Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Genesis energy’

Meridian Power?

.

Meridian_Energy_logo

.

Our household is with Meridian Energy.

If that’s the next “on the block” to be part-privatised, I’ll be on the phone within sixty seconds to change to Genesis.

.

.

= fs =

Labour, Greens, NZ First, & Mana – A Bright Idea with electricity!

10 March 2013 15 comments

|

|

What?

A part of me is mightily pissed off at Labour.

Like, really ticked off.

From 2000 to 2008, they had ample opportunity to safeguard state assets and remove them from any prospect of privatisation by ideologically-driven,  rightwing elements in our political system.

But perhaps, I suspect that most folk – including the Left –  had believed that privatisation had been abandoned by National as an  ideological dead-end experiment, leading nowhere except eventual foreign ownership and profits remitted to offshore investors. Which, as a consequence, worsened our already shabby Balance of Payments deficit.

More importantly, we had every right to expect that National believed that asset sales would be a sure-fire way of losing an election.

However, someone – some bright, zealous, political strategist working in some back-room somewhere – must’ve come across a “cunning plan” to make asset sales palatable to at least half the voters.

That’s all the Nats needed; 50% of voters.

Why?

To pay for tax cuts in 2009 and 2010. Those tax cuts dug a $2 billion-plus hole in government revenue (see:  Govt’s 2010 tax cuts costing $2 billion and counting, see: Outlook slashes tax-take by $8b). The shortfall could only be made up by borrowing more – or selling something. National opted for the latter.

How?

Post 2011 Election,  has demonstrated that National has not changed it’s free-market stripes. Given an opportunity, they would hock off as much of the country as possible. For “the good of the nation”, you understand.

At the 2011 election, National were handed that opportunity, on a gold plate*,  by a voting public who seemed to be distracted by smoking magic mushrooms. Whilst voters expressed disdain at National’s privatisation – they voted National regardless.

(Call me old fashioned, but I tend not to vote for things I disagree with.)

Go figure.

Note that I said “they voted National” – they didn’t vote for National. It may seem as if I’m splitting hairs on a molecular level – but bear with me.

Consider the facts;

  • 1. In 2011, National won 1,058,638 votes – or 47.31% of votes cast. That gave them 59 seats.
  • 2. The 2011 election was the lowest voter turn-out (74.21%) since 1887.
  • 3. Whilst Labour’s vote dropped from 2008 to 2011, overall the anti-asset sale bloc gained more popular votes in 2011 than the pro-sale bloc,
National , ACT, United Future Party Votes Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, Mana, and Conservative Party votes

National – 1,058,636

Labour – 614,937

ACT – 23,889

Greens – 247,372

United Future – 13,443

NZ First – 147,544

Maori Party – 31,982

Mana – 24,168

Conservative Party* – 59,237

TOTAL – 1,095,968

Total – 1,125,240

* Whilst the Conservative gained no seats in Parliament (because of the 5% threshold), their numbers are included because they gained over double the electoral-support for ACT.

In effect, Key could claim an mythical “mandate” simply because the MMP rules in 2011 gave ACT a seat, but no representation for the Conservatives – even though support for the latter was double that of ACT.

  • 4. Voting patterns are reflected in polls which consistantly show public opinion opposed to asset sales. Generally, the figure is around two thirds opposed and less than a third supporting. (see: Most of us oppose selling NZ)

In fact, this blogger cannot find any reputable poll favouring National’s privatisation programme.

However, the harsh reality is that, for politicians, unless faced by a populist revolt and tens of thousands taking to the streets (see: Huge protest says no to mining on conservation land) , the only numbers that really count are bums-on-seats. Parliamentary seats.

Political machinations in Epsom and Ohariu gave Key the two seat Parliamentary majority he needed, and that’s what counts as a “mandate”. For the Nats, that’s the end-of-story.

Who?

As Dear Leader has oft been quoted,

 “On the mixed-ownership model debate, the Government has been very clear about its intentions since well before the 2011 election.” – John Key, 24 June 2012 (see: Most of us oppose selling NZ)

Thus far, 200,000 have pre-registered (see: Mighty River pre-registrations top 200,000) – which, whilst a sizeable number, is still only around five percent of those who voted for National in 2011. And I suspect many are pre-registering for a variety of reasons,

  • self interested naked greed
  • a desire to keep shares in local hands
  • and a few bogus pre-registrations to subvert the process (a surreptitiously organised covert resistance? You might say that, but  I couldn’t possibly comment)

The 200,000 pre-reguistrations is still dwarfed by signaturies to the petition, which is fast approaching 400,000 (see: Asset sales referendum likely)

So, did all 1,058,638 voters  who voted National in 2011 also endorse asset sales, either in whole or partial?

The answer is a clear no.  In a poll just over a year ago (see:  Poll shows asset sales unpopular), around 32% – about one third – of National supporters disapproved of asset sales.

That’s 338,764 voters who opposed asset sales who ticked the box for National in 2011, despite knowing full well that Key was promising partial floats on Meridian, Genesis, Mighty River Power, Solid Energy (now in doubt), and a further sell-down of Air New Zealand.

338,764 people who voted for something they didn’t want.

As Marcus Lush said on Radiolive on 28 February this year (2013),

.

Why would anyone vote National and be opposed to asset sales -  28 February 2013 -  Radiolive - Marcus Lush

[click on image to access Radiolive link]

.

Good question.

The answer, I think, can be distilled  down into two categories of voters.

  1. The first group simply either didn’t taken notice of  the asset sales campaign, or, more likely did not believe that Key would go ahead with the policy. They may even have thought that Key’s coalition ally(ies), United Future and/or the Maori Party, would stop the sales from proceeding. There was a kind of  “in denial” mentality going on here.
  2. The second group is perhaps more complex. Whilst they don’t support asset sales per se, they perhaps believed National Party rhetoric that shares would remain in New Zealand hands. Considering the consequences of Contact Energy’s privatisation – where the majority of shares are now in Australian hands – this would seem to be a forlorn hope.

