NZ | Politics Thread

[Richard7666]

Originally Posted by Sukkiri

By the time this happens, when people consider it a tax burden rather than cost cutting, a different party will be in power and it will be their mess. Typical political game really. Just as a side note, New Zealand's national security is a joke at the moment, a few warbirds, frigates, etc. The only thing going for it is the SAS. When the British invaded Zanzibar, it was considered one of the quickest defeats in history, around 30 minutes. Who knows if a future invasion of New Zealand will beat this record, but there is still Australia for backup.

Our national security is adequate. We're perfectly secure. What's the point in wasting taxpayer money on things we'll never use, ie fighters? You really don't need F-18s to subdue unruly Pacific Island mobs armed with machetes and the occasional rifle or petrol bomb. The NZ military's main role is to do feel-goody stuff in third-world countries and our own backyard, as well as provide manpower for disaster relief really (though I'd feel safer being rescued by real firemen from a floodzone or something I have to say, but quantity over quality in times like that I guess). As for Australia for backup, the question ins't who's going to defend us, but who's going to attack us? Fiji?

[KLK]

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

Can someone explain to me, what is John Key's logic in selling the army bases only to lease them back? Other than making a short term profit..

Don't claim to know exactly why, but it could be for a number of reasons. For instance, the taxpayer burden on annual lease payments might be less than the current burden on maintenance of existing, ageing machinery. So the money from the sale of the land could be put towards new machinery, drastically reducing upkeep costs. In the long run, it might be to the advantage of the taxpayer.

Its quite common for private companies to sell property they own and take back a long term lease - though its usually for tax purposes.

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

Not only are they vital infrastructure needed for national security, it will be a burden on the NZ taxpayer in the long term.

As I say, the burden might actually be less. However, I think its questionable whether the land is "vital infrastructure". Its land and buildings that are being sold, with the use being retained (it would probably be a 99yr lease or something). The use of the base remains as does the weaponry, intelligence, machinery etc....

Its important to note that what is being advocated is an asset sale - nothing more, nothing less. Its not "privatisation" of the defence force.

[KLK]

Originally Posted by jarbury

Yes I have never quite understood why neoliberals are so keen on selling stuff all the time, even if it's profitable. Like the OECD report saying we should sell the power companies... I mean wtf? These companies make massive profits each year, why shouldn't the tax-payer benefit from those profits rather than some (inevitably overseas owned) private company? One would think it reduces the need to rely upon higher taxation to provide services.... lower taxes, one would think would be something right-wingers would advocate for.

Doesn't make sense to me.

In a nutshell, its whether the NZ consumer benefits more from the profits the company makes thats reinvested back into the economy, or whether they would be better off with the benefits (lower prices, better services) that privatisation and competition brings.

There are pros and cons on both sides of the argument.

[jarbury]

Originally Posted by KLK

In a nutshell, its whether the NZ consumer benefits more from the profits the company makes thats reinvested back into the economy, or whether they would be better off with the benefits (lower prices, better services) that privatisation and competition brings.

There are pros and cons on both sides of the argument.

One word should do in response to that:

Telecom

[KLK]

Originally Posted by jarbury

One word should do in response to that:

Telecom

Slightly different in that telecom was a monopoly. You were never going to get the price benefits of competition, not initially anyway.

And if we are are honest, telecom is a better service than when it was state owned. It might not seem that way sometimes I admit....

[Svartmetall]

I think the biggest problem with telecommunications now is that there is very little accountability for actions. Even if you change your provider, everything still has to go through Telecom and so they still pull all the strings.

This is changing though and all I can say to that is - roll on!

[whizz_pat]

Originally Posted by KLK

Don't claim to know exactly why, but it could be for a number of reasons. For instance, the taxpayer burden on annual lease payments might be less than the current burden on maintenance of existing, ageing machinery. So the money from the sale of the land could be put towards new machinery, drastically reducing upkeep costs. In the long run, it might be to the advantage of the taxpayer.

Good point, never thought of that. But don't you think that there is a better way to find funding for upgrading machinery, rather selling the land?

I see that selling the land will free up some capital for investing in machinery, saving money in the long run, but couldn't you save more money by keeping the land and upgrading the equipment anyway?

[KLK]

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

Good point, never thought of that. But don't you think that there is a better way to find funding for upgrading machinery, rather selling the land?

I see that selling the land will free up some capital for investing in machinery, saving money in the long run, but couldn't you save more money by keeping the land and upgrading the equipment anyway?

Possibly. As I say, it was just a thought. Perhaps the upkeep of the property is very expensive, perhaps they have a massive rates bill (if they indeed pay it). Perhaps there are planning restrictions on the land so it isn't overly valuable from a residential property perspective, so they could negotiate a cheap lease long term. Perhaps that with a downsizing in some areas (e.g. air combat wing) there is a mass of land that is not, and is not likely to ever, to be needed again, so we might as well sell it. Could be any number of things.

I think its fair to say they aren't selling it just for the sake of it.

[jarbury]

What I don't understand is if you get another company to own the land and lease it back to you they need to make a profit on that operation. So, by definition, if they're making a profit then you're probably paying more than before?

[KLK]

Originally Posted by jarbury

What I don't understand is if you get another company to own the land and lease it back to you they need to make a profit on that operation. So, by definition, if they're making a profit then you're probably paying more than before?

But what is their "profit"? Are they in it for as much cashflow as possible (high lease payments)? Or are they looking at long-term capital gain? (potentially lower charges to secure a long term tenant)?

They might take the money from the sale and even taking into account higher land costs going forward (now in lease payments) the return they get on that money invested somewhere else might mean they are better off?

Its difficult to say on so little info. So many potential reasons. I don't think its a great neo-liberal conspiracy though. Its an asset sale. And as I say, sale and leaseback agreements are common place in the commercial world.

[Sukkiri]

Originally Posted by Richard7666

Our national security is adequate. We're perfectly secure. What's the point in wasting taxpayer money on things we'll never use, ie fighters? You really don't need F-18s to subdue unruly Pacific Island mobs armed with machetes and the occasional rifle or petrol bomb. The NZ military's main role is to do feel-goody stuff in third-world countries and our own backyard, as well as provide manpower for disaster relief really (though I'd feel safer being rescued by real firemen from a floodzone or something I have to say, but quantity over quality in times like that I guess). As for Australia for backup, the question ins't who's going to defend us, but who's going to attack us? Fiji?

I agree, what is the point of wasting taxpayers money, especially on restoring 50 year old frigates which can only fire soot. Perhaps I expressed my opinion wrongly. I did have the idea that some of our civilian airports can be shared with airforce activities (which can be seen in many cities throughout the world). And considering that NZ's airforce is largely built up by transport planes such as the 757s and the Hurcules these would be handled fairly easily at, say, Hamilton Airport. Who knows anyway, just a suggestion. Australia is sufficient enough for back up and the Americans would always help, bearing in mind the fact that NZ is a major non-NATO ally.

[Milan Luka]

National still miles ahead. But then, anything can happen over the next 2.5 years.

National 52%
Labour 31%
Greens 7%
Maori Party 3%
ACT 2%
NZ First 2%
United First 1%

Preferred Prime Minister:

John Key 51%
Phil Goff 9%

[jarbury]

Yeah National are still way ahead. Strange that Labour are polling at 31% yet Goff's prefered Prime Minister polling is so low. What are the other Labour supporters saying - Helen Clark?

[Milan Luka]

Apparently Helen Clark is still polling at 10 % in the preferred PM stakes.

It shows just how without direction the left are at the moment. Perfect time for someone in the ranks to start thinking about making a move for the leadership of the party. A takeover should be expected around the start of the new year?

My bet is on David Cunliffe:

[Svartmetall]

Phil Goff, though a very intelligent and competent minister is no leader - there is absolutely no chance of a cult of personality forming about this guy.

If Labour truly want to win (or even dent National's majority) then they seriously need to sit up and take note of statistics like that. Even on the most inaccurate poll ever conducted, a 9% preference for the party leader ascending to power is a wake-up call of nuclear proportions.

[cambennett]

Agree there. Goff is an experienced and competent operator but he's also a charisma free zone.

[DML2]

Goff should remain the leader of Labour

[jarbury]

I am suspicious of your motives DML2

[DML2]

Haha not even to put people off, I just think he's the most capable person in the party. Plus he's waited long enough

[jarbury]

He is capable, but seems to fall into the same trap that Russel Norman does at times. That is, you know what he's going to say before he says it, and he kind of sounds like a press-release with a head attached.