Nation united rejecting Govt sales pitch

Faced with mounting opposition to the sale of state-owned assets, John Key's government seems to be following the tactics of US politicos to downplay the matter, denigrate the opposition and, if necessary, shoot the messenger. Anything to obscure debate.

The High Court's overturning the sale of the Crafar Farms made it more necessary to throw up the fairy dust as the court's citation of added value as a standard casts a shadow of doubt over those asset sales as well.

If we really debate on the basis of whether those sales of land or state-owned power companies is good for New Zealand - actually adds to the country, its economy and social life - it may generate a lot of discomfort for Mr Key.

It highlights National's policies of playing Robin Hood in reverse, redistributing wealth upwards and costs downwards - crony capitalism. Privatise power companies and the profits, then watch as electricity costs soar. Share-owners keepers, users weepers.

Locally, MP Chester Borrows, enlisted as a foot soldier on a campaign of disinformation called "talking points".

While I congratulated him on the civility with which he campaigned for office, once installed he seems to have fallen back to the political derisiveness.

I'm referring to his column of February 8, in which he refers to the Occupy Aotea people as a rent-a-mob. While Mr Borrows is entitled to disagree with the aims of that protest - originally to highlight the growing social and economic inequality - his pejorative name-calling implies a group without scruples willing to become involved with anything, especially for money.

Mr Borrows also took a gratuitous swipe at the last Labour Prime Minister for her unwillingness to attend a Waitangi Day celebration at TeTii Marae following the rudeness with which she had been greeted by Titewhai Harawira. Chester Borrows has spun that incident into a wholly inappropriate contrast with John Key's fronting up there this year, as if that represented accountability in the face of the controversy over asset sales and the attempt of National to remove Section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act.

Chester Borrows claims that the privatising of those four power companies, Mighty River, Solid Energy, Meridian and Genesis, would be encumbered if deference had to be given to Section 9.

While his snarky minimising of the issue by referring to it as "an itch that had to be scratched" helps to cloud the debate, his further description of the sale of shares with the retention of Section 9 as placing an unduly onerous burden on private shareholders is unacceptably misleading: "The sale of, say, $5000 of shares by a mum-and-dad shareholder to another mum-and-dad shareholder would require consultation with Maori".

I can't claim expertise in share selling, but I do have a friend who manages a branch of Merrill Lynch, and when I passed that over he had a good laugh about it. But aside from the fact that most shares are not homely personal transactions between so-called mum-and-dad shareholders but impersonal market transactions, the actual burden falls on the Government. Section 9 of SOE Act obligates the Government, not individual shareholders, to take into account the Treaty of Waitangi.

That is where the consultation with Maori takes place. And if Maori have a legitimate argument against the privatising of those assets, then Section 9 obligates the government to take that into account and not to attempt to avoid the problem or minimise its importance.

There may be some legitimate arguments to be made favouring the sale of the state assets, but thus far Chester Borrows and his leader have been unconvincing at nearly every level.

And right now, three-quarters of New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori, oppose those sales.

The Government seems to have found a new way to unify the country - against its policies.