Having spoken with National Party voters belonging to Group 1, I believe that asset sales will impact to varying degrees on National’s support at the next election. Having woken up to the fact that Key has no intention of backing away from  sales,  there are 300,000 National voters who may think twice before voting National again.

Expect National to drop in the next few polls following the sale of Mighty River Power.

However, unless something totally unanticipated happens between now and May, the partial sale of Mighty River Power will probably proceed. Followed by Genesis and Meridian. Followed by hefty power price increases if past history is anything to go by.

Where (to from here?)

NZ First’s Winston Peters has promised that any government he is part of will buy back state assets. (Which, by the way, if he’s not telling lies, means that any coalition deal with the Nats is off the table. I’m not holding my breath on this. The 1996 election is still fresh in my mind.)

On 4 March this year (2013), Peters announced,

“New Zealand First will use its influence on the next coalition Government to buy back our state-owned power companies which are being flogged off by National and we are committed to buying back the shares at no greater price than paid by the first purchaser.”

Source: One More Quisling Moment from Key

This is do-able. Especially if NZ Superannuation funds are used, which would not impact or have any bearing on a new Government’s books.

By announcing that the shares would be re-purchased  “at no greater price than paid by the first purchaser” – Peters is effectively putting all purchasers on notice: expect to incur a loss if you buy into National’s thieving (and let’s be clear – selling goods that don’t belong to you is theft) programme.

And a year earlier, in March 2012, Hone Harawira had promised the same in an open letter to investors,

“So today I think it only proper to send a warning to overseas investors – steer clear of any share offer in the above SOE’s. The purchase of these shares is likely to see you caught up in legal battles and direct action from citizens determined to protect their own interests, both of which will be lengthy and costly and have an adverse impact on the value of your investment.

As the leader of the MANA Movement and Member of the New Zealand House of Representatives, I wish to advise that MANA is opposed to the privatisation of state assets and will strongly argue for any shares sold to overseas investors to be returned to New Zealand hands.”

Source: Hone Harawira: Open letter to overseas investors

By contrast, in an attempt to appear “fiscally responsible” to Middle Class voters, Labour and the Greens were luke-warm, at best.

Green co-leader, Russel Norman said,

“We just can’t make the promise that Winston is making. We will do whatever we can, but it is two years away, the books are getting into a terrible mess because of National, and closer to the time we will make an announcement but at the moment we can’t.”

Source: Peters: Use super funds to buy back state assets

And Labour’s Clayton Cosgrove effectively went, ‘ditto’,

“… I can’t commit to an open-ended fiscal envelope. That would be fiscally irresponsible in my view.”

Source: IBID

Which is all pretty timid stuff.

This, my fellow New Zealanders, is why the Centre-Left lost the 2011 Election: no boldness in vision; no measurable difference to the Nats; and no unshakeable courage of  their/our convictions.

All that Labour and the Greens  said was “no” to asset sales.

And when Cunliffe suggested that a future Labour-led government would re-nationalise these SOEs – he was firmly slapped down by his Party.

On 4 December 2011,

I don’t stand for a paler shade of blue, and I want to look down the barrel and say this: if the Government is going to sell off precious state assets then we would not rule out re-nationalising some of them. And people need to be aware of that regulatory risk.”

When asked by host Guyon Espiner whether he would buy them back, Mr Cunliffe replied “we would look very hard [at buying them back].” Source

On 5 December 2011,

Labour leadership aspirant David Cunliffe has moved to clarify his position on the buyback of state assets.

He believed comments he made in a weekend interview, where he didn’t rule out buying back partially privatised SOE’s, had been misinterpreted.

Mr Cunliffe said it was not an explicit promise to buy back all shareholdings National may sell. Source

That’s not “manning the barricades” stuff – that’s an open retreat in the face of a remorseless enemy.

Which, in turn, emboldened National to openly mock and taunt the Labour Opposition, seven months later,

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) : I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. We are still waiting, this week, for the Labour Party to commit to buying back the shares of the 49 percent of the energy companies that the Government is planning to sell, mainly to New Zealanders. New Zealand First has made that undertaking. New Zealand First has shown that the Labour Party has persuaded New Zealand First that its arguments are so strong, New Zealand First should go and buy them back if it has a role in a future Government. But the Labour Party has not been able to persuade itself. Labour members have been in the Chamber arguing, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, that these proposed share offers are fiscally irresponsible, economic nonsense, and a sell-out to foreigners, but they are not so fiscally irresponsible that they are going to buy them back. They are not such a sell-out to foreigners that they are going to buy them back. They are not such an economic nonsense that they are going to buy them back.” – Source

At a time when Labour should be tearing strips of National and setting their own counter-agenda – we’re getting precious little of that. Instead, the agenda is being set by Key and his cronies with bugger-all opposition. The Greens and NZ First have scored more ‘hits’ against the Nats than Labour.

On top of that, the Greens have become the “go to” opposition Party, for criticism of National policies. If you doubt me, check out the next 6pm TV news bulletin. Which opposition party spokesperson is interviewed? Keep tabs over a few night. You’ll quickly see what I mean.

So, what options does Labour have?

It has two options;

  1. Carry on with a conservative course. There is a 50/50 chance it will lead the next government, with perhaps a one or two seat majority, consisting of Labour/Greens/Mana/NZ first.
  2. Strike out with a strategy of  aggressive and bold announcements of initiatives. Announce;
  • radical policies that are a departure from neo-liberalism and declare that the Great Neo-liberal Experiment is dead; “we come to bury the bastard, not praise him”.
  • focus on the message that the 30 year experiment in neo-liberalism has failed utterly, and is one reason we’re driving our young people to Australia
  • a policy that all state assets will be re-purchased at cost-price (as a coalition deal with NZ First)
  • a list of National policies that will be ruthlessly  reviewed and dumped (eg, the Hobbit Law)
  • a focus on job creation; attacking the root causes of child poverty; and a committment for decent housing for all New Zealanders
  • a full review of the tax system, with a plan to reduce (or eliminate gst) and replaced with a comprehensive Capital Gains Tax; Financial Transactions Tax; and other non-income related taxes
  • Comprehensive food-in-schools programmes
  • looking at how our Scandinavian and Nordic cuzzies are running their economies/societies
  • cheaper education for our kids
  • a conversation with New Zealanders as to what kind of society we want to live in – and are we willing to pay for it and set goals to achieve it?
  • etc, etc.

