State assets, New Zealand land and Chinese ownership.

State assets, New Zealand land and Chinese ownership.

In what other areas is the National Party letting the country down?

Although Finance Minister Bill English previously attempted to dampen down  nationwide anger over asset sales by assuring the country that priority would be given to New Zealanders to have first rights to the shares in state assets floated by the government, we now find that this is completely untrue.

There will be no legal requirement for this to occur, although the National Party promised it would put Kiwi investors “at the front of the queue.” Similarly, it also promised to maintain majority control and to restrict individual ownership to no more than 10% shareholding. Are we really surprised that Prime Minister John Key now says that legislation is not needed to guarantee this…. We are apparently expected to take on trust that it is not necessary. And this from a Prime Minister who has in the past been economical with the truth.

We already have the example of Key’s denying knowledge of the buying of government limousines, although it was later proved that his office was aware this was being done. He eventually apologised, calling the deal “sloppy” -one of those evasive words which don’t address the real issue. Prime Minister’s credibility was also called into question when he quoted Standard and Poor’s saying at a meeting that there was a change of government, downgrade would be much more likely. The agency denied this – once more calling John Key’s credibility into question.

Similarly – on the issue of selling to others or“privatising” assets which previous generations of New Zealanders as well as today’s have worked and paid for, Finance Minister Bill English is having to front up for the National government’s admission that the savings after the sale of the State-Owned Enterprises will be less than what it would have gained from dividends and retained earnings, if it kept them. The trade-off is reportedly the loss of an estimated $200 million in dividends by 2016 and the loss of $360 million, forecast for forgone profits in the same year. In other words although the fiscal impact of selling a partial stake in the SOEs  is a temporary reduction in net debt, the government’s operating balance in future will also be smaller because of forgone profits.

This basic irrationality, what many see as madness in such shortfalls in thinking raises the question “Cui bono?” Who ultimately will profit from flogging off the family silver? The answer is usually follow the money… and many will suspect that given the utter corruption at the top  of the American finance system –  shown in the DVD Inside Job  – it is no surprise that the safeguards formerly promised to New Zealanders, pre-election,  in relation to our maintaining majority control restriction – on individual ownership – have long gone out the window. The question is not invalid – who is pulling our strings?

Moreover, the incredible situation of seriously considering allowing Hong Kong- fronted Chinese investment companies (none of which operate without the over-sight of if not actual investment by the Communist Chinese government) to buy actual land in  New Zealand takes on an even more troubling aspect when we learn from the Overseas Investment Office Manager, Annelies McClure, that “the office had considered only the positives when weighing up whether Pengxin’s $20 million offer had ‘significant benefits’.  Apparently the OIO is not allowed to take detriments into account.

 How many New Zealanders are aware of this…that the OIO’s mandate is deliberately restricted to considering the benefits only of any foreign investment – and to ignoring any possibly even considerable detriments resulting from any such investments?

Not only is this highly dubious NZ government policy, but it is one well overdue for review, on rational grounds alone.

For Maurice Williamson to say that the government has no intention of revisiting the legislation… because “this might introduce some uncertainty,” is simply not acceptable.

If “uncertainty” means that those applying under the act can no longer count on their application being almost invariably granted, then, from the point of view of New Zealanders’ best interests, it is about time that a degree of uncertainty is introduced.

Not only have we had enough of special committees, departments, boards of enquiry etc. c being set up to consider issues with their frameworks deliberately restricted, and no mandate to consider aspects crucial to get to the real truth of things, but it was the anti-American, pro-Chinese Prime Minister Helen Clark with her strongly held Left-leanings who foisted off this legislation on the country. In the words of a highly intelligent barrister – “Dogma dominates thought: as ever.”

Meanwhile, an aggressive and territorially ambitious China is making its way down the Pacific, having already entrapped Tonga with a $54 million loan which this small nation, already arguably too well supported by the New Zealand taxpayer, is preparing to default on. What is going to be the quid pro quo, and who is going to carry the can for Tongan political corruption?

It is time that politicians should be made answerable for the ongoing damage that so many of them have inflicted on this once prosperous and safer country where the boast was that it was a wonderful place to bring up children.

The days of the basically far happier 50s, much despised by the liberal opinion makers and media talkfest celebrities,  have long gone –  and with them too many fine New Zealanders of all ethnicities, many of whom are leaving simply for a less socially and economically stressed lifestyle than  now. Every profession and every trade is being swamped in compliance costs, paperwork rules and regulations as a direct consequence of the now never-ending political interference in every aspect not only of our business but now of our family lives. The consequences include New Zealanders now having to put up with more and more problematic situations as a result of government incompetence – and simple venality.

 Nick Smith isn’t the  only National Party member to have fallen into line as soon as John Key – with his eye on very probably well-planned directions after looming Parliamentary death – decides which decisions would best further his career in line  – with the anti-the West UN politburo towards which he may well be gravitating.

The  shocking non-disclosure of the crafty Pita Sharples’ visit to the United Nations to endorse the legislation concerning The Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples falls into place, when nothing else can explain it. This activist initiative, with its controversial implications, should have been put to the whole country.

The Swiss, with their respect for democratic principles and practice would never have put up with it – with good reason….another instance of why we need to bring home to New Zealanders the fact that the only real way  to control politicians is our 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement – .

Not only is this achievable, but it is now a very obvious necessity to provide a safeguard for the country against the ambitions of, and for protection against those politicians with their own agenda. Why not support us? !

© Amy Brooke