Powered by RND
PodcastsNewsThe Hoon

The Hoon

Bernard Hickey
The Hoon
Latest episode

Available Episodes

5 of 174
  • Mini-Hoon: Simplicity's Sam Stubbs on InfraKiwi
    I spoke with Simplicity Co-Founder Sam Stubbs about plans announced this morning to launch InfraKiwi, an NZX-listed vehicle funded from KiwiSaver and borrowing to buy new and existing infrastructure such as water companies, lines companies, airports, ports, hospitals, roads, public transport operators and schools from the Government and councils.Stubbs sees an oppotunity to use upwards of $295 billion of KiwiSaver funds available over the next 25 years to kick-start a ramping up of investment in building, rebuilding and properly maintaining the infrastructure needed for Aotearoa to grow.The problem we’re trying to solve is how do we get all this KiwiSaver money into the infrastructure that we use and operate and get good risk-adjusted returns for investors, for KiwiSaver members, and the public generally. And how do you generate also economic growth and jobs and get the infrastructure built that we need? Simplicity Co-Founder Sam Stubbs.InfraKiwi would be seeded by an investment from Simplicity, but open through the NZX for all New Zealand-based investors and funds to invest in a company buying and running infrastructure assets the Government and councils chose not to own or invest in over the long run. It would be able to borrow on its own behalf to buy existing assets, often shortly after they were built, and then own them over the long-run for stable dividends to investors.In my view, it creates a pathway for the Government and Councils to solve the problem they currently believe they have, which is:* they need to borrow and invest to build and properly run infrastructure to cater for still-fast population growth; but,* they don’t want to take the debt onto the Crown’s or council balance sheets because they fear it will increase interest rates and leave future taxpayers vulnerable if there is a new financial or physical economic shock.The solution pursued by both National-led and Labour-led Governments over the last 30 years is to try to get the private sector to fund the building and running of the assets, either by selling them individually in whole or partially to local investors or foreign investors (Air New Zealand, BNZ, Telecom, Genesis, Mighty River/Mercury, Meridian, Contact etc), or trying to structure Infrastructure Funding and Financing deals and Public Private Partnerships to get private funders to do the borrowing, investing, building and owning of the assets (Wiri Prison, Transmission Gully).The trouble is, in my view, these deals are so complicated, slow, expensive and subject to political, market and technical risks that they don’t happen often fast enough or at the necessary scale to solve Aotearoa’s $30 billion-a-year infrastructure deficit.InfraKiwi doesn’t want to take on the risks of initially funding or building new assets, but sees itself assuring any Government or Council it would buy the asset once built for a certain price, giving Governments, ratepayers and taxpayers some assurance that they wouldn’t be stuck with the long-term debt. In my view, this process does solve a big current problem that funds building up in KiwiSaver, NZ SuperFund and ACC very fast are running out of things to buy in New Zealand, but New Zealand Governments feel they ‘can’t afford’ to build the infrastructure needed to grow and solve many of our deficits. I think it’s a solution that’s more expensive for taxpayers in the long run, but does reduce the risks of creating new dividend or interest cost streams and drains in our current account deficit from sales to foreign owners or borrowing internationally.If Governments of both flavours persist, as they are now, in believing they have to constantly drive the size of Government/GDP and Debt/GDP back down below 30%, then this is better than the alternative of pretending or promising to invest to cope with population growth, climate change and ageing, but never actually doing it. I have published this article and the video interview above for all to read and watch as part of my public interest mandate covering our political economy. Paying subscribers support this work. You can too by subscribing. A lightly edited transcript of our conversationThis a lightly-edited and cut-down version of our 30 minute conversation above for brevity and clarity. A PDF of the presentation referred to in the conversation above is attached below.I firstly asked Sam what InfraKiwi would be and what problem it was trying to solve.“We have this massive infrastructure deficit in New Zealand. The Infrastructure Commission says it’s $210 billion. It’s a massive amount of money and a lot of work. And yet on the other side, we have already $130 billion worth of KiwiSaver money saved,” Sam said. “And our economist, Shamabeel Eaqub, has calculated that in 25 years, if KiwiSaver managers keep their investments in New Zealand at 30%, we will have another $295 billion to invest in New Zealand. The problem with that is that there’s kind of nothing to invest in. It’s very hard to commit a lot of money in that way. So it tends to go overseas. And when it’s invested overseas, that’s fine. You still get the returns, but you don’t generate the jobs or the economic growth than if you have it invested domestically.”NZ shareholders only and with a Golden ShareSam said he and others had spent two years iterating 50 versions of the fund.