As part of Option 2, I have one further Bright Idea…

A Libertarian acquaintaince and I were chatting one evening at  ‘Backbenches’ (prior to it catching fire – and no, our conversation wasn’t that heated) . We were talking about the three state owned power companies.

He asked me; why should there be  three state owned companies; all producing the same service; at roughly the same costs and prices – have three sets of management; CEOs; offices; accounting systems; staff; etc? Wouldn’t  it make more sense to combine the three and pass the savings onto consumers?

Damn it, he was right. What is the point of having three state owned electricity companies?

One could do the same job – and cheaper.

Just as we had the old ECNZ, prior to Max Bradford’s so-called “reforms” in the late 1990s. At the time, Mr Bradford promised cheaper electricity through competition. Instead, power prices have doubled sinced the start of the century. (see: The 30-year power price hike , see: Power prices over decade)

“Ministry of Economic Development (MED) statistics show average power prices rose from 13.9 cents per kilowatt-hour on average in May 2001 to 26 cents in May 2011.” Source

The problem is not just to re-nationalise our electricity companies.

The next problem is what do we do with them?

How do we make them socially responsive to domestic consumers as well as  efficient?

Do we re-combine Mighty River Power, Genesis, and Meridian back into one single unit, a new ECNZ?

Do we ensure that there are Board members elected to a new ECNZ whose constituents are domestic users? Perhaps any such Board should have directly-elected  representation?

Do we entrench a new, state owned ECNZ in legislation so it’s future is protected from predatory governments seeking either maximum returns (ie, price gouging) or to privatise it?

Could a new ECNZ afford to offer each domestic household their first 300kwh per month, free,  as has been suggested by Victoria University researcher, Geoff Bertram? (see: Call for free power )

These are the issues which the Opposition should be focused on.

And thus far, we’ve not heard much from them.

If  Labour-Greens-NZ First are serious about being an alternative government, then by the gods, they should be serious about giving us that alternative.

Conclusion

When National started campaigning in the 2008 election, it began two years in advance with a series of  aggressive policies. It was acting like a Government-in-Waiting.

By contrast, Labour and the other parties are an Opposition-in-Waiting.   They are timidly watching and waiting for the public love affair with Key to wear off, and for National to f**k up.

Well, news flash guys.  That doesn’t seem to be working too well. The Nats have been excoriated with scandal after scandal last year and this year; unemployment rising; Mainzeal and Solid Energy collapsing – and the Nats are still high in the polls?!

My message to Labour, Greens, NZ first, and Mana;

If you want the voting public to take notice of you, you have to give them something that’ll make them notice you.

Be bold.

Be aggressive.

Offer alternatives.

Offer practical solutions.

Give the public a vision.

And at all times, work together.

If you don’t give the public an alternative, why should they look away from National?

Give the people of New Zealand an alternative, better way of living – and they will look at you.

But not until then.

.

*

.

(* Plate will soon be auctioned on Trademe.)

Previous Blogposts

Politics through a crystal ball, palmistry, or chicken entrails?

History Lesson – Tahi – Electricity Sector “reforms”

Additional

Power prices over decade

The 30-year power price hike

Call for free power

Cunliffe: buy back any sold assets

Cunliffe not promising to buy back assets

Parliament: Hansards – Wednesday, 20 June 2012, Bill English on Asset Sales

More heat in power struggle as prices go up

Government in $112b barney over accounting

Electricity prices tipped to rise steeply

Heavy traffic hits Mighty River Power share site

One More Quisling Moment from Key

Other blogs

MANA threaten overseas investors not to buy assets – Bloomberg pick up on the story

.

.

= fm =

Is John Key ‘losing the plot’?!

18 September 2012 3 comments

Lifted from the media today,

.

Full story

.

When the Leader of the pro-capitalist National Party starts talking about “nationalising elements such as water and wind”  – whilst at the same time instigating a programme to partially privatise Genesis Energy, Mighty River Power, and Meridian – the question has to be asked; has John Key flipped his lid?!?!

Regardless of whatever atmosphere they are breathing on the Ninth Floor, there must be some severe oxygen depletion at work to have affected Key’s mental processes so badly.

New Zealanders from both ends of the spectrum, Left and Right, as well as the general populace, must be wondering what is going on in the land of Planet National.

Right wing National supporters must’ve wondered if they had heard their Dear Leader correctly when he uttered the taboo “N” word (“nationalisation – not “n—-r”).

The Left would have been rolling their eyes and shaking their heads in dismay, and wondering, “How much more of this clown will the public take? Does he have to decapitate and eat a kitten before his popularity takes a nose-dive and drops lower than John Banks’ credibility?”

Nationalisation of water and air…

Whilst selling of our state assets at the same time…

The breath-taking audacity of the man.

In reality, what he is saying is that  the government is toying with the idea  of making a grab for certain natural resources – before selling them to private investors.

His comment is as ludicrous as his statement on TVNZ’s Q+A on 16 September when he dumbly blurted out,

… So if you accept that viewpoint, then I think you have to accept that elements like water and wind and the sun and air and fire and all these things, and the sea, along with natural resources like oil and gas, are there for the national interest of everyone. They’re there for the benefit of all New Zealanders, not one particular group over another. “

See: TVNZ Q+A Interview with Prime Minister John Key

Yeah, right, Dear Leader. I’m sure that came as a bit of a surprise to the private oil and gas companies currently exploiting our gas and oil fields.

John Key – always a laugh a minute with his incredibly outrageous remarks. Unfortunately, his clownish behaviour is ultimately at our expense.

.

water rights state asset sales waitangi tribunal Maori King SOEs John Key

.

