Seminar: Are There Any New Arguments for Privatisation? - Wellington

How NZ is being softened up for another round of privatisation - a Fabian Society seminar, with Dr Bill Rosenberg and Fraser Carson of FRESCO

The tom-toms are beating loud and clear for another onslaught of privatisation if National wins the next election. We’re hearing why it’s rational, common-sense, good for mums and dads, good for investors, good for the country, won’t be like last time, will be the saviour of our capital markets and so on and so on.

Treasury’s already producing advice to the government on how to ‘sell’ it to the public.

Crucial infrastructural assets were sold off and stripped last time.  This time the low fruit is in local government and state owned enterprises.

Don’t miss this Wellington seminar on how the messages will be framed to sell Privatisation Mark II.

This free seminar will be held at Connolly Hall, Guildford Terrace, off Hill Street 
5:30 to 7:30pm on Wednesday 6th October. You can register here.

 

Comments   

 
#5 Guest 2010-10-04 20:48
Telecom, NZRail, etc are uncontroversial?

I'm struggling to understand how you get to that point, unless this statement based on pure numbers of assets, without taking any value measure into account.

In which case I'm sure you can scrape together enough tiny functions that have been privatized to outweigh the big failures, but I'm not seeing the point.

Feel free to elaborate on the benefits to New Zealanders that have come about as a result of privatization so I can leave that strawman in the wind.

Your link listed the diversification efforts of the SOEs in collapsing markets as toxic, but didn't really shine any light.
Quote
 
 
#4 Guest 2010-09-21 20:38
Happy to hear a case by case FOR sales, but not the reverse - a case by case for NOT selling. For utilities, natural monopolies, or SOE's preventing monopolies this will never stack up.

Most privatisations have been opaque & against NZ's interests -sweetheart deals resulting in windfall profits and ongoing monopoly rentals, blowing out our invisibles and bringing no NEW investment.
Quote
 
 
+1 #3 Guest 2010-09-20 06:06
I'll stick with my call for a case by case evaluation of sales. If there are "economic and social roles" that need to be considered, let's hear them.

But I think those arguments become a bit of a stretch when you consider government holdings in farms,courier companies, valuers, a web hosting company ...

I'd add power companies in there too. If there are social and economic concerns, they don't have to be addressed by the government owning the business.
Quote
 
 
+1 #2 Guest 2010-09-20 03:59
In terms of framing, what you link to is really problematic.

Characterising the likes of the energy companies as just 'businesses' is disingenuous. As utilities they have a core economic and social role that is incompatible with the extraction of a state-licenced monopoly (or cartel) rental. When you consider the damage done by Telecom or the financial sector over recent decades, why would you want to do the same with power or water?
Quote
 
 
+1 #1 Guest 2010-09-19 22:42
I don't like the way this debate has been framed as an "all or nothing".

Should all state businesses be sold - no way and only a fringe group are calling for this.

Should nothing be sold - I don't think so. For sure privatisation has had some bad press (but so has govt ownership). Most of what was sold in previous 'rounds' is now uncontroversial . I reckon we should have a case by case look at what should or shouldn't be sold.

Check out more of my thoughts here - http://bit.ly/aAuqQX
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Additional information