“We’ve landed on setting up a company called Infra Kiwi. So, Infra for infrastructure, Kiwi for KiwiSaver and Iwi. We’re trying to create a vehicle that makes it as easy as possible for all New Zealanders, KiwiSaver managers, individuals, to invest in infrastructure via this company,” he said.“The intention is that it will be New Zealand-only shareholders. So foreign investors not required or offshore capital not required in this case, because there’s so much there. That will then allow Kiwi to buy what we would call sensitive assets that might otherwise be unavailable for sale to offshore owners and own and operate it for the long term.“I don’t want a New Zealand where we’ve saved hundreds of billions of dollars in KiwiSaver and it’s building roads in Aussie. I want that money building roads and buying power stations and operating the water here in New Zealand and creating jobs here and creating growth here.” Sam StubbsSimplicity would start by making the initial seed investments and then once it got to a critical mass it would list on the stock exchange, be restricted to New Zealanders, and have a ‘Golden Share’ preventing it from being sold to single and/or foreign interests.“That means it’s liquid. It means all KiwiSaver managers can invest in it. It means the nature and purpose of the company couldn’t change now you and I are old enough to know the Fay Richwhite issue, which is to slice and dice these assets for the benefit of few to the cost of many.“The nature and purpose of the company remains the same over the long term. And then it invests in operating infrastructure. So it’s not interested in building the power station, but it might be interested in buying it once it’s built. And then it focuses on very long-term ownership and operational efficiency. And if it’s existing old infrastructure, additional capital will refurbish or maintain the infrastructure as well. But it’s all about owning. “I’d like this to be the biggest and most boring company in the country. Which means that it’s really big. It addresses that huge pool of money that New Zealanders will have now to invest in what we need. And it just focuses on owning and operating these assets for the very, very long term.”‘It won’t take big development risks’ Sam says InfraKiwi wants to own and operate assets, rather than develop them, to make it easier to value on the stock market.“It’s not taking big development risk But the other thing it could do is go to governments and say if you build it, we’ll buy it, and that means it’ll actually get built, because it’ll be a contract between the government and the community to get this thing built. I then asked about the potential scale of InfraKiwi and who could invest.“It’s designed for people to participate in several ways. Once the company lists on the stock exchange, Simplicity will step away and be just another shareholder. So it will operate as its own independent company, own board of directors. But because it’s listed on the stock exchange and hopefully big enough to be in the index, all the other KiwiSaver funds will be able to buy it. And typically, if it’s in the index, they will own it so they’ll own at least a benchmark position,” he said.“So people could participate via their KiwiSaver funds, in the sense all KiwiSaver managers are investing in it. Or, because it’s listed on the stock exchange, if you are a New Zealander, registered New Zealander, for investment purposes, then you can buy and sell shares directly as well. So you could buy and sell it directly via your broker or Sharesies or any platform that sells individual shares as well. So the idea is to make it very broadly available.”‘We’re not interested in PPP-style financial engineering’Sam said he’d been in talks with the NZX and Standard & Poor’s to make sure InfraKiwi could only have New Zealand shareholders, which meant it would be able to buy sensitive assets that no one else could for the long term.“We’re not interested in doing what a lot of PPPs want to do, which is financially engineer the acquisition so that they can exit within a fairly short period of time and have made a lot of money,” he said.“What we want to do is make a very fair return over a long period of time, which is fair to the investors and the company, but also means that the vendor of the asset knows that you’re not trying to basically maximize return because these are community assets, they’re sensitive assets. Some of them will never make enough money to ever be investable propositions. So for example, a regional airport that only has two or three flights a day is probably unlikely to ever be an economic asset. That council just has to subsidise that from general rates.“But there are a whole lot of assets where ultimately New Zealanders have to pay. And whether they pay once when it gets refreshed and built, like water assets, you can either have a massive rates bill to refresh it, or build new, or you can run the asset down over 30 years. Or you can own this and actually maintain it and get a fair inflation adjusted return over a long period of time. ‘It’s sort of like public ownership’Sam said KiwiSaver funds were naturally attracted to long-run assets with constant cashflows. He also compared such funds to the likes of Singapore’s Temasek.