.

= fs =

A lesson in Energy Economics

17 September 2012 Leave a comment

.

I

.

This is the Treaty of Waitangi, signed by most tribes in New Zealand, and by the Representative of Her Majesty, Lieutenant-Governor, William Hobson,

.

.

The full English text can be read here: Treaty of Waitangi.

The relevant part to the treaty, guaranteeing rights to land, forests, water, mountain, etc, is this bit, Article 2,

Article the second [Article 2]

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

Seems fairly clear; what’s theirs is theirs and no nicking each others’ stuff.

Now, unfortunately, I have fellow New Zealanders who hold to the belief that the Treaty of Waitangi is “no longer relevant” or is “outdated”.

Interesting idea that; “no longer relevant”.

Firstly, the Treaty has no “expiry date” or “statute of limitations”. Nothing in the  small print  states that the Treaty is valid for only X number of years.

Secondly, imagine trying to tell our American cuzzies that their Declaration of Independence – signed in 1776AD, and therefore some 64 years older than our own Treaty – is “no longer relevant” or  “outdated”? They’d have half their US Marines camped outside your front door – and not in a happy way, either.

And of course, there is the Magna Carta, signed in 1215AD, and which is the basis of much of our modern law.  If the Magna Carta is “no longer relevant” or  “outdated” then we are in serious trouble, as the state would have arbitrary powers of detention and imprisonment without right of trial, and we would lose other legal protections from State abuse.

And then there are the Ten Commandments, several thousand years old, which state the most basic laws of a civilised society; no killing, no stealing, no false accusations, etc.

Few people would try to assert that these basic laws are “no longer relevant” or  “outdated”?

Time does not extinguish rights.

Those who object to the principles of the Treaty do so out of fear and misconceptions (and sometimes out of downright racist hostility) than any notions of fairness.

The Treaty is the basis upon which our ancestors agreed to live together and to respect each other. We should respect that agreement and use it in the spirit in which it was signed.

Otherwise we disrespect our forebears (on all sides) and do ourselves a dishonour in the  process.

Moving forward and onward…

.

II

.

In replying to Maori claims of water rights, Dear Leader John Key has stated earnestly that “no one owns the water”.

Until now,  Maori have made no claims over water in terms of this country’s energy production. With Meridian, Mighty River Power, and Genesis Energy under collective  state ownership, it could equally be said that “no one owned the power companies – they belonged to us all.

If, until now, we all benefitted from collective ownership of power companies, then, equally the source of that power was in collective ownership. Now National is attempting to privatise 49% of  Meridian, Mighty River Power, and Genesis Energy – effectively changing the rules.

The concept of private ownership is now contemplated for up-till-now collectively-owned assets. So what about the source of that power which will now benefit a small group who will own 49%?

Can the source of hydro power be owned, especially when it produces profits?

Let’s test that idea, shall we?

Simple question: who owns the following resources?

.

.

Oil. Natural  gas. Coal. Uranium. None of this stuff  is free. Someone owns the ground or the process used to extract it.  There is a concept of private ownership  over these energy sources that can be quantified, measured, controlled,  priced, and sold.

Until Pakeha arrived on these fair shores as the second wave of  “boat people” – refugees from a class-stratified society – Maori had no concept of private ownership. Property was not owned by individuals. Iwi and hapu held collective kawanatanga over their lands, waters, forests, hills, seashores, etc.

Once Pakeha arrived, the notion of private ownership and Land Titles were introduced to Maori.

Some Pakeha might object – but water is sacred!

So is land. God knows enough of our young men have gone off to war to defend our nation; our people; our lands, from foreign domination, in two World Wars.

Some Pakeha would object – but water is ephemeral!

So are radio/television  frequencies. But that hasn’t stopped the government to leasing/selling those to private companies. (Try broadcasting on the same wavelength as TVNZ or TV3, and see what the reaction from those companies and the State would be.)

This is a hydro power station,

.

.

Powered by this stuff,

.

.

Water  generates the turbines which produces the power that is on-sold to consumers.

So how does water differ from oil, gas, coal, and uranium?

Private ownership?  It suited us Pakeha when it was used to our benefit to “acquire” land from Maori.

Maori learnt that lesson well and the shoe is now on the other foot.

If Pakeha are going to flog of 49% of  assets that, up till now, no one owned and collectively benefitted us all, then by the gods, Maori can – and should – apply precisely the same principle.

Welcome to the world of capitalism – our ‘gift’ to Maori

.

III

.

Pakeha schizophrenia over private ownership was nowhere better summed up than on TVNZ’s Q+A, on 16 September, when Shane Taurima interviewed Dear Leader John Key on this issue,

.

.

In a stunning act of conversion to social democratic principles, John Key equated the collective ownership of water with oil and gas,

… So if you accept that viewpoint, then I think you have to accept that elements like water and wind and the sun and air and fire and all these things, and the sea, along with natural resources like oil and gas, are there for the national interest of everyone. They’re there for the benefit of all New Zealanders, not one particular group over another. “

See: TVNZ Q+A Interview with Prime Minister John Key

Really?!?!

JohnKey is telling us that, ” natural resources like oil and gas, are there for the national interest of everyone. They’re there for the benefit of all New Zealanders, not one particular group over another “?!?

Since when did National or Labour nationalise the oil and gas industry???

This little piece of news-trivia slipped by me, that’s for sure. (Must’ve been announced on the other TV channel when we wasted two minutes watching ‘The Ridges‘.)

It’s pure bullshit of course. John Key is spinning porkies when he’s suggesting that the oil and gas industry is ” there for the national interest of everyone “. These resources belong to various corporations – not ”  for the benefit of all New Zealanders “.

In fact, the last time New Zealand held any State ownership in any aspect of the oil and gas industry was  with Petrocorp and Maui gas – both  privatised, respectively, in 1988 and 1990.

See: Treasury – Income from State Asset Sales

John Key’s assertion that the oil and gas industry is ” there for the national interest of everyone ” is either delusional (spending too much time with John Banks?) or a clumsy fairytale to try to woo New Zealanders into a cosy, cotton-wool, fantasy world.

