

    (b) to consider and, as far as possible, give effect to any measures that will conserve and promote harmonious and friendly relations between members of the Maori race and other members of the community:

    (c) to promote, encourage, and assist Maoris—

    (i) to conserve, improve, advance and maintain their physical, economic, industrial, educational, social, moral, and spiritual well-being;

    (ii) to assume and maintain self-reliance, thrift, pride of race, and such conduct as will be conducive to their general health and economic well-being;

    (iii) to accept, enjoy, and maintain the full rights, privileges, and responsibilities of New Zealand citizenship;

    (iv) to apply and maintain the maximum possible efficiency and responsibility in their local self-government and undertakings; and

    (v) to preserve, revive and maintain the teaching of Maori arts, crafts, language, genealogy, and history in order to perpetuate Maori culture:

    (d) to collaborate with and assist State departments and other organisations and agencies in—

    (i) the placement of Maoris in industry and other forms of employment;

    (ii) the education, vocational guidance, and training of Maoris;

    (iii) the provision of housing and the improvement of the living conditions of Maoris;

    (iv) the promotion of health and sanitation amongst the Maori people;

    (v) the fostering of respect for the law and law-observance amongst the Maori people;

    (vi) the prevention of excessive drinking and other undesirable forms of conduct amongst the Maori people; and

    (vii) the assistance of Maoris in the solution of difficulties or personal problems.

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    If it’s still relevant is a better question; I went and read the act today, it’s very patronizing in it’s tone.

    Might have made sense 50 years ago when it was established, but today do we really need things like a Maori council and Wardens.

    What the voter turnout like in MC elections anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    “I have three words for Bill English & his Kiwiblog redneck chorus:

    High court injunction.”

    A fearsome riposte, Fish_Boy. I am sure Bill is quaking in his shoes. Given that there seems to be time up your sleeve, can you provide some authority to the effect that the Courts have jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the Crown?. It’s generally regarded as a bit of a no-no.

    Maybe you meant that it might be open to review, judicially, a minister’s decision and you overlooked the jurisdictional problems associated with injuncting the Crown. Doesn’t sound quite so daunting, though — does it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    “TV3 poll – 92% against state asset sales.”

    Well if TV3 says so it must be true. No-one ever asked me what I thought, though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,872 comments) says:

    That would be 92% of the 10% of the population stupid enough to still watch TV3?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Steve (North Shore) (4,544 comments) says:

    Manolo @ 3.18
    “It´s time for the government to tell the Maori Council to take a hike and to fuck off in no uncertain terms.
    Will it happen?”
    What may happen is National may lose votes at the next Election, but then again they may gain a truckload from voters who have had enough of Maori blackmailing bullshit.

    Time to give them the heave ho

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    “What may happen is National may lose votes at the next Election, but then again they may gain a truckload from voters who have had enough of Maori blackmailing bullshit.”

    Where do you think these votes are going to come from ? Who do you think these people are presently voting for?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Cunningham (837 comments) says:

    ross69 (636) no he was also interested in keeping the welfare systems (e.g. WFF, Int free loans etc) in place which allow a large proportion of low income earners to pay no tax at all!! Remember those people Ross69??? You know the ones supported by the high income earners you have so much contempt for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    Hamfisted: “Time for Peter Dunne to step up to the mark and destroy this failing government.”

    You could try asking him if he would go against his commitments and agreements, bring down the government, create political chaos and make a mockery of MMP because you say so, but I think he will take you as seriously as a TV poll (wasn’t that a txt poll?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Dave Mann (1,208 comments) says:

    Question mark….? (thats a shift/forwardslash on my keyboard, just above the right-hand ‘alt’ key hehehe)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Steve (North Shore) (4,544 comments) says:

    Alan,
    The votes will come from the swinging or undecided voters. Also from those who do not usually vote but have had a gutsfull of paying for the Special People

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Cunningham (837 comments) says:

    Pete George (14,052) hehe well said….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Grendel (993 comments) says:

    ah the old chestnut of ‘tax cuts for the wealthy’ Ross and his comrades seem to think that somehow income = assets.

    i will make it really simple for you Ross,

    Income is how much money you earn in a given period.

    Wealth is the level of assets you own (less the level of liabilities you have), set against a subjective amount (typically for the left wealthy is someone who owns more than you).

