Today John Key revealed the policy what we have all been waiting for: privatisation or, in his words, partial asset sales. Let me be clear that I am not against privatisation as a whole but certainly I am very concerned about the sale of key and core infrastructure assets. I also noticed how John trotted out the “TINA” message: there is no alternative otherwise S+P will downgrade us. Expect to hear this being repeated as some kind of mantra…..otherwise saying we are dependent on the opinion of the same guys who rated dodgy Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) as AAA.

There are some key human requirements for any society. We are lucky to be blessed by all of them: plentiful water, energy generation and food production. Any decent society with these assets should be able to provide them to all people at the lowest possible cost. Why? Because it can.

We are already well into a fight over NZ’s water assets and consumers are paying through the nose for basic food items especially dairy in which we are global leaders. Energy is also costing us more and more each year as the dysfunctional electricity market continues to fail.

Contact Energy has already been sold off to foreign investors with Australian energy company Origin owning 51%. Expect more pain in the pricing policy we have witnessed since this company was first floated. I have never understood the need for energy generation (water is even more inexplicable) to be a competitive process between private companies. Deregulation has not delivered cheaper prices and yet more privatisation is on the cards.

The deregulation of the 80s made was driven by a desire for greater efficiency and more dynamic management as well as the demand from financiers for new investment prospects. But change could have been brought about in different ways such as simply instituting new management, guidelines etc. It would be very possible to run a state owned company focused on providing electricity, in all forms, with the sole focus of the customer.

So instead of selling off more energy assets we should be thinking about changing the model. I favour looking at some form of  quota based allocation which comes at the cheapest possible price (a break-even number) with market pricing on top of that. These quotas could be traded (as in DTQs 0r Domestic Tradable Quotas) as part of a generalised carbon trading scheme. But the important issue is that energy is a basic human need and in New Zealand this can and should be provided at the cheapest possible cost. I do not believe, and have seen no evidence, that the current system delivers this.

We should also address the silly argument about “mum and dad” investors. Please no more of this patronising label. Lots of people are investors, not just these mythical and no doubt unsophisticated “mums and dads”. But let’s point out the very obvious hole in this argument. We already own these companies, yes us taxpayers, mums, dads and bubs…we own it already so why do we need to re-buy into it? plenty of money for the investment banks involved in the float (they have been pushing this for ages). More importantly there will be losers: low income people who simply could not afford to buy into the share bonanza….it’s just another process for transferring wealth from low to high income earners. This will look great for some but ultimately we all lose in the end and inequality is further increased.

Privatisation is only going to make things worse. It’s time to put people before profit.

Sorry John, there is an alternative.

Surely the ultimate humiliation for New Zealand would not be losing the Bledisloe Cup nor even seeing the Wallabies win the Rugby World Cup in 2011 at Eden Park but the bone jarring crunch of monetary union with Australia.

Recently smoke signals have been wafting from the Beehive as John Key and Kevin Rudd white flagged the issue in recent talks. When politicians say it’s a good idea but unlikely you know that it’s on the table. In fact this is not a new story. It comes up whenever there has been a proper meltdown and New Zealand looks a bit lonely and downbeat.

It’s been raised by some local economic commentators and all the usual pros and cons have been mentioned. Don Brash laid these all out nicely in a speech back in May 2000 and it’s hard to see past his conclusion that it is primarily a political decision, given that the economic pay off is unclear.

It may be a political decision then but it may not be a comfortable one. As Bernard Hickey writes today “we may not have a choice if we continue to borrow heavily”. The “shotgun wedding” wouldn’t be the most favourable outcome but NZ is not well placed at the moment. To coin a phrase you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

And, as Brian Gaynor writes, according to a recent OECD study, New Zealand is perilously close to Iceland in a ranking of countries with exposure to “overseas debt……personal debt and financial leverage”.The numbers are eye watering and the piper will be most surely paid at some point in time.

But, for now, the Australian banks, which make up most of our banking system, have underwritten us by sending new capital across the ditch. We also had to follow Australia’s deposit guarantee scheme with no choice in the matter. To all extents and purposes we are heavily dependent on them. So as Bernard notes we may find ourselves at the altar of currency union by default and not by political will. And it may happen sooner than we think.

Is there an alternative? Yes. A fully sovereign domestic money supply. More on that another time.