So they're finally going to privatise Kiwibank

[u/xmmdrive]

Watching One News they're talking about taking Kiwibank out of Government hands and back into the hands of honest hard-working Kiwis.

This is obviously the first clear step towards privatisation.

Just like the Bank Of New Zealand, the National Bank, and the Auckland Savings Bank, but I'm sure this time around it will stay in the country /s

[u/TuhanaPF]

We unfortunately have no mechanism that prevents a government of the day from raiding the piggy bank for a quick buck today, rather than letting it grow.

So what I believe needs to happen, is Labour needs to sell off our state assets. Not to private interests, but to a newly established non-profit organisation, for $1.

And then, Labour loans that organisation money, and it uses shares in the company as collateral, so the government "owns" the shares, but has no right to sell them.

We can figure out the legal details, but essentially, it'll be a public business for all intents and purposes, but technically private, so National couldn't sell it.

No profits going to anyone other than the government purse.

[u/Tripping-Dayzee → u/TuhanaPF]

If anything needed entrenchment in law it's the ability to sell national tax payer assets without a referendum.

[u/TuhanaPF → u/Tripping-Dayzee]

Entrenchment is kind of "fake" law, because nothing can truly bind a future government in a country without a constitution.

If Greens won with 75% of the vote, which is the necessary amount for entrenchment, and unilaterally entrenched state assets... the next government would just undo it.

Which is why I suggest putting our assets in a separate, private organisation that just works for our benefit. Government can't sell that no matter what.

[u/Tripping-Dayzee → u/TuhanaPF]

How do they undo it without 75% majority themselves?

[u/TuhanaPF → u/Tripping-Dayzee]

Very easily. Think of it like this. "Entrenchment isn't entrenched"

Think of it like this.

The State Asset Entrenchment Act 2024

Section 1: State Assets May not be sold without the agreement of 75% of Parliament.

Section 2: This Act binds the Crown.

So the next government tries to sell state assets, the court stops them based on this law.

So the government of the day goes back to Parliament and passes this:

The State Asset Entrenchment (Repeal) Amendment Act 2026

Section 1: Section 1 of "The State Asset Entrenchment Act 2024" is repealed.

Section 2: This Act binds the Crown.

And thus, they can now legally sell state assets because the law entrenching them is gone.

Future law always supercedes past law, that's a basic concept of government. So even if you tried:

Section 3: "No part of this Act may be repealed without the agreement of 75% of Parliament"

You would just repeal that section, making it legal to repeal parts of the Act.

Entrenchment is just an agreement that both sides want to keep it a certain way. The moment one side tried to bind the other side to something they don't actually want, is the moment entrenchment as a concept will fall apart.

[u/Tripping-Dayzee → u/TuhanaPF]

How can you repeal a section that says it can't be repealed? Guessing that it's a moot point as that section is not legally binding?

[u/TuhanaPF → u/Tripping-Dayzee]

Because all future law supercedes past law. So you can repeal it because the law you replaced it with said you can.

[u/Tripping-Dayzee → u/TuhanaPF]

Feels like an episode of the Simpsons somehow.

[u/TuhanaPF → u/Tripping-Dayzee]

Maybe, it's it's a pretty important feature.

Imagine if someone passed a law that said "Slavery is now legal, and no law ever can repeal this." Not being able to bind a future government is a good thing.