It is therefore surprising and a bit gutsy for the Key government to go to the election on 26 November with a promise of partial privatisations of five state owned companies. This has unleashed the usual hysterical fear mongering about ‘it makes no economic sense’ to sell off assets the government is profiting from, and that ‘prices will inevitably rise’ under private ownership. There has even been conspiratorial commentary that treasury is setting the agenda. How 1980s.
The fact is that the government’s assets have substantially grown over the past decade and a half, and, from over $50 billion worth of state-owned enterprises it now owns, the return to government has been a pitiful 2% annually. Not exactly stellar returns from substantial capital.
Having said that, the partial privatisation model itself is a little odd, and there is active argument over whether it really does amount to privatisation in the sense traditionally understood. The proposal being taken to the election is that 49% of about 5 companies will be floated. The government thus keeps control, while increasing the capital base and introducing more private sector disciplines.
For all purposes, assets floated will still be publicly controlled assets. Although you wouldn’t think it based on the shrill soviet-style denunciations about flogging off the family silver!
The great irony of this partial privatisation approach is that it seems to be more driven by ideology than economics. This is because unlike full privatisation, there is little evidence that partial sales really reap many efficiency gains or are a better use of capital, except at the margins. It may be better than the current situation, but is it sufficiently better to justify the changes?
Governments should always be looking to privatise assets if in the public interest, and the sentiment behind these partial sales is to be applauded.
But the nagging question for the Key government should be this: Are the proposed changes really worth the bother?
Luke Malpass is New Zealand Policy Analyst with The Centre for Independent Studies at www.cis.org.au.
2 comments:
The vast clean out and restructuring of the generators in the 80's and subsequent years was intended to minimise operating costs thus increasing the returns to the owners. (taxpayers) I fail to see how selling generating assets to the private sector will have any long term benefit, apart from for the buyers or shareholders. Purely ideology driven.
In addition, I understood that any state asset listed for sale would first be offered to the original landowners ie Maori corporates. Come to think of it, they are probably the only onshore outfits with enough cash anyway.
I bought Contact shares. They are in free fall. Shares don't make money, investment housing does and you can control your own investment. Everyone. Without an investment home will hate you. They are worried in years to come you will have more than they will have. The fact you are providing housing, saving tax dollars that can be used on other things, some weeks your rent is not forthcoming from tenant, some times untold damage is done, is beside the point. According to some you should be charged a capital gains tax just in case you end up making some money on your investment. I believe it is called Tall Poppy Syndrome.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.