Parties across Parliament are staking out sharply different positions on whether the Government should retain ownership of companies like Air New Zealand or consider selling.
National
National's position on future asset sales is unclear post-election.
State Owned Enterprise Minister Simeon Brown said his party had been "very clear in terms of this government's position that we are not selling assets in this term of this government".
He pointed out that was part of National's coalition agreement with New Zealand First.
"Our focus, and my focus as Minister of SOEs, is to make sure we are maximizing the return for the taxpayer who owns these assets and make sure they're performing."
Late last year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon laid the groundwork for asset sales after the 2026 election if the National Party wins a second term.
Luxon said the country needed to have a sophisticated conversation about “asset recycling” or selling existing assets to help fund the purchase of newer ones.
“All I'm saying is there's a pool of capital, of cash, that can be deployed in different ways to get better returns for New Zealanders,” he said.
Labour
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said his party was not considering asset sales.
He said if National and ACT received another term "there won't be anything left to sell".
ACT
With the latest discussion spurring from ACT leader David Seymour's comments relating to Air New Zealand, Seymour said the point he has made "is that we should have a principle".
Following its $40 million half-year after-tax loss, Seymour said the carrier does "all this other politically motivated stuff, but they can't take off and land on time for a decent price. So there's no purpose. Maybe there's no reason.”
More recently, Seymour said; "It costs money for the government to own something. If we own a billion dollars of shares in an airline, that's a billion dollars of extra debt, we pay about 4% interest. That's $40 million a year that we're paying to own it. And we need to ask why we do so."
Green Party
The Green Party is "always open to an evidence based, rational discussion, but what the evidence very clearly shows is over the last 40 years of a neoliberal trickle down economics approach, where we have sold off our assets, that that has resulted in a higher cost of living for New Zealanders and a lower quality of service provision", co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said.
Swarbrick called the comments regarding selling Air New Zealand, "dogmatic" and ideological.
New Zealand First
NZ First's position is no asset sales, deputy leader Shane Jones said, adding: "But obviously we're going to campaign and test that New Zealanders have an appetite for our view".
"We look no further than the power companies to see how awful the outcomes have been, even with a half pie privatisation. We're going to give Kiwis more than a modest opportunity to hear our views, hear our arguments. We're aware that other parties want to go ahead with privatisation. That's not our situation."
Te Pāti Māori
Co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said assets were seen differently in te ao Māori - "the protection of our wai (water), the protection of our moana, a kaupapa that we believe should have iwi Maori-led decisions, and they should be protected for future generations".
"Assets that we see being sold off for the purpose of today's generation and capitalist gain are something that we have always been opposed to. We need to preserve what we have, especially in political times or geopolitical times that we have now."
23 Comments
Asset is a funny word
It implies some sort of net benefit
And if the finances don't back it up, the quantum of the benefit is subjective.
When AirNZ ceased its cherished flagship AKL - LHR it signalled the difficulty in competing long haul with the large international airlines. Those circumstances have worsened. There are now sufficient overseas based airlines to service passengers and expand. This is evidenced by the opening of long haul routes out of Christchurch which AirNz itself could not maintain. TIme to rethink the operation. NZ needs the security of its own airline for domestic travel and freight and international freight. Concentrate on that and short haul flights Australia and the Sth Pacific as that remains, as a market, in demand.
Yeah probably the best compromise.
During 3 water debate lots of councils said they didn't want to lose their 'assets'. Really, they have a legal responsibility to deliver water services. To do that they do have assets, but most of them need expensive renewals if not complete rebuilds, and ongoing maintenance and operations, often with no associated income because they still haven't rolled out volumetric charging (incl Wgtn!!). For many smaller councils it would have been a net benefit to lose this responsibility and hand it over to a regional entity that was going to be underwritten by central government. Didn't want to lose their assets though. So now they gotta live with it
Unfortunately Labour decided to give Maori a 50% say in the central 3 waters. I also don't go with the small councils not being able to maintain and replace basic assets. Many of these councils, not just the small ones, have over a period of time councillors who had eyes bigger than the ratepayers pockets for non essential services.
