The public will get three more chances to pass judgment on the Government's asset sales despite Parliament being about to pass the enabling legislation. The first chance will be with our wallets when shares go on the market, and according to Herald on Sunday polling, nearly 60% of us would like to buy them - see: Most of us oppose selling NZ. Given the same poll also showed even more people oppose the sales in the first place it could be seen as contradictory, but as Green co-leader Metiria Turei commented: 'New Zealanders understand that these are shares in profitable, stable companies, but that is why they should stay in public ownership, not private ownership'. Or perhaps the poll figure simply indicates that the widespread opposition to partial privatisation just isn't felt very strongly.
The public's second chance to pass judgment on the asset sales policy will be in a possible citizens' initiated referendum. Russel Norman is claiming the CIR petition already has 100,000 of the 310,000 signatures required after only a couple of months. The Standard looks at how the Government could time a referendum to minimise the impact on the 2014 election, and concludes that late-2013 is the most likely date - see: Nats' pollster reveals asset sale plan.
The third chance will occur at the 2014 general election. Of course the Government would add that the public's most important chance to pass judgment was at the 2011 election when the policy was promoted and discussed. A blog post at the Standard disputes this claim, arguing that there were actually more votes for anti-asset sale parties than those advocating them (although the opponents ended up with one less seat in parliament) - see: About that mandate.
For the moment, the debate on privatisation continues. Today's Herald editorial argues that private input into the running of the companies will produce better results for the remaining public shareholding - see: Private stakes will ensure assets run well. But the Waikato Times acknowledges that energy analyst Molly Melhuish may have a point that it is power consumers who may pay the biggest price for the sales - see: Fair play over power prices. Arguably, the sales will deprive consumers from being able to 'vote' with their accounts by choosing the publicly owned companies that Melhuish claims charge on average 12% less than private companies.
A widespread and diverse spread of 'kiwi buyers' is so politically vital to the Government that they are willing to forgo millions in proceeds to ensure it, including a loyalty bonus scheme. A similar scheme in Queensland didn't work says Duncan Garner (see: Loyalty asset shares didn't work in Australia), and saw most investors ignore the bonus and sell for a quick profit. Such a scenario would be political disaster here as shares quickly accumulate into corporate hands and the Government would be accused of selling too cheaply.