    So the tax cuts for all NZers had no basis on their level of wealth or not. Now before you say it, yes higher income can make it easier to end up with more wealth, but in my experience working with people and their money for the past decade thats not a hard and fast rule, plenty of people can build wealth regardless of their income. and the lower the amount of tax they pay, the more money they have to save and invest to build that wealth.

    but hey, feel free to hate on people having access to their own money instead of the state. but at least today you have learned something and understand the difference between income and wealth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Thanks for the lecture, Grendel.

    It is of course quite irrelevant to the fact that John Key has never seen water rights for Maori as an important issue…til now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Cunningham (837 comments) says:

    ross69 (637) do you think it is fair such a large proportion of the population pay no tax at all? If so why? Like I said these people pay no tax because high income earners pay a large amount of tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Grendel (993 comments) says:

    oh relevance is now important to you? you were the one that decided to bring up your utterly incorrect trope of ‘tax cuts for the wealthy’.

    as to water ‘rights’, this is just another attempt to try and gain a modern day payout for something that might have exsited back in 1840. like radio spectrums and somehow the access to water for fishing for eels and cooking water etc to somehow owning power generation companies. wee bit of a stretch.

    funny how for a died in the wool statist you suddenly now care so much about personal property rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. trout (934 comments) says:

    Mighty River Power has been granted water rights for 30 years. Many, many private organizations have been granted water rights. So what is the problem? Maoris, through Iwi involvement in consents, have a say in the granting of water rights. If a sector of Maori want to clip the ticket then that can be negotiated if and when the Govt. levies take off. At present charges for water are for treatment and reticulation rather than for the water itself. It is a stretch though for Maori to make a claim on the uptake of water that disappears in the Alps and is sucked up by pump from the depths of the Canterbury plains.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    You neolibs are not too bright. The government is trying to sell you something you already own.

    Why don’t you just:

    1. Burn money
    2. Save money to pay for higher power prices in the future
    3. Chuck your TV in the sea, and then go and buy the same one again

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Hamnida, when the government sells an asset(part of a business), it ends up with an asset(cash). It has simply turned one class of asset into another. The same goes for any buyers. The same principle applies when you buy a car, home etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    “You neolibs are not too bright. The government is trying to sell you something you already own. ”

    If I already own it, why can’t I
    1. see my dividend cheque
    2. spend my dividend according to my priorities
    3. vote for the directors
    4. turn up to an AGM
    5. approve, or otherwise, any major transactions
    6. tell my bank manager to get off my back because I own a power company
    7. put my share on Trademe
    8. buy someone else’s share on Trademe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    The government is trying to sell you something you already own.

    This is an oft repeated claim of stupidity.

    Why does Government give money to people as benefits or tax credits? That would just be giving you something you already own.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Snake oil economics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    “Why does Government give money to people as benefits or tax credits? That would just be giving you something you already own.”

    No Pete. It’s giving something you already own to someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Snake oil economics.

    Translation: I understand your point, and see that I look pretty stupid, so I’ll just stamp my feet a bit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. rg (207 comments) says:

    It is a pity we have such a weak and pathetic government which stands for nothing and is prepared to cave in to who ever opposes it. Why would anyone vote for them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > funny how for a died in the wool statist you suddenly now care so much about personal property rights

    What’s funny is how the Right refuse to see the elephant in the room. Why isn’t the Right standing up for Maori? Obviously racism trumps individual property rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Yvette (2,768 comments) says:

    Hamnida – TV3 poll – 92% against state asset sales.

    You have a link to this, or can supply any other details, or are you just full of it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. CharlieBrown (994 comments) says:

    The government has punched itself in the nuts by the way it has handled the SOE partial sales. If he had just taken the approach of giving shares to every voter then all the arguments around “selling OUR assets” would be mute, as it would allow people to put their money where their mouth is.

    It is also realising that going into coalition with and appeasing useless racist, bludging fucks was never a good idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Yvette – I’ll try and find the link. About two months ago on Campbell Live.

    I think you get the idea when the majority of people on a right wing blog don’t support asset sales.

    The great back down continues.

    Chance of National forming the next government – 0%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Steve (North Shore) (4,544 comments) says:

    CharlieBrown,
    How about giving double shares to those on the Maori Electoral Roll for compensation. They are not ‘OUR assets’ they are on Maori Land using Maori water

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Paul Marsden (991 comments) says:

    I don’t recall voting for the WT to run the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RightNow (6,975 comments) says:

    Hamnida (98) Says:
    August 2nd, 2012 at 5:09 pm
    You neolibs are not too bright. The government is trying to sell you something you already own.