This blogger would welcome and support National nationalising all oil and gas production in this country, ”  for the benefit of all New Zealanders “.

The fact is that Dear Leader blew it.

Not only was his paradigm absurdly false – but it actually shored up the legitamacy of Maori claims over water rights.

If private ownership can be conferred over this country’s oil and gas resources, for the private benefit of shareholders, then John Key needs to explain – in far more truthful terms this time – why water is different.

This blogger  believes that so far he has made a complete hash of things.

More importantly, will a Court take a similar view?

My money is on Maori winning this one.

.

IV

.

An email sent to Dear Leader,

Date: Monday, 17 September 2012 12:11 AM
From: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>
Subject: Nationalisation of oil and gas resources
To: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: David Shearer <david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz>,
    Russel Norman <Russel.Norman@parliament.govt.nz>,
    Metiria Turei <metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz>,
    Winston Peters <winston.peters@parliament.govt.nz>

Kia Ora Mr Key,
 
On 16 September, you stated on TVNZ’s Q+A the following statement,
” … So if you accept that viewpoint, then I think you have to accept that elements like water and wind and the sun and air and fire and all these things, and the sea, along with natural resources like oil and gas, are there for the national interest of everyone. They’re there for the benefit of all New Zealanders, not one particular group over another. “
 

Source:  http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/interview-prime-minister-john-key-5085886

I missed the occassion when our oil and gas industries were nationalised, so that profits would remain in New Zealand,  “for the benefit of all New Zealanders, not one particular group over another”.

This is an excellent state of affairs and I welcome your government’s conversion to social democracy whereby  our ”  natural resources like oil and gas, are there for the national interest of everyone “.

I take it as a given then, that you have not only abandoned your asset sales programme, but will be re-nationalising Contact Energy.

In which case, it is a truism that “no one owns the oil and gas” in the ground, and subsequently these resources belong to all New Zealanders collectively.

I may have to reconsider my vote, come 2014, as I wish to support the newly discovered  social-democratic principles shown by your Party.

With regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger

See: https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/a-lesson-in-energy-economics/

.

.

.

= fs =

From Parliament, 2011, to Greymouth, 2012

4 September 2012 5 comments

Nothing better illustrates National’s Epic Fail in the matter of generating new jobs than these two events…

Last year, as National delivered it’s budget, Dear Leader John Key stated,

New Zealand can’t keep borrowing money at $380 million a week. We can’t have New Zealanders exposed to high interested rates, New Zealanders need a plan for jobs.

This is a budget that actually delivers that.

Treasury say in the Budget, as a result of this platform on what we’ve delivered, 170,000 jobs created and 4% wage growth over the next three to four years.”*

.

Full Story

.

Fast forward sixteen months later, to Greymouth,

.

Full Story

.

It seems an extraordinary situation  that we have arrived in when New Zealanders have to take to the streets to protest.  Not protesting to save our Conservation estates; nor our state assets from being flogged of;  or in favour of  gay rights; nor any other environmental, political,  or civil rights  issue – but merely to protect jobs in a community.

It is bizarre that this is what we’ve come down to; protesting for jobs.

Unfortunately, this is about as “good” as it gets for a National-led government. National, being a Party that adheres to free market  principles that only private enterprise can create jobs, is trapped in it’s own ideology.

Which means that, unlike the past government of Mickey Savage, National refuses to be proactive. It will not get involved in job creation initiatives because it believes it has no role to play in such an area. That is for the Marketplace to deliver.

We may be waiting for quite a while.

In  May of this year, unemployment stood at 6.7%.

See: Unemployment rate lifts to 6.7pc

By August it had risen to 6.8%.

See: Unemployment rises: 6.8pc

The next Quarterly result, for the September-November period, will most likely show a similar increase.

If  the partial-privatisation of  Meridian, Mighty Rive Power, and Genesis Energy proceeds – expect more redundancies further still.Privatisation nearly always results in job losses (and price increases) to generate greater dividend returns to private investors.

That is what it means to elect National to power.

See:  Highest jobless rate in 2 years

National is so wedded to free market dogma that this situation will worsen until such time as New Zealanders can no longer stomach a right-wing government and follow their French cuzzies into electing a more proactive centre-left government.  Only then will a centre-left government deal with unemployment and focus on proactive stategies to create jobs.

See: Labour shortage here to stay, so we had better get used to it

We’ve been ‘here’ before, in history.  This blogger has seen this political drama repeated decade after decade since the 1970s.  (In fact, it’s getting rather tediously predictable.)

Unfortunately for the decent, hardworking people of Greymouth and elsewhere in New Zealand, the tragic drama  of unemployment, family life disruption,   social dislocation, and harm to business,  must play out before the final Act is staged on Election Night.

.

* At least, that’s what we hope he said. This blogger is checking the Parliamentary Translation Unit to confirm.

.

.

= fs =

Asset Sales: all down?

24 August 2012 10 comments

.

.

Continued from: Asset Sales: two down, three to go!

.

As predicted, the Waitangi Tribunal has issued a report endorsing a delay to asset sales until the issue of water rights can be resolved,

.

Full story

.

Specifically, the report recommends,

  • Maori have long established property rights over water bodies
  • Ownership precedents date back to 1929 when Nga Puhi was granted ownership of Lake Omapere
  • Maori culture and rights should not be relegated and ignored.
  • The claim is not opportunistic
  • Offering shares in the companies to Maori is not a remedy
  • Shares in conjunction with enhanced power on the boards of these companies could provide meaningful recognition
  • It is impossible for the Tribunal to recognise all Maori water rights across the whole country
  • It is possible to devise an appropriate scheme for Maori affected by the sale of the assets but more time is needed

Source

If, as Dear Leader John Key stated on 10 July, that National could decide to  ignore the Tribunal’s findings (because they are non-binding), then the matter will head to the High Court.

Either way, the asset sale process has been stalled.

