Dom Post on asset sales referendum
March 1st, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarThe Dom Post editorial:
The Government now has the authority to sell a 49 per cent share in the power company. To those who say the public are opposed to the process, Prime Minister John Key and his ministers can offer a simple rejoinder: “We said we were going to do it before the last election; if you really didn’t like it you shouldn’t have elected us.”
It’s a difficult argument to counter and the referendum the Green Party and Labour are promoting will change nothing. Nor should it. Whatever the pros and cons of selling state assets, governments are elected to govern. If governments were only able to do things that had popular support at the time they were done, New Zealand might never have given women the vote, decriminalised homosexuality or made the wearing of seatbelts compulsory.
The referendum is an abuse of what is meant to be a law to allow citizens to petition Parliament to get a referendum. It has been hijacked by the parties that lost an election to try and over-turn the election result.
Related posts:
- According to Labour the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales
- Second term asset sales
- Republic Referendum Bill selected in ballot
- Asset Sales and the Treaty
March 1st, 2013 at 12:16 pm
The ODT is also scathing of Greens and Labour:
Greens in particular thought they were on to a winner dragging out the petition/referendum as an inter-election campaign tool funded by us. It hasn’t yet been successful and it could backfire badly.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Exactly. Couldn’t agree more.
Referenda are a terribly blunt and useless tool to decide anything in a democracy.
Despite being leftie, should it come to a referendum, I’d vote for the assest sales, because the abuse of the referendum worries me far more than a partial float of state assets.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:34 pm
The hijacking of CIR for cynical party political purposes has to be halted. If Greens (with Labour being carried along with them) could use the referendum to overturn legislation that has gone through proper parliamentary processes it would make a mockery of our system of government.
It would also set a terrible precedent, the ultimate filibuster and way to sabotage a Government.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Just as the Greens used their parliamentary funds (public monies) to gather signatures in support of their referendum so should their parliamentary funds (public monies) be used to pay for it. Wots good for the goose is surely good for the gander … and any shortfall should be made up from Labour/Greens/Mana/Winston First MP’s salaries.
I had my say on this at the last election. I object to what was tested and endorsed at the ballot box being subject to the charade of a Clayton’s referendum. Refresh me on just how many hip operations the estimated $9m cost of this abuse of process could fund.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:39 pm
“Refresh me on just how many hip operations the estimated $9m cost of this abuse of process could fund.” well that’s exactly it isn’t it. Absolutely disgraceful use of taxpayer dollars.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:48 pm
The referendum is an abuse of what is meant to be a law to allow citizens to petition Parliament to get a referendum. It has been hijacked by the parties that lost an election to try and over-turn the election result.
I absolutely agree with you David. The Greens/Labour are not speaking for all of us at all. I new when I voted for National at the election, exactly what there intentions were with regards to PARTIAL ASSET Sales. I do not need Norman and Shearer ramming down our throats what they want. Let the Government govern the country, and will they stop meddling and opposing everything. Sick to death of Labour and the Greens whingeing about everything. For goodness sake will they do something constructive.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:53 pm
‘It has been hijacked by the parties that lost an election to try and over-turn the election result.’
That’s a stupid statement, they are not trying to over-turn the election result.
You also seem to think that everyone who voted National at the last election supports the asset sales, that’s an assumption not supported by a number of polls, including this one: http://www.3news.co.nz/Poll-shows-asset-sales-unpopular/tabid/1607/articleID/243681/Default.aspx
Because referendums are non-binding it will be nothing more than a political stunt, however a strong anti-asset sales vote might slow or halt some future sales for what is at the end of the day an economically stupid policy.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Referendums are not necessarily blunt or useless – Switzerland has used them for a century and is a prosperous stable country, various US states also use referenda and it seems to work quite well there also. The use of referenda for the purpose of informing government of exactly what the voters think of their specific policy on asset sales is a tool that is not available presently. Yes I voted National although I disagreed with asset sales and other policies but the alternative was so much worse so my vote was not an endorsement of particular policies but a vote for the least worst option with the alternative being not to vote at all. Imagine the effect of a referendum whatever the result – an expression of opinion & facts not currently public and possibly solutions to the Governments stated aim of better public infrastructure investment without additional debt that are not currently know – looks like a win win. Calling a referendum however does not either mean asset sales would not proceed and could even be used by Government as a block on things they perhaps don’t support – perhaps TPP – were the voice of the voters is much more powerful than the parliamentarians alone.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Can I buy some shares NOW! I have been waiting more than a year already! The Greens are blatantly abusing the system; if the population of New Zealand was really that opposed to asset sales National wouldn’t have won or they would have initiated the referendum themselves.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:02 pm
“halt some future sales for what is at the end of the day an economically stupid policy.” according to who? Just because comrade Russell says it is stupid doesn’t mean it is! There are plenty of people who say it is a good thing just as there are plenty who say it is not. People may not have liked assets sales but they obviously saw it as something that needed to be done. According to the Greens and Labour those people’s views do not matter and the Government should just break a promise they made at an election. How can that be democratic?
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:05 pm
It might be slightly off-topic but the term ‘Asset Sales’ is rather disingenuous. You’re not really selling something if you still own a majority of it. Perhaps Asset Leverage might be better.
I’d like to see a referendum that asks “are you opposed to using some capital we have built up in assets to purchase other assets?”
