More left-wing hypocrisy

Labour lickspittle apologist and funder Selwyn Pellett is being lauded by Labour as a person to be listened to on the issue of National opening up SOEs for investment.

Would this be the same Selwyn Pellett who doesn’t want NZ owned companies to avail themselves of foreign capital but is quite happy to have his own companies listed on the London Stock Exchange to avail himself of a good chunk of foreign capital for himself and his companies.

If it is the same Selwyn Pellett he is also a willing recipient of corporate welfare in the form of grants of over NZ$6.5 million even though his company reported revenues of over US$30 million in 2009 and again in 2010.

Is it the same Selwyn Pellet whose companies have major shareholders such as:

Yes it would be Selwyn Pellett, hypocrite, who wants to ham-string Kiwi investors and all the while he seeks foreign capital for his own companies from multi-national fund managers. He can have UK pension funds and American pension funds invest in his companies but doesn’t want New Zealand Kiwisaver fund managers to be able to invest in good solid Kiwi infrastructure or technology companies, he wants those investment funds for his own multi-million dollar companies.

The man is a class A pinko hypocrite.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • selwynpellett

    Perhaps not. But accept at first clank it could look like that. Google my writings.

    There is no hypocrisy in what I have said. Everything I have said or written for the last 9 or so years is the same. Nothing wrong with foreign capital if it’s to fund something new that we didn’t have before. It’s not as good as being funded locally but companies have to go where they get funded and many times that’s not New Zealand.

    As for sucking on the government tit of R&D grants,perhaps whale oil should have a look around the web and they will see I have been saying that such grants should be clawed back by the crown when and if the company is sold.

    Yes in 2005 we (Endace) listed on AIM. We where a 6 Million dollar revenue company and it was the boards belief (after investigation) that the only place that Endace could list was the UK. However the board and major shareholders made the expensive decision to remain a News Zealand company specifically so we would pay tax in this country. That decision cost the company at listing an extra million USD in fees due ton the complexity of the listing.

    I have said publicly I would not do a listing in the UK again and i wouldn’t.

    As an aside I am big fan of R&D tax credits as everyone has the same opportunity to make a success of their endeavors. The current scheme has Government picking winners which is never a great idea.

    I repeat all such grants should be clawed back if the company is sold with interest attached.

    As for being a Pinko. Interesting. Was I a pinko when I went door knocking for John Banks in Northland. I guess you become one when you disagree with a ruling right wing party.

    • Unless you’re advocating for less spending than National have proposed, more cuts than they have planned, and less government influence than they have wielded, yes, you are a pinko. Simply because this government sits firmly in the centre, hence making you on the left (unless you’re advocating the things I have listed about) and people on the left are derogatorily referred to as pinkos.

      How you can go from Banks to the far-left lunacy of Labour is beyond me.

    • If you so strongly believe those R&D credits should be paid back then why don’t you voluntarily cough the dough, it would be the principled thing to do.

      Any one who pays for full page ads in support of Labour during an election campaign, after sunning themselves on the beach in Bali and deciding that he preferred the dictatorship of Clark to the Don Brash is always going to be a pinko in my book.

    • Banksie campaigned and won in Whangarei not Northland are you confused?

  • kehua

    Who is Banksie?

  • kehua

    Whoops sorry, who was Banksie?

  • selwynpellett

    Smile and wave won’t cut the mustard on asset sales says Selwyn Pellett


    Both the media and the public need to look deeper than the carefully constructed sound bites coming from the government on its asset sales plan, because the  long term consequences for New Zealand are massive.


    In effect John Key has, by resurrecting a failed strategy from our past, signaled that he and his government have no idea how to grow the economy and demonstrated that National’s idealogical views are driving its decisions without reference to the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.


    There are a limited number of arguments in favour of asset sales and so far that’s what most of the media is picking up on. But let’s ask the serious questions about what sits behind such a move for New Zealand’s economy, and how it may affect our society.


    Firstly, the justification for the plan is invalid or at least greatly exaggerated. New Zealand doesn’t have anything like the same Crown (government) debt as Portugal, Spain Iceland or Greece. The combination of private sector debt — via our foreign banks  — and Crown debt is unacceptably high at around 90% of GDP. However the difference in New Zealand’s case is that a greater proportion of our debt is private sector debt. A default on this debt impacts on the balance sheets of foreign banks not the New Zealand government. Our Crown debt is, by global standards, still low. Lumping these two types of debts together, as the Prime Minster is doing to attempt to justify this policy, is at best mischievous and at worst dishonest.


    The second problem is a failure in the financial logic: Who gets the proceeds of the assets sold? It’s not the SOEs so all this talk of them suddenly behaving better and more efficiently is simply wafer thin spin. Have we forgotten what happened with Telecom? The dividend stream that flowed out of Telecom – and indeed out of the country – would have been enough to see our broadband infrastructure in place a decade ago, with all the positive effects on GDP growth. Telecom’s ability to extract monopolistic pricing effectively became a foreign tax on all New Zealanders and a handbrake on our economic development. That is the history of the failure of asset sales in this country. They simply do not deliver the alleged benefits the politicians of the time promise.


    The promised benefits in this case? Debt reduction, for one. But what’s the real debt reduction involved here? If the government gets all the proceeds from the sale of the assets and later the SOE sees an opportunity to increase its business that requires additional capital it will come back to the market. If the government is going to maintain its 51% shareholding it will be required to participate in a rights issue or allow its shareholding to be diluted below 51%. So now the Government’s spin doctors have a problem; either they say we will allow the shareholding to go below 51%, or there will be no need for capital for these SOEs, or the short to medium term benefits to New Zealand will be less than the $10 odd billion indicated.


    The third issue here is sovereignty: John Key can stack up the initial sale however he likes, but he must know the reality is just like a fish quota: ownership will progressively roll up to less and less people and eventually it will end up becoming substantially foreign owned. It would take serious legislation to prevent this happening and that would hardly be free market behaviour.


    Finally, there are a few social issues to ponder. Is it right that a generation that inherited all these state assets and enjoyed those benefits for most of their life, leaves the next generation devoid of any? Shifting debt from the current generation to the next or removing wealth creation assets from a future government’s income stream are essentially intergenerational theft. It certainly isn’t strategic planning. Surely the current generation should be the one to knuckle down and pay for its mistakes, not future ones?


    In the same vein should we be selling state assets to fund tax cuts? The reduction in taxes for the wealthy would enable them to participate in a share purchase with no change to their net income. In other word the Crown is effectively subsidizing the ability for wealthy individuals to take a private stake in what used to be public assets. Meanwhile, Joe Thirtysomething – with two kids, an average income, high expenses and not enough disposable income to join the sale bonanza – has had his and his childrens’ birthright sold to his wealthier neighbour.  

    The reality is the free market is not free and it is certainly not fair. We should all be fighting this move very hard if for no other reason than to be fair to future generations of New Zealanders.

    Is this what caused this attack. Perhaps your readers can attack the content. I

    • Cutting and pasting your pinko tosh won’t get you any brownie points fool.

      Neither will using stupid labour attack lines like “Smile and Wave”

      You’d be better off putting your money into some strategy development for Labour rather than running tired old lines against the most popular prime minister ever. Unless you already have and it was your brilliant idea for Phil to get a dye job.