The Tribunal’s decision is yet another nail in the coffin of this wretched privatisation agenda.

As pointed out in a previous blogpiece ( Asset Sales: two down, three to go! ), the process has been hampered by corporate interests; low shares prices (Air New Zealand); poor international commodity prices (Solid Energy’s coal); and lower than anticipated revenue from certain electricity companies.

This blogger sez; thank god for the Treaty of Waitangi. We may yet save our state assets from being stolen from us, the people.

Who would have thought that the Treaty – designed in 1840 to protect Maori assets from ruthless activity by colonials – would 172 years later protect the assets owned by ALL New Zealanders.

National and it’s redneck supporters may object with shrill hysteria.

Tough.

These assets belong to all of us. Not just those with the money to buy them.

And it’s a bit rich for National politicians and their sycophantic supporters and fellow travellers to now be insisting that “no one owns the water”.

Especially since the concept of private ownership for land, trees, fishing quota, airwaves, etc, etc, etc, was inytroduced by Pakeha to New Zealand.

Now the architects of the capitalist notion of private ownership are screaming for collective ownership over water?

Get real, you rednecks.

Vocal right wingers and anonymous commentators on various internet fora are simply livid that Maori are exercising the same rights that Pakeha themselves have used for their own benefit and wealth-accumulation for the last two hundred years.

National may well begin to comprehend that it is on a hiding to nowhere on this issue.  It is time for John Key to comprehend,

  • The majority of New Zealanders do not want state assets privatised
  • Maori have a legitimate intrerest in water rights if states assets are privatised
  • Privatisation is opening a can of worms with corporate vultures circling overhead, looking for cheaper power deals
  • The State will not earn anything near the $5 to $7 billion that Bill Enlish has been anticipating

John Key, it is time to knock asset sales on the head.

You’ve lost.

.

*

.

Additional

Asset sales in Air New Zealand also doubful this term

Solid Energy revenue slump could delay sale by years

Tribunal finds SOE share sales a breach, but offers solution

Energy float may turn into a s(t)inker

Other blogs

No where to go on Maori water rights

.

.

= fs =

That was Then, This is Now #14

20 June 2012 1 comment

Devonport: their cheeky contradiction of Private Ownership vs Public

.

Immigration & Customs for new arrivals

.

Residents angry at Devonport Treaty settlement

Updated at 4:52 pm on 31 March 2012

Residents of the Auckland suburb of Devonport challenged a Treaty of Waitangi settlement at a public meeting on Saturday.

An agreement reached by the Government in November allows Ngati Whatua o Orakei to buy a 3.2 hectare block at Narrow Neck which is currently used by the Defence Force.

The terms of the sale would allow the hapu to develop the land after the navy finishes using it.

But many residents are against private ownership of the land and say they want the entire headland protected from commercial development.

.

.

About 300 residents attended the meeting held on the Defence Force land, to hear an explanation of the sale from the Minister for Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finalyson.

Mr Finlayson clarified that the neighbouring Fort Takapuna reserve and parts of the headland closest to the sea would not be sold and would be kept open to the public.

He said residents could make submissions to the Maori Affairs Select Committee which is handling the settlement.

Almost all of the people who spoke at the meeting opposed the sale and many left the meeting saying they remain angry at the situation. ” – Source

.

It seems that the good people of Devonport are somewhat ‘miffed’ that 3.2 hectares of land at Devonport will be part of a Treaty settlement with Ngati Whatua o Orakei. The land is currently legally protected under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act – but this protection will cease once it becomes private land  as part of the  the settlement.

It is worth noting that the 3.2 hectares in question is only a small fraction of the 31,565 hectares taken by the colonial government since colonisation. 3.2 our of 31,565 hectares – about .o1% of what that tribe possessed before the “rule of Britain” took hold of the countrry. (The  same “rule of Britain” that supposedly recognised and protected property rights, but never mind about that.)

Locals are upset at the prospect of the Treaty settlement. As many of stated, they want the land to be protected and do not want it passed over to private ownership. Once in private ownership, they say, the land might be developed.

(Just as land taken from Ngati Whatua o Orakei was on-sold to colonists, who then developed it. Ie; they built houses.)

So I guess the lesson I’m learning here is; land development is ok if it’s by pakeha.

But not ok, if it’s by Maori?

Ok, got it.

But what really amuses me is that the people of Devonport seem to have a somewhat ambiguous approach to the notion of an asset  held by the community for community purposes – and a community asset that can be sold into private ownership…

Folks, welcome to Devonport…

.

.

Devonport is the southern part of the North Shore electorate,

.

North Shore Electorate

.

At last year’s election, the voters of North Shore voted over-whelmingly for the National Party candidate, former radio and TV presenter, Maggie Barry,

.

Party Candidate Votes % ±% Party Votes % ±%
National Green tick Maggie Barry 22,709 62.44 +0.59 23,113 62.16 +4.10
Labour Ben Clark 7,481 20.57 -3.44 6,036 16.23 -5.17
Green Pieter Watson 2,802 7.70 +1.50 4,035 10.85 +4.24
ACT Don Brash 1,293 3.56 -0.41 714 1.92 -5.55
Conservative Craig Jensen 904 2.49 +2.49 829 2.23 +2.23

.

Source

As the above chart clearly reveals, over 62% of voters gave their Party and Electorate votes to National.

That’s the same National Party that campaigned on a policy of partial privatisation of Genesis Energy, Meridian, Mighty River Power, Solid Energy, and a further sell-down of Air New Zealand.

By contrast, those parties (Labour, Greens, NZ First) that campaigned against state asset sales received only 30.74% of the Party vote.

So I think we get a fairly clear idea where there hearts and minds of North Shore (including Devonporters) voters lies; firmly in the Tory bosom. North Shore/Devonport is about as ‘blue‘ as you can get. And they certainly didn’t seem to mind too much about National’s stated policy of partial-asset sales, did they?

The sale of community owned assets didn’t seem to occupy the minds of North Shore voters last year? So it seems a bit rich that that Devonport folk are now up-in-arms about Crown land being returned to their original owners – when several SOEs will soon end up in partial foreign-ownership.

So they have a bit of a cheek to protest now, when they couldn’t care less about privatisation last year. In fact, I would say they pretty much got what they voted for.

.

NGATI WHATUA O ORAKEI NAVY DEAL

Hapu to buy:

* Five New Zealand Defence Force housing blocks for $95.63 million. These will be leased back to the Crown for five years.

* Defence land at Wakakura Cres for $10 million.

* Defence land at Narrow Neck for $13.8 million.

* Deal vests a 33.64ha conservation area in tribe’s name. To be used as a recreation reserve administered jointly by tribe and Auckland Council.

* Purewa Creek’s name to be changed to Pourewa Creek.

* $18 million – $2 million already received through hapu’s 1993 Railways settlement.

* Rights of first refusal for 170 years over surplus Crown-owned properties. ” – Source

.

.

= fs =

The Muppet Show – Kiwi style!

21 February 2012 5 comments

.

.

I just want to emphasise that it is not our best guess; it’s just a guess. It’s just to put some numbers in that look like they might be roughly right for forecasting purposes.

“That’s an honest answer.”Bill English, 17 February 2012

That may be an “honest answer” – but it also has to rank as one of the dumbest in New Zealand’s political history.

To explain what Bill English was being “honest” about,

.

Full Story

.

That’s right, folks, our Finance Minister has just let slip that National has no idea how much money they will raise from the part-privatisation of Genesis Energy, Might River Power, Meridian, Solid Energy, and Air New Zealand.

They don’t have a clue.

The $5 -$7 billion they have been quoting pre and post election are figures seemingly plucked out of hot-air from Parliament’s oxygen-depleted atmosphere. (Oxygen depletion tends to have unpleasant side-effects on a brain such as confused, muddled, thinking.)

John Key – realising that Bill English had made National the laughing stock of the country – jumped in, changing the “best guess” to a “best estimate”,

.

Full Story

.

However, Key didn’t help matters much when he added,

I think they are our best estimates”.

“There are lots of variables in there … what we do know is the Crown will absolutely have a minimum of 51 per cent shareholding but could have more. We don’t know what price the market will pay at the time; we don’t know the exact timing of all these particular floats.”

So let’s see.  Key and English don’t know any of the following,

  • How much will be raised by the partial-privatisation?
  • Whether they will end up with 51% ownership – or more?
  • Or even the timing of the “floats” (sale of shares)?
  • Or what price the shares will be sold at???

No wonder Greens co-leader Russel Norman said, in utter exasperation,

That isn’t how we should be running the finances of New Zealand.”

Norman wasn’t playing usual political one-upmanship games – he was voicing the entire country’s disquiet at what is rapidly looking like mickey mouse incompetance.

Yet again this is an example of National simply not being up-with-the-play.  Much like unaffordable tax-cuts of ’09 and ’10; the Jobs Summit of 2009 that achieved very little;   the credit down-grade they “never saw coming”; the broken promise on raising gst; the $1.4 billion revenue short-fall – National’s economic policies seem to be ad-hoc at the very best.

No wonder even the business community was left wondering if National had any plan at all for economic recovery.

If this was the Muppet Show, it might look something like this,

.

.

Instead, it looks like this,

.

Full Story

.

These two clowns muppets are in charge of billions of dollars worth of public property?

I am not reassured. In fact, I wouldn’t trust these two to run  a charity sausage sizzle.

I can imagine how that would end badly,

  • 1 x sausage, @ 50 cents wholesale
  • gas, onion, sauces, napkin, est. 50 cents per sausage
  • Retail price: ? 40 cents   60 cents   75 cents!

Cue: muppet theme & roll credits.

.

***

.

Other Blog stories

Selling assets will cost us more than keeping them – the idiocy of National

“Best guess?” – National and Fairfax are working very hard for one another

.

.

Government sprung on SOE sale plan!!

.

Full Story

.

As well as trying to “quietly” drop all references to Treaty obligations, under Section 9 of the SOE Act 1986 – something guaranteed to buy a fight with their coalition partner, the Maori Party –  there are other  revelatory aspects  of the draft Treasury document that should  also be a matter of considerable concern.

.

[1]

The Government’s mixed ownership model

Intitial public offerings (IPOs)

An initial public offering, or share float as they are often called, is a way of selling some or all of a  company to a large number of investors. Shares in the company are offered for sale to retail investors (individuals, sometimes referred to as “mums and dads”) through an advertising campaign to the public and through shareholders.Source

.

[2]

Intitial public offerings (IPOs)

Once a minority shareholding in each company is sold, the government proposes that the company will be governed in the same way as other listed companies and that they will be subject to the Companies Act 1993 and other relevant legislation, the NZX listing rules and the companies’ constitutions.  The crown will not reserve any special rights  to itself, except that it is still to decide whether it will a have any special power to approve the chairman of the Board, as it has for Air New Zealand.” Source

.

With regards to Paragraph 1, above, it is interesting that the Treasury report refers to “retail investors (individuals, sometimes referred to as “mums and dads”)“. In effect, it is a ‘slip’ on Treasury’s part, acknowledging the reality that “mum and dad investors” is simply propaganda “code” (newspeak) for common, garden-variety, investors.

There is nothing “mum and dad-ish” about corporate share-brokers working on behalf of investment companies.

Government uses the term “mum and dad investors” to hide the reality that shares in part-privatised SOEs will be purchased by individuals in dapper suits and silk ties, operating  out of very nice offices, on behalf of Very Big Corporate Clients.

Government myth: busted.

Paragraph 2, above, is even more insidious and refers to, “Once a minority shareholding in each company is sold, the government proposes that the company will be governed in the same way as other listed companies and that they will be subject to the Companies Act 1993 and other relevant legislation…” and furthermoremore, “The crown will not reserve any special rights  to itself…”.

In effect, once partially-privatised, the Government intends that none of  the entire State Owned Enterprise will  be governed by the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986. (Not just the privatised 49% part.)

