This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.

needlessly. And with their own logic they have not been able to sell that one to the public; 80 per cent of New Zealanders say: “We do not want our assets sold.”


seen in 100 years”. Mr Joyce said the partial asset sale programme would “raise between $5 billion and $7 billion to invest in high- priority infrastructure that will help grow our economy, important social infrastructure like schools and hospitals”. The Bill was split into two Bills,

Hon. Tony Ryall, MP On 29 May the amendment

expressing no confidence in the government was lost by 57 votes to 63.

Part-privatization of energy assets The purpose of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill was to enable the sale of up to 49 per

Hon. Winston Peters, MP Hon. Steven Joyce, MP

cent of the interests in four energy companies that are presently fully owned by the State. Moving the second reading of the Bill on 14 June, Hon. Steven Joyce, MP, (Minister for Economic Development) described the policy underpinning the legislation as “part of a wider economic programme to reduce debt, increase savings, and get our country through one of the worst economic crises the world has

shareholding, with a 10 per cent cap on any other shareholder.” He said the government expected that “85 per cent to 90 per cent of these companies at float will be owned by New Zealanders.” Mr Ryall responded to Opposition concerns about higher electricity prices, saying “what really matters is the level of competition, not the ownership.” He stated: “In 14 of the 21

power regions, the private companies are the cheapest.” However, Dr Norman argued:

“There is actually very limited competition in the sector, so it is very easy for these companies to extract super-profits out of the electricity market. So the naive belief that we hear from the government that somehow perfect competition will lead

220 | The Parliamentarian | 2012: Issue Three

the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill. Hon. Tony Ryall, MP, (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) moved their third readings on 26 June, and promised: “this government will maintain majority New Zealand control of these companies through its legislated 51 per cent

to lower prices is simply not true, and the evidence is to the contrary.” Long-serving Member Hon.

Winston Peters, MP (Leader, New Zealand First) said: “The worst part is that we have been here before … Look at Telecom. It was sold for $4.25 billion in 1990, and delivered dividends to its foreign owners and its new owners of $15 billion. Nearly $9 billion of that went overseas.” Mr Cosgrove warned: “Once

these assets are gone, they are gone. National Members try to bluff people by saying that they are going to buy other assets. They are going to buy schools and the odd bridge. Here is the problem with that, of course: you sell a revenue-generating asset, you buy a non - revenue- generating asset, and at some point the money runs out. “What the government fails

to tell New Zealanders is that, yes, you save $266 million in debt-servicing costs but you give up $360 million per annum in dividends. That is a loss to the New Zealand taxpayer of 100 million bucks.”

here, and New Zealanders understand this”. Ms Moana Mackey (Labour) commented that government Members “like to say that this is a great opportunity for mum and

Ms Moana Mackey, MP

dad investors. Well, mum and dad investors already own these companies. Most mums and dads I know are more concerned about how they are going to pay the power bill than trying to buy the power company. That is how out of touch the [National government] is”. Te Ururoa Flavell (Maori

Party) said: “Let me make it clear that we strongly oppose the removal of the four state-owned enterprises from the State- Owned Enterprises Act, and the proposal to sell 49 percent of these important Crown assets, until historical Treaty settlements are concluded with all claimants who wish to include these assets in the redress package.” The Bills passed by 61 votes

to 60. Mr David Bennett, MP But according to Mr David

Bennett, MP, (National) “the public out there need to understand that there has been a distinction between capital and income dividends, and that you have seen the Opposition using a higher figure to inflate its argument. “The returns will still be taxable

Te Ururoa Flavell, MP

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84