“If InfraKiwi got listed and it was in the index, as soon as it bought something, about 3.5 million New Zealanders would own it from the day it bought it. That is sort of like public ownership, but without government. He said ownership by such a fund would depoliticise the issue of asset sales.“If the asset is owned by millions of New Zealanders, the attitude towards the government in terms of regulation will be sensible. And the attitude we will take towards the ownership and operation of the business will also be very sensible too, because when you own something for the long term, you’ve got to maintain it. “You’ve got to spend money on it. You’ve got to keep the water flowing and the lights on. It’s a different attitude than if it’s a political decision. That’s a sort of pressure, but in a different way. And it’s not the attitude of a short-term owner. A short-term owner doesn’t care about it. They just want to run down the asset and fool the next buyer into taking it at the highest possible price.”Sam said he had done over 50 public meetings and 90% of people had said they would be happy if a KiwiSaver funded owned the water pipes or the power lines.“That’s because KiwiSaver is a very popular brand. It’s actually serving a lot of New Zealanders very well.”‘We are where Australia was in 1985’Sam compared New Zealand now to Australia in 1985, just before its savings ramped up under its soon-to-be-launched compulsory pension system. “We’ve never had this option before. Previously, we’ve always had to go to central or local government to fund our infrastructure or at the margin, these PPPs, typically where the money is provided by offshore players. We now have a new reality, which is that we now are where Australia was in 1985. “We’re just about to see this huge increase in domestic savings, but we have to create the mechanisms by which it gets invested in the economy. And that’s what InfraKiwi is all about. It is trying to bridge that gap.”Why not just borrow from the Crown’s balance sheet?I then asked why the infrastructure could not be simply built with funds borrowed by the Government.“If there’s a $200 billion infrastructure deficit, the government borrows another $200 billion. That’s about 45% of GDP. And that would take our central government debt up by about 45% of GDP. That is a possibility, no doubt about it,” he said.“It doesn’t seem to be what any one of our political parties or government wants to, because effectively what you’re doing is increasing your sovereign risk rating and debt levels and cost of funding. But for whatever reason, they haven’t chosen not to do this. “But even if you have the option of central government doing it, local government is really starting to get stretched. And so another source of funding would be useful. I’m not pretending InfraKiwi will supplant everything that central and local government would do, but it’s another source of funding. And it’s very long duration capital.”Here’s the presentation referred to in the interview above Ka kite anoBernard This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    31:56
  • The Weekly Hoon: Labour's CGT-lite; Climate change flood maps; Trump meets Luxon; A new housing fund
    The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night featured co-hosts Bernard Hickey and Peter Bale talking with regular guests Robert Patman and Cathrine Dyer, and a special guest about the economy, politics, geopolitics, climate change, The Kākā’s future and how to fund the building of social housing by Community Housing Providers (CHPs) and others.This week’s special guest was Home Capital Partners CEO James Stewart.We talked about:* The Kākā’s future after Bernard published a State of The Kākā Nation report for 2025 showing falling subscription revenues and the loss of the sponsor for the weekly When The Facts Change podcast via The Spinoff.* The release of the first comprehensive and nationwide flood maps forecasting how climate warming of one degree, two degrees and three degrees would affect households and infrastructure in the event of one-in-one-hundred-year floods.* Bernard, Peter & Cathrine also talked about the potential for community assemblies to agree solutions to climate adaptation and mitigation.* Robert Patman talked with Bernard and Peter about this week’s meetings between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, and Donald Trump and Christopher Luxon.* James Stewart talked about Home Capital Partners’ launch of its new Home Capital Partners’ $185 million fund to accelerate building of over 250 medium density affordable and social homes.* Bernard and Peter then talked about Labour’s Capital Gains Tax proposal.The Hoon’s podcast version above was recorded on Thursday night during a live webinar for over 200 paying subscribers and was produced and edited by Simon Josey. The Hoon won the silver award for best current affairs podcast in this year’s New Zealand Podcast awards. (This is a sampler for all free subscribers and anyone else who stumbles on it. Thanks to the support of paying subscribers here, we’re able to spread my public interest journalism here about housing affordability, climate change and poverty reduction other public venues. Join the community supporting and contributing to this work with your ideas, feedback and comments, and by subscribing in full. Remember, all students and teachers who sign up for the free version with their .ac.nz and .school.nz email accounts are automatically upgraded to the paid version for free. Also, here’s a couple of special offers: $3/month or $30/year for under 30s & $6.50/month or $65/year for over 65s who rent.)Ngā mihi nui.Bernard This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    56:55
