Kiwibank ownership changed

NZ Post has sold nearly half of it’s shares in Kiwibank to two other Crown entities, the Super Fund and ACC.

The NZ Super Fund and the Accident Compensation Corporation’s purchase of minority stakes in Kiwibank has been welcomed by Finance Minister Bill English and State Owned Enterprises Minister Todd McClay.

“The deal keeps Kiwibank in public ownership and gives the bank access to additional sources of capital,” Mr English says.

“It also returns a dividend of about $200 million to the Government which can be used for other high priorities.”

Under the terms of the deal, NZ Post has sold a 25% shareholding in Kiwibank to the Super Fund and a 22% shareholding to ACC. The remaining Kiwibank shares are retained by NZ Post.  NZ Post, the NZ Super Fund and ACC are all owned by the Crown.

Mr McClay says the deal recognises that the business operations of NZ Post and Kiwibank are at very different stages of development.

“The transaction will result in a greater separation of NZ Post’s and Kiwibank’s operations and will allow the boards and management of both businesses to focus on their respective markets.”

Green co-leader James Shaw responded:

The privatisation of Kiwibank starts today with a 47% sale to ACC and Super Fund.

would have invested $100 million directly in Kiwibank meaning we’d still own it in 5, 10, 20 years’ time…

Who owns Whale Oil?

There’s been curious goings on at Whale Oil over the last year, particularly involving finances and the role of Peter Belt.

Belt took over management, and has often been involved in seeking donations and running fundraising schemes involving merchandising directly or via Trade Me.

Belt also launched a purge of commenters for often seemingly trivial and sometimes ridiculous things. This abated  when the blog activities stalled somewhat, but many people have deserted even when offered ban amnesties.

So there has been speculation about exactly what degree of involvement Belt had in Whale Oil. His wage seems to be on the line but is there more he has at stake?

Today on a grizzle post Apparently all of you are “nutjobs and losers”

 The Rural News column “The Hound” thinks all of the readers of this site are “nutjobs and losers”.

…was this wee conversation (the Pete is Pete Belt):


Nothing was asked about it on General Debate.

Take from that whatever you like.

But it seems an odd thing for an employee to say, even in jest.

Who thought they owned power assets?

I’ve never felt like I’ve owned any power assets.

I’ve driven past the Clyde and Roxburgh dams many times. I’ve worked in both locations (IT training). I never felt like I have any ownership stake in them, before or while they were a State Owned Asset, and obviously not after they were sold to private interests.

Every time I see a line of power pylons I see them as a blot on the landscape, and never as something I have any ownership of.

If I see a car wrapped around a power pole I never feel that it has anything to do with me.

I’m a consumer of power. Whoever I pay for the power I use is chosen based on price (mainly) and service may be a consideration. Who owns the generators, lines companies and retailers never enters my head.

So I’m really puzzled by people who claim ownership now. It seems to have become a bit of a common thing to do, alongside grizzling about not wanting to buy shares in what ‘they already own’.

When Mighty River Power is part floated on the share market I may buy some shares as an investment, depending on the price, then package and what I feel about earnings potential and asset growth.

I don’t care about claims of prior ownership, that means nothing to me.

Those who can’t buy shares or don’t want to buy shares will see no change. Unless they buy into the delusion that somehow they owned something and it’s been taken away from them.

A delusion promoted by opposition parties, who seem deluded in thinking that the more they oppose things the bigger they will be seen as opposition. But all I see is opponents opposing things, and misleading people to oppose with them.

When after the share shave been sold and people see that nothing has perceptibly changed, except for those that now have a different investment, will they go on to oppose something else with then opposition? Stuck in a negative cycle?

Or look for something positive to get in behind?

Leaders on water ownership

John Key (National)

“The Government’s very firm view is that no-one owns water: we certainly don’t believe Maori own water; we don’t believe they own the airways, air or sea.”

David Shearer (Labour):

“Nobody owns water. We pay for water rights to use water, whether it be for irrigation or hydroelectricity or whatever,” he says—Labour/tabid/418/articleID/260890/Default.aspx

Pita Sharples (Maori Party)

“In one sense Maori own the water because of our whakapapa, our relationship with the environment, the forests, the mountains […] it’s part of our genealogy to be connected and our concept of ownership is not exclusive, it does not cut anyone else of ownership, it’s an obligation to use and look after,” he says.

Dr Sharples says the Government has regulatory ownership of land, “so in some ways the Government acts like the owner” and says disputes about ownership have a wide-ranging definition.
(to get a better understanding it’s worth listening to the whole interview)

Peter Dunne (United Future)

Maori freshwater claims beg question of who owns the rain? Water and air belong to all of us, equally and indivisibly.

See also: Who owns the rain?

Green Party (policy)

We would keep key decisions about urban water supply, assets and operations under the control of elected bodies and protect New Zealanders’ right to access a safe and secure supply of high quality, affordable water for drinking and sanitation.

(More to add as they are found)

Who owns the rain?

Peter Dunne addresses this on Twitter:

Maori freshwater claims beg question of who owns the rain? Water and air belong to all of us, equally and indivisibly.

In a seemingly conciliatory interview on Firstline this morning Pita Sharples seemed to be suggesting something similar (not online yet).

The issue of who owns water is not new. From Dunne:

“They say what comes around goes around. Here is a comment I made in March 2007 on this very issue:”


United Future leader Peter Dunne says that claims by Maori Party that Maori have customary rights over fresh water go beyond what is acceptable to most Kiwis.

“The Maori Party appears to be asserting Maori rights to all New Zealand’s natural resources, the things we have in common.

“That will be a step too far for most New Zealanders.

“The fresh water claim simply begs the question, ‘Who owns the rain?’, and shows the absurdity of the position being adopted,” he says.

Mr Dunne says the fresh water argument raises again the concept of public domain which United Future tried unsuccessfully to have included in the original Foreshore and Seabed Act.

“Natural resources like air and water belong to all New Zealanders, and it is the Crown’s responsibility to exercise that ownership equally and fairly on our behalf,” he says.

“I would say the same thing today.”