    You missed the corollary “to pay down the debt every NZer owes”. It’s currently a bit over $50 billion.

    Only not every NZer contributes to paying down the debt. And it’s the ones that don’t contribute to paying it down that are the same dimwits complaining that they already own these assets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. swan (659 comments) says:

    “I have three words for Bill English & his Kiwiblog redneck chorus:

    High court injunction.”

    fish boy, really? The high court will stop the government sell property because they might not own it??? Will they suspend trading in Trustpower and Contact in this same injunction? Fanciful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    We need the ongoing revenue state assets produce. Selling them is very short-sited.

    I must admit you neolibs are very good at spin and PR:

    1. Mixed-ownership
    2. Mum and Dad investors
    3. Public private partnership
    4. Partnership schools

    Just remember we live on a series of islands. You can pay $2000 for something you already own and put up with more expensive power bills, but that doesn’t mean people in the next suburb can.

    I remember Max Bradford telling New Zealanders that privatisation of the power industry would lead to cheaper power prices. A typical neolib, he believed the private sector was magically more efficient than the private sector. End result, power prices went up 400% in the 1990s. Good one Max, really smart thinking.

    So called New Zealanders who should be put on trial for treason: Bradford; Birch; Prebble; Douglas; Richardson; and Bolger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    It will be interesting to see how New Zealanders view John Key’s smirk in a years time. At an educated guess, they will become more and more annoyed by it.

    I still can’t believe people voted for a junk bond dealer during an economic crisis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Reid (16,230 comments) says:

    I must admit you neolibs are very good at spin and PR:

    So when morons like Hamnida talk about neolibs, this is what he means. But isn’t it fucking mental. Clearly the lefties have totally forgotten much of the raping and pillaging they are wringing their hands over occurred when the lefties were in power, such as Blair in the UK and Hulun over here and Obama with his bailouts a few years ago. Or doesn’t that count? Or didn’t they do any raping and pillaging? Or even if they did, it doesn’t count because they were lefties and they meant well? Perhaps Hamnida can explain which option it is? Either way, who gives a shit. Don’t you just love how fucking self-righteous the supercilious little pricks are. The stupid little fucks really truly apparently believe their fucking politicians are just as white as snow over this whole fucking mess and the entire blame for everything can be sheeted home once and for all to the selfish conservatives. Fuck lefties are M-E-N-T-A-L.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/30/economic-ruin-super-rich-totalitarian-capitalism

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/9422096/Tony-Blair-hanging-bankers-wont-help.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RightNow (6,975 comments) says:

    “I still can’t believe people voted for a junk bond dealer during an economic crisis.”

    Now we get to the nub of Hamnida. He’s a Mallard, a Curran, a Labourite who still hasn’t accepted Hulun is long gone even 4 years after the event. “How could the majority of NZers have been so stupid not to have voted the way I think they should have.”

    Get over it chump, if you don’t like it all you have to do is become Prime Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. wiseowl (861 comments) says:

    The Government have already backed themselves into a corner.
    What is so serious is the damage that is being done while they keep going down the current path.

    They have elevated the minority to a point where they believe they can dictate (and virtually are) and this is disenfranchising all New Zealanders who should not be in this position at all.

    No one owns water.
    All of us should have the same rights to apply for the use of water.
    We all have the opportunity to be elected to councils who make decisions about water. Co-governance is BS.It makes us unequal.
    Further co-governance or rights given to some New Zealanders will deepen the divide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Reid (16,230 comments) says:

    Now we get to the nub of Hamnida.

    Yes he’s terribly terribly shallow isn’t he. Like all lefties incredibly arrogant, completely mistaken about everything, yet unwilling or unable to admit it. I think he might be philu actually, or Gareth Hughes. He’s certainly supercilious enough to be Gaweth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    More spin – try and make me the odd one out – look at the numbers – New Zealanders don’t want state assets sold.

    No amount of abusing me on a right wing blog will change that.

