The PM didn’t want to talk about it, but he had little choice, writes Stewart Sowman-Lund for The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
Fuel on the privatisation fire
We touched briefly yesterday on the issue of privatisation or asset sales, but with parliament’s return yesterday there has been added attention and scrutiny on the idea. So, this morning we’re going to take a look at what’s actually been said, and what history tells us. While in opposition, Christopher Luxon pledged not to sell off any state owned assets as prime minister – in his first term, anyway. That promise remains, though there have been some signals the government could be exploring possible options for the future. Kiwibank, for example, is set to be bolstered via private investments ahead of a possible part sale, though the finance minister Nicola Willis classed this an “asset capitalisation”. Duncan Greive for The Spinoff looked at the case for selling some of the bank here.
The Herald has done substantial reporting on the seemingly softening stance on privatisation, with Thomas Coughlan reporting last July that “purpose statements” had been drawn up for each state owned enterprises, potentially to determine whether there was a valid reason for owning each asset.
Through all of this, the consistent line from the prime minister has been that nothing will happen before the 2026 election and National would campaign on any changes it wanted to make. Things have been inflamed, however, after Act’s David Seymour said in his state of the nation address last week that the government was “hopeless at owning things”. It’s only an Act-backed position at this stage, but in a coalition, everything gets pulled into the PM’s orbit regardless (Luxon told RNZ’s Morning Report yesterday he hadn’t actually watched or read Seymour’s speech in full).
Word of the day
The opposition has quickly pounced on all of this, arguing the government is softening us up for asset sales. Labour leader Chris Hipkins dedicated a significant chunk of his speech in the House yesterday to privatisation, as did Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. Some variation on the word “privatisation” cropped up more than 40 times across the speeches responding to Christopher Luxon’s first speech in the house for 2025 (Luxon, unsurprisingly, did not mention the word once – though he did say “growth” 18 times). “That is what they’ve done for the last 40 years and that is exactly the playbook that we are seeing now: underfund public services, run them into the ground, cut them and hock them off – that is what this government wants to do,” said Hipkins. Speaking to reporters, he raised the possibility of the government privatising hospitals and bringing in a user-pays model, something National has said won’t happen.
Labour MP Willie Jackson said he wouldn’t be surprised if Māori took legal action against the sale of state assets, reported Maioha Panapa for Te Ao Māori News. “You’ve heard the angst, and we’ve had the terrible experience of what happens in terms of privatisation,” he said.
Coalition fautlines
Despite the political mud-flinging, widespread asset sales are unlikely to be on the agenda come 2026. However, Stuff’s Glenn McConnell has looked at what could be sold off. The most likely contender, and one raised by David Seymour in his speech last week, was QV – the state-owned property valuation entity. “It’s pretty hard to see why the government would want to be in the property valuation business,” Seymour said yesterday. State house numbers could also be adjusted, while the Taxpayers’ Union, in an email yesterday, reiterated its view that TVNZ should be sold.
When Seymour said that New Zealanders were “squeamish” about discussing asset sales, he could very easily have been referring to his coalition partner, National. As the Herald’s Jamie Ensor analysed (paywalled), Seymour has put the subject squarely on the agenda whether the prime minister wants to talk about it or not. “You’re having a conversation that is not happening this term. I don’t know how to be any clearer with you about it,” Luxon told reporters yesterday. It also pits Seymour against Winston Peters, who remains staunchly opposed to asset sales. “I spent my whole career ensuring that our assets stay in our possession,” the NZ First leader told reporters.
Do we know whether it’s popular?
Luxon told reporters yesterday that his party was open to having that conversation in the longer term and, should it decide it wanted to sell any assets, it would campaign on it next year. That has echoes of the last National-led government, wrote The Post’s Thomas Manch, when John Key took asset sales to the 2011 election. Despite a citizens-initiated referendum revealing a resoundingly negative view of the idea, Key argued the election victory had given him a mandate and went about partially privatise the government energy firms, and selling more of Air New Zealand.
It’s hard to know how popular the idea is in 2025. Writing for The Conversation, Massey University politics professor Richard Shaw said that the 2020 New Zealand Election Study showed just under 50% of those surveyed “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed with the proposition that “privatisation has gone too far”. In other words, he wrote, “those who oppose state asset sales comfortably outnumber those who support them”. Whether Luxon, Seymour or Peters can win the debate will be a question for further down the track.