  • Mini-Hoon: S&P's Anthony Walker critiques 'Local Water Done Well'
    Just briefly, I spoke last night with Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings Director of Government Ratings Anthony Walker last night about a research note S&P Global published yesterday titled: ‘New Zealand Water Reforms Don’t Guarantee Rating Relief For Local Councils.’He told me there was no guarantee the current Government’s ‘Local Water Done Well’ reforms would alleviate the negative outlooks S&P Global had on many councils’ credit ratings, even though the creation of separate water authorities in accounting terms appeared to lessen their apparent exposure to big new debt-funded water infrastructure investments.“In capital markets, off the books doesn’t always mean off the hook. As New Zealand local councils pursue new water service models, we think shifting assets and liabilities “off-balance sheet” may ease the optics, but not the underlying credit risk.” Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings Director of Government Ratings Anthony WalkerIn my view, that’s a problem for councils and the Government, who may have hoped the creation of the new water authorities would reduce the exposure of ratepayers and taxpayers to new borrowings for water and free them up to expand without the need to use the Crown’s or council balance sheets. The hope that ‘off balance sheet vehicles’ can do the heavy lifting underpins the Government’s entire housing growth strategy. It has enabled the Government to remain committed to not borrowing directly through the Crown’s balance sheet.The first cab off the rank, Watercare, has been able to separate completely from the Auckland City Council and has been promoted as the model, but it is the exception because it has its own specific Act of Parliament, which actually puts the Crown on the hook, Anthony said.In my view, this S&P analysis that the other water authorities are still tied to Council balance sheets, has put a major spanner in the works of the entire infrastructure funding strategy the Government is relying on.I have published this article and video for all to read and watch as part of my public interest mandate covering our political economy. Paying subscribers support this work. You can too by subscribing. A lightly edited transcript of our conversationFirstly, I asked Anthony to expand on the details of the note.“It’s designed to highlight the analytical issues that we see when it comes to the local water reforms when it comes to councils. The councils have been provided up to six options by the Crown via a DIA (Department of Internal Affairs) guidance document. And what we’ve done here is gone through how we would view each of those six. Now, only three of them are being pursued by councils,” he said.“What we’ve found is that there’s 22 councils doing business as usual, another eight doing a single owned entity and another 38 potentially merging into 12 big entities. And their ratings outcomes do depend on which option is chosen. As you highlight, some will be better off, some will be worse off, and some will be somewhere in the middle. And what we’ve done here is we’ve found that, or we’re showing the market and the councils right now that if you are going to go out there with financial guarantees, it’s not going to be off the books for credit ratings.”‘You can’t really have your cake and eat it too’I then asked him why in capital markets “off the books doesn’t always mean off the hook,” and what were the gradations used by S&P to decide how much ‘on the hook’ councils were.“One of the things to say here is that we don’t rate to accounting standards. Accounting standards, they vary from very good to very bad across the world. And we work in all systems globally. And even in New Zealand, we don’t think the accounting standards are as holistic as others. Operating leases and capital leases are a prime example. That’s debt in every other market in the world, advanced market we work in. So we put those on balance sheet, even though the accounting standards in New Zealand say no,” he said.“You can’t really have your cake and eat it too. You’re going to get cheaper interest rates because you’re guaranteeing it. Well, then the government is going to have to bail it out when something goes bad.” Anthony Walker“And that’s what we talk about when we say in capital markets, off the book doesn’t always mean off the hook ,because accounting standards might say it’s not there, but when councils are guaranteeing it, it is there. “We’ve had people say to us, well, we’re only going to guarantee it because we don’t think it needs to be guaranteed. Well, capital markets and investors don’t believe that. That’s why they want the guarantee. So you can’t really have your cake and eat it too. You’re going to get cheaper interest rates because you’re guaranteeing it. Well, then the government is going to have to bail it out when something goes bad.”‘Labour’s involvement of Iwi helped create greater separation’Anthony said S&P also looked at the activity of the new entity, and whether it was an essential service.“Is it a port? Is it a commercial business, or retail business? Or is it doing an essential service like water where people can’t live without? Are there other providers of water in the system in your area? And if the answer is no, and this is the only water provider that gives you water to live on. Obviously, when the council are owning it, obviously it’s going to be very essential,” he said.“And then the other thing we look at is the role and the linkages between the council. And this is where the Three Waters from the former Labour government tried to separate this Iwi ownership. I know that wasn’t very popular throughout the country, but that was why they went down this path, to try to dilute the linkages with council control. “Because if the council is controlling it, they’re appointing managers, they’re appointing boards, they’re signing off statements of intent, signing off decisions and now they’re guaranteeing them, then this is a council entity. They can’t just wipe their hands and say, it’s not my fault, not my responsibility, and by the way I have a watertight guarantee (to back that up).” he said.“These things will come back to bite you. They’ve (bond investors) seen them around the world. In fact we have seen many governments around the world step in to bail out businesses which are not guaranteed, and they’re not water providers so this is why we kind of look at a holistic approach about what may or may not happen.Why Watercare is differentAnthony then talked about Watercare, which has been cited as a model, and why it was different.“So Watercare, we have separated from Auckland’s balance sheet and that’s specifically because legislation bans Auckland from providing any financial support at all. So we believe that if something goes wrong with Watercare. It’s going to be the Crown who’s asked to step in to support it,” he said.“And these are different things because maybe a smaller council, we could pull water off the balance sheet of a small council under that rule, but how would that entity go and borrow? It can’t borrow in the same terms as Watercare. It just can’t do it from the sheer size.”I then asked about the impressions voters and politicians might have had about how Local Water Done Well had created a way for them to avoid having the debt on Crown and Council balance sheets, and therefore to have cheaper rates with lower interest rates, all other things being equal.Anthony said the biggest determinant of council interest costs was whether they borrowed through the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), which is a Government-backed joint borrowing vehicle, which sets the rules for councils about how much debt they can have relative to their income.“The biggest determination of council debt caps or the limits of borrowing is not a credit rating. They can keep borrowing. we’ll keep rating them. We might rate them in the triple B category in a decade’s time if they borrow massively. They can still borrow. The biggest pull-back on the leverage of the sector is actually the LGFA debt caps,” he said.“So if the LGFA was to loosen those, they could still borrow through the LGFA, which is still rated AAA on the local currency scale. So that is one area where credit ratings can have an influence, but the credit rating is an outcome. It’s not an input.”What is the point of all this asset shuffling to create new vehicles then?I then asked if Local Water Done Well and the creation of the new accounting vehicles would actually reduce borrowing costs, or was it just a lot of shuffling?“There is a lot of shuffling. Some of these reforms do have an impact. They do matter. They mean that some councils can borrow more under certain structures than they would otherwise at the same rating. But if you look at the cost of debt, the cost of debt for the Crown is the cheapest. Councils are the second cheapest. Non-councils are the third cheapest, whether that’s a water utility or a bank or something else. “Given that a water utility, particularly a small one, which most of these councils would be, would likely be standalone credit profile maybe in the Triple B, maybe Double B. It means that the council guarantee which would lift that back up towards the council level, would actually be very vital for it to get cheaper financing,” he said.“But then again, if it was all in the balance sheet for the council and the council was one notch lower on the rating, it may still be cheaper that wa,y because the LGFA is the ultimate determination here of the credit quality and the credit rating.”Anthony said the role of the LGFA was crucial.“So while we did lower 18 Council ratings this year, the LGFA rating wasn’t impacted because they were actually kind of countering that with higher capital requirements and higher assets to kind of shore up their credit quality.“So they are managing that risk. What happens when the councils borrow through the LGFA and the councils own the LGFA? So they are ultimately the decision makers here. The LGFA will increase the cost that they borrow from the market. They borrow at 3%. They’ll lend it onto councils potentially at 3.25%. If you’re a better rated council, maybe you get at 3.1%. So they actually determine the difference in outcomes here when it comes to council interest rates rather than what the rating may do if councils were borrowing directly in the capital markets. ‘It all depends on the LGFA, which sets the rules with Crown backing’“The credit rating would have a much bigger impact on cost of debt in New Zealand if these councils were borrowing outside the LGFA.”“Earlier this year, sorry, we downgraded 18 councils. Going from a AA to AA, AA plus and AA rating had no impact on their interest costs. Going one notch below that from a AA to AA minus increased their interest costs on new borrowings, not the existing debt, but new borrowings by 0.05%. So five basis points.“If we lowered by one notch again because they doubled their debt levels from 180 % on average to 360%, we potentially may have another 0.05% or a five basis point increase in costs.”I then asked Anthony about whether all the shuffling to change the ‘optics’ for Councils and the Government would actually improve costs much.‘Shifting ‘off balance sheet’ doesn’t change our view’“This is what this note is partly there to tell councils and investors. It’s explaining how we look at the six options provided, whether they would be outside our credit rating or not. But if you’re shifting something to an in-house business unit, where you’ve got staff sitting on the floor next to you and you’re shifting to a single-owned entity, with ratings and revenues quarantined, They think they may have a separate business structure, but ultimately, they’re probably the same people doing the same job for the same people and probably having the same cost base. “They may actually have a bigger cost base if they’re going to ramp up their spending. So while it might shift it from the parent accounts under New Zealand accounting standards, they’re likely to be captured under the group accounts. So they’re still on the broader balance sheet that most governments don’t focus on.”Ka kite anoBernard This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    15:55
  • The Weekly Hoon: Climate back-tracking; Ukraine pivots; Foreshore & Seabed reversals & epic strike marches
    The podcast above of the weekly ‘Hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers on Thursday night features co-hosts Bernard Hickey and Peter Bale talking with regular guest Robert Patman and special guests about the economy, politics, geopolitics, climate change, Jim Bolger’s funeral, Treaty of Waitangi issues and yesterday’s ‘mega-strike’ by doctors, teachers and nurses.This week’s special guests were Lawyers for Climate Action Executive Director Jessica Palairet, former Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister and Chris Finlayson and Association of Salaried Medical Specialists Executive Director Sarah Dalton.We talked about:* The Government’s gutting of climate reporting requirements and its shifting of its methane emissions reduction goalposts.* The latest moves by the United States and Europe to sanction Russian oil and gas exports to try to force Russia into a ceasefire in the Ukraine War.* Jim Bolger’s legacy on Treaty of Waitangi issues, and his National-led Government’s differences with the current one. We discussed Chris Finlayson’s obituary for Bolger in the NZ Herald-$ and his interview with columnist Audrey Young in the NZ Herald-$.* The Marine and Coastal Area Act, which passed into law last night, and why Finlayson opposes it.* Yesterday’s marches by over 100,000 supporters of nurses, teachers and doctors, who went on strike the 1% pay increases offered by the Government. We discussed pictures of signs at the marches, including the ones below. We discussed this research report on fiscal rules for the ASMS by Ganesh R Ahirao and this research report for the ASMS on health economics by Marilyn Waring.The Hoon’s podcast version above was recorded on Thursday night during a live webinar for over 200 paying subscribers and was produced and edited by Simon Josey. The Hoon won the silver award for best current affairs podcast in this year’s New Zealand Podcast awards. (This is a sampler for all free subscribers and anyone else who stumbles on it. Thanks to the support of paying subscribers here, we’re able to spread my public interest journalism here about housing affordability, climate change and poverty reduction other public venues. Join the community supporting and contributing to this work with your ideas, feedback and comments, and by subscribing in full. Remember, all students and teachers who sign up for the free version with their .ac.nz and .school.nz email accounts are automatically upgraded to the paid version for free. Also, here’s a couple of special offers: $3/month or $30/year for under 30s & $6.50/month or $65/year for over 65s who rent.)Ngā mihi nui.Bernard This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    1:05:47
  • Mini-Hoon: Inside Labour's Future Fund policy
    I spoke with Labour Finance Spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds last night about Labour’s first big policy idea for the 2026 election: a new sovereign wealth fund to invest in New Zealand infrastructure and growth businesses. It would be seeded with an initial grant of $200 million and topped up regularly with dividends from state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and potentially partially-owned SOEs such as the gentailers and Air New Zealand, although that wasn't confirmed due to ‘commercial sensitivities.’I asked her what problem it solved and why other tax and more direct Government investment policies couldn’t solve it better. Here’s a lightly edited version of the conversation below, just in case the video above is too sketchy to watch. We had some connectivity issues and then the AWS wrecked my usual backups. A PDF of the policy is also attached below.People are saying we want to see a long-term vision, we want to see a plan for the country. So this is a first step for us. Barbara Edmonds.Edmonds said she couldn’t say which assets would be included because of commercial sensitivity and fair disclosure reasons.“Ultimately, the fund is purpose-built to back Kiwi ideas and our small innovative businesses, and basically is here to create wealth for New Zealand, by New Zealand, for New Zealanders,” she said.I asked what problem Labour was trying to solve.“When we look across the world, future funds are set up to help countries recycle their wealth and help to back and grow within their own economies. New Zealand doesn’t lack talent and skills and ideas, but what we lack is backing. So one of the key things that the Productivity Commission talked about before it was collapsed by this current government is that we have shallow pools of capital,” she said.“We want to set up this wealth fund at arm’s length to the government, similar to how the Super Fund works. But actually, it has a different purpose, which is to create wealth in New Zealand to help secure jobs, transition to clean green energy, to help us back our innovators in tech industry, and to help us build a resilient infrastructure.”I then asked if New Zealand actually had shallow capital pools, given there was $123 billion in KiwiSaver funds as at the end of March, the NZ Super Fund has $88.6 billion and counting as of today, the ACC had $51.1 billion in funds under management of June 30 this year, and there was $302 billion in bank term deposit and savings accounts as of the end of August this year. Why aren’t those $565 billion being invested here?I asked why those funds weren’t being deployed into New Zealand infrastructure, businesses, jobs, new technology and jobs, and whether another fund would make a difference.“Ultimately, there are different funds for different purposes. And what we’re saying is this wealth fund is solely dedicated to reinvesting back in New Zealand. The Superfund, for example, they invest around 11%-18 % of their funds in New Zealand. However, they’ve got a very different purpose. Their purpose is to maximize returns to help with future superannuation costs,” she said.“We’re saying it’s a model that works well for the Superfund. However, for the future fund, we need a different pool with a different purpose to back Kiwis.”I asked whether this fund was being announced instead of changing the fundamental savings incentives for households, which mean buying leveraged residential land was vastly more attractive in risk-adjusted and after-tax terms than in businesses, pension funds or infrastructure, given pension funds don’t receive any significant incentives, as pension funds overseas do, as in Australia.“We will have a savings and investment policy, which we will announce in the future. However, this is just the first step to realize New Zealand’s potential. And again, it’s about backing Kiwis and making sure those that get away and see the world, there are opportunities for them to come back to. That pullback to New Zealand is diminishing,” she said.“We have 200 people leaving every day to find opportunities offshore. People are saying we want to see a long-term vision, we want to see a plan for the country. So this is a first step for us.”I then asked how big the fund could be and what assets it could include.“Top of the list of the types of assets we will see the fund with will be a lot of those publicly owned commercial assets that the government owns. We also set aside $200 million one-off capital costs to go into the fund. And again, the governance of this will be at arm’s length to the politicians because it will be looked after by the Guardians of the New Zealand Superfund.“It will grow every year, depending on the assets that are put in, the dividends that come back to it. But also, we want to be able to use those dividends better. Currently, at the moment, those dividends come back to the crown coffers. Ministers can spray that wherever they want to. “There may not be any strategic use of it, or for example, they may be trying to go into clean energy but then they’re doing an underwrite for gas subsidies. Whereas this is different. This is saying that those dividends should remain in the fund, be reinvested into the country, and depending on what the assets are, that’ll determine the growth.”Why not just borrow and invest directly?I then asked why the Government shouldn’t just use its balance sheet to borrow to invest directly, which would be much cheaper.“At the moment, the politicians are are fiddling around too much with this. Ultimately, we have government assets. We believe that they should be managed with a commercial approach. The dividends should be reinvested in New Zealand. Ultimately, where the fund will go will be set out in legislation. We want it to be reinvested back for the public good.“Yes, the Crown may lose money because we may forego some dividend in relation to it. But ultimately, the money is staying back in our economy so that it can grow in New Zealand, as opposed to us having to wait for foreign investors and speculators to come and save us. So we truly believe for us this is about a future made in New Zealand. It’s one where we want to make opportunities for the next generation to want to stay here, or come back here because there are opportunities for them.”So is this a good idea?In my view, a Future Fund is try to solve problems that would be better addressed more directly, faster, cheaper, more efficiently and with more honestly and transparency by:* firstly, the Government simply borrowing with its own balance sheet and investing directly in publicly-owned infrastructure, staffing and systems to improve housing, health, education, skills and training; and, * secondly, changing the tax incentives that currently mean households have ploughed $1.6 trillion into residential housing, and are choosing to leave $302 billion in term deposits, ready to be deployed with yet more mortgages to make more tax-free capital gains in residential housing.Changing those incentives would involve:* taxing the unearned wealth bogged down in New Zealand’s housing market through a wealth or capital gains tax, and not just on the family home, given a big chunk of that $1.6 trillion is embedded in those family homes and exempting them will leave the incentive intact; and,* providing a tax incentive to save in pensions funds, as is the case in Australia and other developed markets with much higher investment in their businesses, much better productivity and higher real wages.For example, New Zealand’s housing market value is seven times bigger than our stock market’s value. Australia’s housing market is three times bigger than its stock market. America’s housing market is actually worth slightly less than its stock market. Australia and the United States have (imperfect but substantial) taxes on capital gains and incentives for investing household savings into businesses. New Zealand has neither. Still wedded to the catastrophic 30/30 rule?My concern is that Labour remains embedded in the view it and National have shared for 40 years: that the size of Government and the size of Government debt should not be larger than 30% of GDP. With both the size of Government and its debt currently above those self-imposed, unnecessary, unjustified and failed limits, both National and Labour are still contorting themselves into states of magical thinking that private investment in infrastructure and the private provision of housing, health, education and transport would be both better for the economy than the Government doing it.Without proper changes to tax incentives for households and without a fundamental reassessment of the 30/30 rule, this Future Fund appears to be another performative, mostly ineffective and expensive distraction from the fundamental failings of the 30/30 rule to invest in the infrastructure to support our still-fast-growth and still-ageing population, let alone catch up on decades under-investment and under-maintenance and under-replacement of both new and existing infrastructure. Labour may well have have taxation and fiscal strategies to change that view that are yet to be announced. This first policy release has a dispiritingly familiar look about it. It is suggesting New Zealand’s investment problems can be solved at arms length from politicians and the Crown’s balance sheet. It is suggesting that the current incentives and use of the Crown’s balance sheet are working. They are not. They have been disastrous for a generation, who are indeed voting with their feet, rather than their votes, at a rate of 200 day. The Future Fund mimic versions of the NZ Super Fund (which has less than 20% invested in New Zealand), NZ First’s proposed sovereign wealth fund and various Government venture capital and green funds. It gives the impression large amounts of domestic investment is possible without political involvement and in a way that would improve the performance of the New Zealand economy and leave the Crown’s balance sheet untouched.It reeks of performative politics and magical thinking that fail to address the elephants in the room:* $1.6 trillion worth of mostly unearned wealth in housing has to be taxed;* there has to be incentives for households to invest in businesses;* the Government has to be larger than 30% of GDP in the long run to provide the public services, benefits and infrastructure we believe are essential with the population structure and growth we have; and,* there is no good reason why the Crown can’t use its balance sheet to invest in the infrastructure, services and health of the generations that are both retiring and on the verge of abandoning the country.Subscribe in full as a paying subscriber for more detail and analysis in the full videos and podcasts that go out with my Early Bird and Daily Chorus email newsletters. Paying subscribers support my work being done in the public interest here, and via my appearances on other media such as RNZ & 1News. Paying subscribers also get early and full access to our webinars and our chat room, and can comment on articles.Ka kite anoBernard This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thekaka.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    13:38

More News podcasts

About The Hoon

Bernard Hickey's discussions with Peter Bale and guests about the political economy in Aotearoa-NZ and in geo-politics, including issues around housing affordability, climate change inaction and child poverty reduction. thekaka.substack.com
Podcast website

Listen to The Hoon, Nine To Noon and many other podcasts from around the world with the radio.net app

Get the free radio.net app

  • Stations and podcasts to bookmark
  • Stream via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth
  • Supports Carplay & Android Auto
  • Many other app features
Social
v7.23.11 | © 2007-2025 radio.de GmbH
Generated: 11/4/2025 - 8:51:46 AM