The quantum adjusts not in relation to the benefit but in the demand for security.
Security being a benefit.
I would suggest so...though that security can be misleading.
Subjective.
Sort of, but also in fact.
A misjudgement or false belief.
Is AirNZ an important asset to allow NZers to travel around NZ, or for tourists to come here and spend money? It performs both roles I guess. Would it do both roles as well without the government? I guess that’s the question that needs to be answered.
Interestingly Seymour isn’t advocating for the road network to be privatised, imagine how much that is worth and how much of a loss it makes. Potentially hundreds of billions that could be spent elsewhere.
I think if it were privatised it would be a rather smaller enterprise.
The land value wouldn’t be bad
Would it do both roles as well without the government?
It needed the government to bail it out, although admittedly due to COVID, and it loses money under state ownership.
Potentially it just isn't viable either way in its current configuration.
Then again maybe AI can wipe out it's rather high management costs.
"The Green Party is "always open to an evidence based, rational discussion..."
OK Chloe
Physical assets require maintenance, and that's been a much lower priority than it should have been, for about 40 years, and now we have to live with the consequences.
As to Air NZ, something rather less grandiose might play well with both treasury and the electorate.
We need good coverage for domestic aviation, as the alternative transport modes are poor with no prospect of improvement, and maybe a couple of key, short haul international routes like Australia?
There are example already in Europe evidenced by a multitude of regional airlines servicing anywhere up to at 5 hour flights with 320/321 & 737 size and some smaller jets. Of course there are much larger populations and number of towns & cities but each leg can be adjusted to a schedule that guarantees each flight is full and thus economic. AirNZ could do exactly that for cross Tasman & Pacific Islands with the same sized planes as in use domestically.That tightens up the economies of scale operationally and for maintenance. There are many companies operating wide bodied aircraft profitably for international freight which again introduces the same reduction in overheads and maintenance.
They do exactly that. About 20 Airbus A320/321 aircraft that operate internationally to Aussie and the Islands. The domestic Airbus aircraft aren't configured for international operations but are the same aircraft just an older type. The loss they've sustained would've been offset if all aircraft were actually operational due to the engine issues on the NEO Airbus and 787's. The insurance they've received doesn't fully cover loss of revenue. If the company had broken even or made a small profit I doubt there'd be quite the media/politcal attention.
International to Australia & Pacific islands only. Anything beyond that has been a multi decade taxpayer / debt funded ego trip for the airline that went broke twice.
From Australia connections are available to anywhere in the world.
My god weren’t they an arrogant lot then. Coming out of LAX, DC10 days, I encountered an old workmate now a steward. Would be the best job in the world he sniffed quite seriously, if it wasn’t for the bloody passengers. Recall reading that when Ralph Norris took over he requested a paper from each of the top executives outlining where the airline had been and was and their recommendations and vision for the future. On receipt he remarked that there were excellent submissions but all of them about flying aeroplanes, not one about flying passengers. It was that self assumed. “I am a jet setter, don’t you know” attitude, particularly the pursers and stewards, that caused me to avoid flying with them whenever I could and it was a godsend when Singapore started coming into Christchurch.
Seconded: I used to do a lot of international travel for work - around 20 yras ago - and preferred flying Singapore to AirNZ.
The AirNZ cabin staff were fine, but the booking, luggage and other services, not so much and they've become sludgier and worse since.
All that said, still well ahead of lines like United.
Flew Qantas to Aus and Air NZ back not long ago. Honestly it was like chalk and cheese on all aspects, Air NZ won hands down. But perhaps that just happened to be a bad Qantas flight and a good Air NZ one.
Or, Kiwis are generally humble, and Aussies think you owe them a favour to be in their presence.
I knew a few Stewards then too and in all fairness they described some pretty appalling behaviour from some passengers. A sense of entitlement is not a new thing these days. Back then though they were pretty strictly restricted on what they could do about it. I'm not sure about today.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.