    I think I am very objective when it comes to political analysis – Neolibs have bad policy that has failed for more than one generation, but are good at sucking people in through the use of language.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. RightNow (6,975 comments) says:

    Let’s look at your own spin Hamfister

    “You can pay $2000 for something you already own and put up with more expensive power bills, but that doesn’t mean people in the next suburb can.”
    1) Trying to say I already own something without the corollary that I also owe a share of $50+ Billion
    2) Implying power will necessarily rise as a result of selling a minority of shares
    3) Insinuating it is unfair to the poorer people (who might live in the next suburb) presumably because their power prices might rise, but ignoring that those people are already net tax beneficiaries who increase our borrowing rather than contribute to paying it down.

    The reality is that those who can afford to buy shares will be contributing towards paying down our country’s debt. There’s no compelling evidence to suggest mixed ownership will be the cause of increased power prices, in fact much evidence suggests the opposite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Reid (16,230 comments) says:

    I think I am very objective when it comes to political analysis

    On a blog, no-one gives a shit what your own assessment of yourself is, Hamnida. It’s in fact considered rude even to mention it. It makes people think you rate yourself and also makes people think you’re terribly insecure and you might wet yourself at any moment. Let your words speak for themselves.

    Neolibs have bad policy that has failed for more than one generation, but are good at sucking people in through the use of language.

    So just right now with the pwogwessive issue of gay marriage is a good example of how lefty scum use language all the time to their evil ends. Where the fuck do you get off accusing one side of doing something you guys do, all the fucking time? Do you think you’re the only one who understands propaganda Hamnida (you know, loudly accuse the enemy of that which you yourself are most guilty)? I mean FFS, it’s quite insulting, you obviously think no-one here would pick you up. When in reality, all of us immediately see straight through you.

    Get some decent arguments together you useless little fuck or just fuck off. And drop the lefty “oh I’m so hurt you’re abusing me” you little wimp. Go to the Stranded and look what gets dished out to conservatives there if you want a comparison. And grow some balls you little girl, this isn’t play school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    You missed the whole point – rising inequality, which ever way it happens, is not good when you live on an island.

    Start saving for that barb wire fence and bullet proof Mercedes if that’s the New Zealand you want.

    It is interesting that only right wing extremists still believe asset sales (sorry, ‘mixed ownership’) is a good idea.

    Went to a seminar last year where Max Bradford all but apologised for the power industry shambles. I can’t accept a qualified apology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Sorry bro – not me with the low IQ and bad policy:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. RightNow (6,975 comments) says:

    Awesome, you’re a legend Hamnida. You’ll be a shoe-in for PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    I think I am very objective when it comes to political analysis – Neolibs have…

    How objective is it labelling all on a very diverse blog ‘Neolibs’? It’s not, it proves a total contradiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Reid (16,230 comments) says:

    You missed the whole point – rising inequality, which ever way it happens, is not good when you live on an island.

    Ah. The old lefty meme. The way to run the economy is to squeeze the life out of the creatives. The people who make things happen. To stop them from operating lest they get ahead of the pack. The old USSR approach, eh? That’s what you lefties want, isn’t it. The old USSR command-control 5 year plan economy. Go on Hamnida, admit it. That’s the lefty wet dream isn’t it. Imagine how little inequality would exist, if only you had a USSR-style economy.

    It is interesting that only right wing extremists still believe asset sales (sorry, ‘mixed ownership’) is a good idea.

    Once again your lefty propaganda skills come shining through. “right wing extremists… The word just thrown in as if it’s just an offhand turn of phrase. Do us a favour Hamnida, use it on your naive lefty forums if you must, because you fools certainly would get sucked in by it, but recognise we sophisticated conservatives do notice it, and yawn, we don’t care, because we recognise it for what it is, and we ignore it. So don’t even bother, you’re just wasting your time, and have some respect, recognise where you’re posting, FFS.

    BTW, I’m a conservative and I’m not especially enamoured with asset sales, esp not these ones. I don’t really care, either way. But I also recognise that if you asked the people who oppose them what the arguments for and against were, 90% of them wouldn’t be able to tell you even one economic argument. All they’d do is bleat on some emotive crap. And you know that’s true.

    I also agree about Bradford. He should be one politician who shouldn’t get a pension because he doesn’t deserve one. (Neither should Cullen or Hulun either, BTW. All those people did things in office that were so incredibly execrable and incompetent they should all be disqualified from drawing one cent of taxpayer money, in fact, the latter two were so bad, they should be in prison.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Henry64 (83 comments) says:

    Haminda @ 5:09pm said “The government is trying to sell you something you already own.”

    Really?

    When did you buy shares in the SOEs? Which SOEs? How many shares do you own? How much did you buy them for and how much are they worth now? What proof do you have that you actually own shares in the SOEs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Good ol’ DPF

    Faithfully presenting National Party propaganda since (before) 2003.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    You missed the whole point – rising inequality…

    And you repeat a whole fallacy. The fact is that the distribution of wealth is broader now than at any time in human history. Go back 100, 500, 1000 years and the further you go, the more concentrated was the wealth and the power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    KK

    Really?

    Was that before or after the revolution(s)?

    And, if you are correct, just on the off chance, you know, does that make either the past situation or the present any less unjust?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Elaycee (4,356 comments) says:

    Hamfisted: “I think I am very objective when it comes to political analysis…”

    Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaa

    Comedy Gold. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Scott1 (515 comments) says:

    that is straightforward to explain

    The inequality measured by money is constantly growing, the inequality measured by stuff is constantly shrinking.

    So now a fairly poor NZder on a benefit can afford to wear reasonably decent clothes (maybe second hand even) and eat enough food to be healthy. Meanwhile the richest people are able to leverage the work of many thousands of people (with their own effort) to earn thousands of times more than those people – which would have been impossible in the past.

    So as you go back in time a leader who effectively owned 10 times as much as the rest of the people in his area might mean he was the only guy in town who could eat properly, have proper shelter and have proper clothes buit it would be unlikely that he could have millions of times their wealth. Now some guy might have 50 billion or so dollars and yet not really have a different lifestyle from a guy with only 500 million (100 times less).

    ie at the top end while they might be able to buy a cruise liner or somthing – these things don’t really matter nearly as much as the things one buys with their first few dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Paulus (2,603 comments) says:

    I have just restructered my Bank Term deposits to enable me to have sufficient funds ready to buy a share in all the SOE shares available.
    I understand from friends that they are doing similar.
    Bring it on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    I think we should all agree to have a New Zealand owned by all New Zealanders.

    Not one where a few thousand ‘Mum and Dad’ investors own shares in ‘mixed ownership’ power companies while 4 million others don’t.

    One thing is for sure, power prices will sky rocket and those shares wont be in New Zealand long if the ‘mixed ownership’ model proceeds.

    Everyone uses power, so why not have everyone own it.

    If I am not a Mum or Dad, can I still buy shares?

    What if I am a solo Mum or solo Dad?

    What if I am not a Mum or Dad because I am gay and prevented from adopting children?

    How much will the ‘bonus shares’ cost non-shareholders? Surely if this free market you neolibs speak of is so good, bonus shares are not required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Hey Hamnida, do you have a job?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    expat – stay at home Dad while I paint the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    “One thing is for sure, power prices will sky rocket and those shares wont be in New Zealand long if the ‘mixed ownership’ model proceeds.

    Everyone uses power, so why not have everyone own it.

    If I am not a Mum or Dad, can I still buy shares?

    What if I am a solo Mum or solo Dad?

    What if I am not a Mum or Dad because I am gay and prevented from adopting children? ”

    Are you for real? Can you link to proof that power prices will rocket?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. UpandComer (528 comments) says:

    Hamnida you tosser.

    Equating criticism of the Maori Council for playing partisan makes you a racist?

    Then your criticism of Israel makes you an anti-semite, and a racist.

    Also, power prices rose by not far off 100% under Labour, and have plateaued since. Actually, power prices will probably drop soon.

    And no, everyone doesn’t own them already, the govt does. Labour and their decade of deficits spending have proven we can’t trust the govt with these assets – I don’t want my power bills paying for an army of useless analysts or 1970’s industrial labour policy.

    Bonus shares wouldn’t be required if tossers like you weren’t worried about people who have earned their money using it as they please.

    Also, I don’t know what tossers are calling mandates these days, but winning an election with the highest votes ever under MMP when the sole platform of the opposition is ‘no asset sales’ is a mandate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Paulus (2,603 comments) says:

    More Legal Aid for very expensive Treaty Lawyers to go to the High Court, and the Maori biased Supreme Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    UpandComer – You have the wrong person. I have made no comments about Israel or the Maori Council. I don’t hold those types of views in any case.

    In my view power prices will rise under the ‘mixed ownership’ model.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    In my view power prices will rise under the ‘mixed ownership’ model.

    And power prices will rise on mondays, even months, on change of government and on full moons. That’s correlation. If you want causation then look at that little matter of supply vs demand. In my view.

    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.