Specifically, Section 4 of the Act,

.

 Principal objective to be successful business
  • (1) The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and, to this end, to be—

    • (a) as profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown; and

    • (b) a good employer; and

    • (c) an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.

    (2) For the purposes of this section, a good employer is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment, including provisions requiring—

    • (a) good and safe working conditions; and

    • (b) an equal opportunities employment programme; and

    • (c) the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment; and

    • (d) opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees.

.

And most specifically, this part of  it’s Principal Objectives,

.

“…an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.”

.

Any committment to promoting clean, sustainable energy; considering the needs of the community in it’s activities; and other social responsibilities will all vanish if  the SOEs concerned are “ governed in the same way as other listed companies and that they will be subject to the Companies Act 1993 and other relevant legislation… [and] …the crown will not reserve any special rights  to itself…”

.

In the case of Genesis Energy, Mighty River Power, and Meridian Energy – their sole objective will be to make greater profits for government and private share-holders.

Those profits will be generated by raising power prices.

Guess who pays those higher power prices? (Clue: look in the mirror.)

Right about now, any person reading this who voted for National last year must be entertaining serious regrets at ticking “National” for the Party Vote. Those folk who voted for National – and conversely, those who failed to go out and vote for an alternative Party opposed to asset sales – must be wondering if they will end up paying for their voting choices.

Of course they will  pay for voting National.

Every month. When their power bill comes in.

.

.

Additional

NZ Herald: Asset sale draft plan internet blunder

.

.

Politics through a crystal ball, palmistry, or chicken entrails?

2 September 2011 2 comments

In a somewhat weak attempt to allay fears over National’s stated intention to partially-privatise several state assets, Bill English has stated that he “believes only 10 to 15 per cent will initially go to overseas buyers”.

However, tellingly, National refuses to actually pass any legislation to prevent this from happening;

 

National says it will “cap” single investor’s holding to 10%.

But National refuses to explain how it will engineer  this “cap”.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a corporation could easily employ five “shelf companies“, each buying a block of 10% of the shares. These “dummy” companies would  each own a block of shares – in name only. The parent company – owning each dummy company – would be the real owner.

Result: a foreign corporation owning a sizeable chunk of each SOE.

Case in point:  Contact Energy.

 

 

In 1996, Contact Energy was split of from it’s parent SOE,  Electricity Corporation of New Zealand and fully privatised in 1999 as part of the then-National Government’s plan to “reform” the energy sector and make it more “competitive”. Energy Minister, Max Bradford,. assured New Zealand that the splitting up of ECNZ, and privatisation of Contact Energy, would introduce competition and drive prices down.

The opposite actually occurred and power prices doubled during the following decade.

When Contact Energy was privatised in 1999, 40% of the publicly offered shares were purchased by Edison Mission Energy. That 40% was subsequently increased to 51%.   Edison Mission started with a minority shareholding – which was soon increased to a majority sharehold.  (Starting to sound familiar?)

In 2004, Edison Mission sold it’s 51% stake to Australian company, Origin Energy.

Furthermore,

“The terms of this float were such that sharebrokers earned a greater commission from issuing shares to overseas shareholders than they did from issuing them to local shareholders. Many of the shares went to shareholders overseas (Gaynor, 1999). After the float, Gaynor assessed Contact as about 62% overseas owned.” Source

In reality, despite “assuring noises” made by Bill English and John Key, there is no way to prevent much of the proposed 49% sell-off of the SOEs, from falling into foreign ownership. This will not help New Zealand’s balance of payments, as profits are repatriated overseas, to offshore investors. It will mean that our most critically strategic assets will have owners who have no interest in New Zealand, except as a source of profits.

And importantly, we will lose approximately half of the profits made by these SOEs.

In 1999, Max Bradford promised New Zealanders that power prices would be “driven down” by competition.

That promise failed to materialise.

 

Garrick Tremain cartoon, Otago Daily Times, circa 1998/99

 

This year, English and Key promise that “only 10% to 15%” of shares will go to overseas investors.

Do we believe them sufficiently to “tick National” at this year’s general election?

I certainly will not.

***

***

 

 

Further Reading:

Molly Melhuish

New Zealand Electricity Authority

Energy and Resources (New Zealand Government, portfolio website)

Max Bradford

Contact Energy

Electricity sector in New Zealand

National – as fiscally prudent as a heroin addict?

John Key today announced that the proceeds from state asset sales could be used for roading…

Now hang on a mo’…

I thought National was intending to part-privatise Meridian Energy, Genesis Energy, Mighty River Power, coal miner Solid Energy, and Air New Zealand to pay off some of the $71 billion debt that National has racked up since it came to office in 2008?!

Now Key is suggesting that National may use the proceeds to pay for roading? Strangely enough, Key makes no mention of selling state assets to fund infra-structure here.

The questions that spring to my mind are;

1. Where is the income from Road User charges, gst on fuel, and other roading-related taxes that we are paying every time we fill up our vehicles at the pumps???

2. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use the profits from Meridian Energy, Genesis Energy, Mighty River Power, coal miner Solid Energy, and Air New Zealand, for infra-structure spending – rather han the actual generators of those profits???

3. If National has to rely on asset sales for infra-structure spending – what will they be relying on once all state assets are privatised and we’ve lost the entire income-stream???

This is like a heroin addict selling his car to pay for his next ‘fix’. What will he sell next? And what will he do once all his possessions are gone?

It’s not exactly a “good look” when a government behaves like a drug addict.

As for the good people of Kapiti – they got the government they voted for. It’s hard for me to feel any sympathy on this issue. My thoughts are with the 140 people who lost their jobs at MAF today. Or the thousands of others who’ve been made redundant these last three years.

My anger is directed at those individuals who blame welfare beneficiaries for the predicament they are in. The finger-pointers who blame the poorest and most vulnerable for daring to be poor and vulnerable.

To the people of Kapiti; you helped elect this government to office. You now have a wee taste of what it feels like to be steam-rolled and to be victimised.

Remember this on 26 November.