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Since the first sale will likely have occured before the signatures on the petition are even verified, and probably a couple more before the vote has held, I would hope by that time it is widely seen for what it is – a foolish waste of $9 million by Labour/Greens for the purpose of empty grandstanding.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:19 pm
That statement makes no sense. Moreover, the case against asset sales has nothing to do with the level of popular support.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:21 pm
But is it wrong to fault them for doing what they do best? – it is a form of specialisation after all
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:21 pm
The election result was that the National Party got to govern. The referendum doesn’t stop them from doing that, or from selling assets. It’s just going to be politically embarrassing and politically harder to do if the referendum comes back with high participation and a strong “no” vote.
The objections to the referendum are wholly political. My guess is that it will be a damp squib anyway. I would be surprised if they get more votes than they had signatures. People just don’t care.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Given that the issue of possible Maori water rights will not now halt the sale of Mighty River Power, but the Government is still to resolve this question of Maori claims, one assumes that could impact on share values at a later date.
Vote:Will Government therefore get expert share prospectus writer John Banks to define share values?
March 1st, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Peter Dunne is a daily reminder of how our system of government can be mocked. So far it’s survived.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 2:08 pm
DPF: “It will of course make it, as the taxpayer funded collectors make it easy to do.”
No – the widespread majority opposition to asset sales makes it easy to do. You can pay as many people you like to stand on street corners collecting signatures. If there is no support for the policy they won’t get the signatures.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Nothing stops any political party from doing what the Greens and Labour have done, and this is entirely appropriate. Political parties are supposed to organize voters around matters of political interest. They are the primary vector by which this is accomplished in societies like ours. We pay them partly for that reason. The system is for once working as intended.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 8:56 pm
It’s disingenuous to say “I voted for National but I’m totally against THEIR partial asset sales policy.”
It’s like saying “I’m going to vote for Labour so they can increase benefits for everyone, fund extra hospitals, provide free dental care, subsidise trains and buses, but I’m against them raising taxes, borrowing, or cutting funding for roads, defence etc.”
When we vote for a Party we vote for a package, we have to pay for what we get.
Oh, sorry, silly me, I forgot, socialists don’t pay for promised benefits, do they? They tax other people until their money runs out, and then borrow. e.g. Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, USA etc.
Vote:March 1st, 2013 at 10:57 pm
National campaigned on asset sales and is carrying out the policies that it said it would. Nothing wrong with that. As it happens its a dumb policy that is a bit like burning your floorboards to keep warm but I seem to remember National actually won the last election. We deservedly give politicians flak when they do the opposite of what they campaigned on and now we give them flak for following through with their promises. They can’t win.
In saying that, the opposition’s job is actually to oppose things, which is easy to forget when Labour has been doing such a shit job of it for so long. If they drum up a bit of feeling against asset sales and make the government fear the electorate that’s just democracy in action.
Vote:March 2nd, 2013 at 12:39 am
Yep, democracy in action. Using the tools available. You could have an election in which choices were limited and you had to accept “any old party” but a majority of the voters did not agree with policies that party wanted to introduce.
Remember the anti-smacking law? Wasn’t the same story then, was it?
Distinctly different attitude, depending on who is shouting at the time. Largely a politically-biased post.
Vote:March 2nd, 2013 at 7:39 am
“Remember the anti-smacking law? Wasn’t the same story then, was it?”
Which party campaigned on the basis that it would introduce the anti-smacking law? Shouldn’t we get our facts right before flipping the bird?
Vote:March 2nd, 2013 at 11:07 am
Nope, because it doesn’t matter. I’m not flipping the bird to either side of the argument. You seem to have based your opinion of what I was saying on whether you think I agree with asset sales or not and then give it a big thumbs up or down depending on whether it agrees with your personal view.
A referendum is a referendum, no matter whom raised it or whether or not there was an electoral promise involved because it is being used to make the Government look at who has issue with a particular proposal/law. I would say this should always be allowed to be invoked whenever the citizens feel it is necessary.
What I am flipping the bird to is the original post, which to me seems to be just a whine that a CIR has been raised against something the poster personally believes in.
Vote:March 2nd, 2013 at 11:26 am
While you may very well have been suggesting that DPF has a one sided view of asset sales, you used, as justification for your conclusion, and to point out a degree of hypocrisy, the fact that the same fuss was not made over the anti smacking law. You did so in the context of a general election and not a referendum. The anti smacking law was not part of any election campaign. It was dropped on the public out of the blue by Sue Bradford. I may have misunderstood you but that is the message that came across.
Vote:March 7th, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Crown proceeding with “Money Laundering”
I was wondering if there are others that are concerned about the “Laundering” of the Public’s Interests in their Investments in this Nations Infrastructure (both National and Regional)?
No I am not talking about Corporations, I am referring to the Infrastructure from which the Corporations derive an income.
The Public Invested in Infrastructure (not Business Enterprises) and up until the Business Lobby took over Government (1984) those Investments were held under the “Stewardship” (not Ownership) of Ministries- 1984 comes along and by “Hobsons Choice” the Public’s Interests in the various properties were systematically concealed and transferred to become the Property of Corporations in which the “Public” have no Legal Interest.
[The Crimes Act 1961 Section 243 Money Laundering defines that which is considered to be a Crime and Section 408 refers to this Act shall Bind upon the Crown]
Vote: