Workers Party leaflet: Aotearoa Not For Sale - to local or foreign capitalists!

April 27, 2012

Workers Party members are actively supporting the “Aotearoa is not for sale” hīkoi. Indeed, we believe we need to go further than just keeping assets in public hands, we want to push forward for workers’ and users’ control of those assets.

Whilst a number of political parties have pledged their support for the campaign, we must be on guard that the campaign does not become side tracked by an excessively Parliamentary focus. The ongoing struggle of the Auckland wharfies against casualisation (the first step towards privatisation) shows the most effective way to oppose the government’s asset sales plan. The last thing capitalist investors want to deal with is a bolshy workforce. The campaign by Glen Innes residents against state housing sell-offs is another inspiring example.

We must also guard against the strong element of xenophobia around “foreign ownership”, particularly against Chinese ownership of NZ assets. We in the Workers Party are socialists and internationalists, and regard the arguments about “foreign ownership” as a dangerous distraction that threatens to undermine our struggle against privatisation. The problem is private capitalist ownership of public utilities, whether those capitalists are New Zealanders or “foreigners”.

Furthermore, there is a particularly nasty history of anti-Chinese racism in New Zealand, which dates to the development of immigration controls in this country. Immigration controls originated from a “White New Zealand Policy” that was initially concerned with keeping out Chinese people.

(For more information, see our pamphlet on Open Borders)

We support the actions of Ngāti Rereahu who occupied one of the Crafar farms in February, demanding the return of their ancestral whenua. But we would have supported the action regardless whether the land was in NZ private, “foreign” or Crown ownership.


Rising prices and privatisation: the need for people’s power

April 27, 2012

Ian Anderson

Rising power prices have made headlines in recent weeks, with hikes of up to 10% beginning on April Fool’s Day. These increases hit low-income workers the hardest, with prices rising 48% for domestic users between 2000 and 2010 – compared to only 9% for commercial users.

Power prices are also topical due to the government’s plans to further privatise power generation, already corporatised by the Fourth Labour Government. National plans to sell 49% of Mighty River Power to private investors, although some commentary suggests that the law will actually allow more shares to be sold, providing the extra shares do not carry voting rights. Bill English has flagged further privatisation of Genesis and Meridian Energy.

National’s plans are generating tensions with iwi, both with investors and flaxroots Maori. Hapu say their rights to use and protect waterways are eroded by sale to power companies, while iwi investors are concerned that they will lose out. Cabinet has indicated that Treaty grievances will not apply to private shareholders, and that if any shares are required for a Treaty settlement, the Crown will have to buy them at market rates. Surveys say 88% of Maori oppose asset sales, compared to 75% of the general population.

Right-wing commentators suggest that privatisation will drive down prices. However Tim Hunter, deputy business editor at Fairfax Media – hardly a communist – argues that power prices will only head upwards. Hunter asks, “which of these opposing forces will emerge victorious? The hunger for higher margins, or the restraint of competition?” To answer this, he points to two recent examples of increased competition; Powerswitch, a government initiative that successfully led to more consumers switching power companies, but had no overall impact on prices; and the deregulation of electricity in Victoria, which has led to 13 competing brands, 11 competing owners, and higher prices than New Zealand. Even as an investor who stands to benefit from privatisation, Hunter questions the prevailing myth about competition.

The Ombudsmen, independent parliamentary investigators, have also questioned the government narrative. During the election last year, the Ombudsmen found no evidence for National’s claim that assets would be 85-90% owned by Kiwi “mum and dad” investors, and of an anti-monopoly 10% cap on ownership by any one investor. More recently the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem, criticised the government’s plan to remove the companies from Official Information Act requirements: “They will carry on the same operations as they do presently which have significant scope to impact on individuals and communities and the environment. It’s not just about commercial interests, the impact of these companies goes much wider than that and all of those interests ought to be protected.”

In fact, we could apply the Ombudsmen’s logic to all capitalist operations: margins are placed before externalities, profit before people. Most commercial operations are spared the accountability of Official Information Act requests, because their bottom line is more important. This corrupt saga underlines the importance of public ownership, control and oversight.

A hikoi opposing asset sales, under the slogan “Aotearoa is Not For Sale,” will leave Auckland’s Britomart on April the 28th and reach parliament on May the 4th.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers