Rabble Rousers, Racists and Xeonphobes
Once again the Rabble Rousers, Xenophobes and Racists are clammering against private individuals being able to sell their property to whomever they choose - this time the shareholders of Auckland Airport.
The shareholders are motivated by maximising return for themselves. They are picking the investments that give them the right mix of risk and reward. If the shareholder chooses to sell, it will because they see the rewards from selling and reinvesting will be greater than the rewards from holding onto the shares.
This is not a question of sovereignty - unless our Parliament, Cabinet and Judiciary were abolished without anyone telling me. They continue to be sovereign, and lose no power by anyone selling shareholding in Auckland Airport. If a strategic threat to New Zealand arose out of the way the airport was operated then the Government could enact legislation or issue regulation to counter that threat, right up to nationalising the Airport without compensation (As our Bill of Rights doesn't include a clause protecting private ownership).
This is not a question of strategic interests - New Zealand has another commerical airport capable of handling large passenger movements in Christchurch. And there are other International Airports in Hamilton, Palmerston North, Wellington, Dunedin and Queenstown.
Winston Peters raises an issue with Airport Security - having been through Dubai Airport the operators know about security and it will not be a problem. It's the only airport I've been to where you get x-rayed before you check-in, then x-rayed again when you go to the departure gate. And unlike New Zealand, everyone must remove their belt, shoes and jackets to be x-rayed before going through the scanner themselves.
This is not a question of the company performing against it's commercial interests in New Zealand to the benefit of the Dubai based shareholders. Companies Law, (Companies Act 1993) requires the directors of a New Zealand company must run the company in must act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company - not the shareholders, not the community, not the Government's policy priorities. If they fail to do so, they run the risk of fines or even imprisonment.
So what's left to object to - the fact that the buyers are:
1. Foreigners - therefore any objection is based on an irrational fear of Foreigners (which is the definition of Xenophobia.)
2. Arab - therefore aby objection is based on an irrational fear of brown-skinned people (which is a definition of Racism.)
Unfortunately, the mistruths that the Rabble Rousers, Xenophones and Racists put out about National Interest and Soverignity makes those who are ignorant of NZ Companies law afraid.
It's about time we had some intelligent debate about foreign investors, and what the difference between a foreign owner and a New Zealand owner is - the accent.
The shareholders are motivated by maximising return for themselves. They are picking the investments that give them the right mix of risk and reward. If the shareholder chooses to sell, it will because they see the rewards from selling and reinvesting will be greater than the rewards from holding onto the shares.
This is not a question of sovereignty - unless our Parliament, Cabinet and Judiciary were abolished without anyone telling me. They continue to be sovereign, and lose no power by anyone selling shareholding in Auckland Airport. If a strategic threat to New Zealand arose out of the way the airport was operated then the Government could enact legislation or issue regulation to counter that threat, right up to nationalising the Airport without compensation (As our Bill of Rights doesn't include a clause protecting private ownership).
This is not a question of strategic interests - New Zealand has another commerical airport capable of handling large passenger movements in Christchurch. And there are other International Airports in Hamilton, Palmerston North, Wellington, Dunedin and Queenstown.
Winston Peters raises an issue with Airport Security - having been through Dubai Airport the operators know about security and it will not be a problem. It's the only airport I've been to where you get x-rayed before you check-in, then x-rayed again when you go to the departure gate. And unlike New Zealand, everyone must remove their belt, shoes and jackets to be x-rayed before going through the scanner themselves.
This is not a question of the company performing against it's commercial interests in New Zealand to the benefit of the Dubai based shareholders. Companies Law, (Companies Act 1993) requires the directors of a New Zealand company must run the company in must act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company - not the shareholders, not the community, not the Government's policy priorities. If they fail to do so, they run the risk of fines or even imprisonment.
So what's left to object to - the fact that the buyers are:
1. Foreigners - therefore any objection is based on an irrational fear of Foreigners (which is the definition of Xenophobia.)
2. Arab - therefore aby objection is based on an irrational fear of brown-skinned people (which is a definition of Racism.)
Unfortunately, the mistruths that the Rabble Rousers, Xenophones and Racists put out about National Interest and Soverignity makes those who are ignorant of NZ Companies law afraid.
It's about time we had some intelligent debate about foreign investors, and what the difference between a foreign owner and a New Zealand owner is - the accent.
posted by Michael at
9:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home