According to some experts, one’s amygdala is quite influential to the point it will out compete the more logical and factual foci in the brain.
That is why having a public discussion on privatisation is difficult. There is a heap of amygdala out there that twitch and fly into overdrive as soon as the ‘P' word is mentioned. They do not want facts, examples, logic or reasoning. Engaging them is a treacherous undertaking. The amygdala sifts out a raft of highly charged, rather ungenteel adjectives, switches on the high-volume knob and over-lubricates the mouth ready for the fray.
It’s a pity really. New Zealand is almost on its knees, crying out for hot buttons that might improve our economic performance. We sorely need productivity gains, levers that will help create new and better paid jobs and a stronger sense of community and individual achievement and satisfaction. Resources and capital need to be in more efficient hands. Privatisation is a known, proven and successful measure that should be near the top of any political party’s ‘toolbox’.
I remember on the hustings in the Taranaki-King Country by election being asked for my reaction to privatising state-owned assets and turning the question around by suggesting towns like Stratford and Te Awamutu needed only one government-owned supermarket and one state-controlled restaurant because food is too critical to be in the hands of the private sector and multiple outlets were a waste of resources. We could see all manner of tragedies, I suggested – deaths and sicknesses, possible loss of services, excessive profits, more fat cats in the community, poor people starving, and more.
The looks on their faces said it all. “No way”, folk retorted. So, not very politely I said, “that’s what you demand for health, education, and a host of other community activities”.
“You want government to own and run a bunch of crucial activities because you say they are too important for the private sector, yet you let a very new immigrant own and manage a corner dairy where your kids buy their food essentials. Where is the rationalising of that?”
The frustrating angle for socialists and lovers of big, intrusive government is that the best run parts of our health services are privately owned and managed. The best quality education is delivered in private institutions. We trust a five-year-old going to a private kindy but go ballistic about a six-year-old not having publicly provided teaching. We happily let a pharmacist mix our all-important remedies and make profits, but we insist that our surgery is “free”, provided by the government.
The majority of the griping around the barbie or the bar is about government services – local and central – not those that private enterprise delivers. Road cones, scaffolding, hospital waiting times, poor exam results, city buses, planning decisions, are fair and legitimate game because, too often, they are badly run, monopolistic, expensive and out of date.
One concept that is underutilised is having the state contract out on a competitive basis such public services that the people decide are necessary for the community. A little of the best of both worlds.
Not all public, state-owned businesses are bad, and not all privately owned and managed services are good. It is simply true that on balance, self-interest, competition, private ownership ensures innovation, consumer driven pricing, high quality outcomes and happier consumers.
Yes, there are too many instances of privatisation that have been botched. They lend the statists reasons to polish their amygdala. Very tightly managed and transparent process is vital.
Too many politicians love controlling the levers. What would the Minister of State-Owned Enterprises do without the hundreds of farms that they own and manage? Jolly good for the odd visit, an interesting day away from the grind and some free lamb chops. Imagine going into Cabinet and asking for taxpayers’ funds, paid, in part by neighbouring profitable farmers, to cover the annual losses on those farms. Wouldn’t you feel a little sheepish?
What planet would a Minister of Finance have to be on to be borrowing money to pay interest on existing debt but be hanging onto very saleable, non-essential assets that also happen to run at a loss? It makes Alice in Wonderland look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
How does Mr Luxon square off kicking the can on a discussion on privatisation way down the road while begging for productivity gains, when his young wonder, “Mr Fixit” Simeon is contracting out hundreds of operations to private hospitals involving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars because they are quicker, more efficient and do just as an effective job?
Seriously, it seems the over-used amygdalas are those in National and NZ First.
It’s a pity really. New Zealand is almost on its knees, crying out for hot buttons that might improve our economic performance. We sorely need productivity gains, levers that will help create new and better paid jobs and a stronger sense of community and individual achievement and satisfaction. Resources and capital need to be in more efficient hands. Privatisation is a known, proven and successful measure that should be near the top of any political party’s ‘toolbox’.
I remember on the hustings in the Taranaki-King Country by election being asked for my reaction to privatising state-owned assets and turning the question around by suggesting towns like Stratford and Te Awamutu needed only one government-owned supermarket and one state-controlled restaurant because food is too critical to be in the hands of the private sector and multiple outlets were a waste of resources. We could see all manner of tragedies, I suggested – deaths and sicknesses, possible loss of services, excessive profits, more fat cats in the community, poor people starving, and more.
The looks on their faces said it all. “No way”, folk retorted. So, not very politely I said, “that’s what you demand for health, education, and a host of other community activities”.
“You want government to own and run a bunch of crucial activities because you say they are too important for the private sector, yet you let a very new immigrant own and manage a corner dairy where your kids buy their food essentials. Where is the rationalising of that?”
The frustrating angle for socialists and lovers of big, intrusive government is that the best run parts of our health services are privately owned and managed. The best quality education is delivered in private institutions. We trust a five-year-old going to a private kindy but go ballistic about a six-year-old not having publicly provided teaching. We happily let a pharmacist mix our all-important remedies and make profits, but we insist that our surgery is “free”, provided by the government.
The majority of the griping around the barbie or the bar is about government services – local and central – not those that private enterprise delivers. Road cones, scaffolding, hospital waiting times, poor exam results, city buses, planning decisions, are fair and legitimate game because, too often, they are badly run, monopolistic, expensive and out of date.
One concept that is underutilised is having the state contract out on a competitive basis such public services that the people decide are necessary for the community. A little of the best of both worlds.
Not all public, state-owned businesses are bad, and not all privately owned and managed services are good. It is simply true that on balance, self-interest, competition, private ownership ensures innovation, consumer driven pricing, high quality outcomes and happier consumers.
Yes, there are too many instances of privatisation that have been botched. They lend the statists reasons to polish their amygdala. Very tightly managed and transparent process is vital.
Too many politicians love controlling the levers. What would the Minister of State-Owned Enterprises do without the hundreds of farms that they own and manage? Jolly good for the odd visit, an interesting day away from the grind and some free lamb chops. Imagine going into Cabinet and asking for taxpayers’ funds, paid, in part by neighbouring profitable farmers, to cover the annual losses on those farms. Wouldn’t you feel a little sheepish?
What planet would a Minister of Finance have to be on to be borrowing money to pay interest on existing debt but be hanging onto very saleable, non-essential assets that also happen to run at a loss? It makes Alice in Wonderland look like the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
How does Mr Luxon square off kicking the can on a discussion on privatisation way down the road while begging for productivity gains, when his young wonder, “Mr Fixit” Simeon is contracting out hundreds of operations to private hospitals involving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars because they are quicker, more efficient and do just as an effective job?
Seriously, it seems the over-used amygdalas are those in National and NZ First.
Owen Jennings, a former Member of Parliament and President of Federated Farmers, maintains a keen interest in ensuring agricultural policies are sensible and fit for purpose. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment