For some people, ‘privatisation’ is a dirty word. To me, it is the opposite. Maybe that has something to do with how I experienced the practical effects of privatisation – and the blessings it brought me.
Growing up in West Germany, our telecommunications provider was Deutsche Bundespost, a state-owned behemoth with a monopoly on all communications. It operated with all the efficiency one might expect from a government department that had never faced competition. Which is to say: none.
New phone connections would take weeks. The available handsets mainly differed in colour from dark green to beige and grey. When the rotary dial got replaced with keys, it was a sensational novelty.
Making long-distance calls within Germany was ridiculously expensive. I still remember an internship in the mid-1990s when I had to call companies all around Germany. It felt exciting because in private life, such calls were an unaffordable luxury. The Bundespost’s price list made for sobering reading.
Then came privatisation. Deutsche Bundespost transformed into Deutsche Telekom, and the market opened to competition. The results were remarkable.
Prices dropped dramatically. Service quality improved beyond recognition. The handsets became smaller and wireless. Soon I got my first mobile phone.
By 1999, I had a girlfriend (now my wife) in Australia. What would have been ruinously expensive under the old monopoly had become affordable even for a student. Those infamous crackly lines and dropped connections – once considered simply part of life – vanished into telecommunications history.
This personal experience taught me something fundamental about privatisation that Dr Bryce Wilkinson articulates so clearly in this report: when done properly, with genuine competition, privatisation delivers better services at lower prices.
It is not just about changing ownership. It is about introducing the discipline of market forces and customer choice.
Of course, I know the very word ‘privatisation’ provokes strong reactions in New Zealand. It is why politicians nowadays prefer the euphemism ‘asset recycling’.
But emotional responses should not prevent us from having a rational discussion about which assets the government needs to own and which might better serve the public in private hands.
That is what makes Bryce’s report so valuable. It strips away the ideology and examines the evidence.
Drawing on decades of research and real-world examples, it shows how unnecessary government ownership can actually harm the public interest through poor asset management and missed opportunities.
The Crown owns $571 billion in assets – about $275,000 per household. Many of these assets deliver subpar returns or services.
As New Zealand grapples with infrastructure challenges and fiscal constraints, we cannot afford to let emotion trump evidence.
This report does not argue for wholesale privatisation. Instead, it makes a measured case for reviewing which assets the government truly needs to own.
It is about being pragmatic rather than dogmatic – just as households regularly review whether to keep or sell assets based on their changing needs.
The evidence, as Bryce demonstrates, is compelling. When done right, privatisation typically leads to better service, lower costs, and improved efficiency. My telecommunications story is just one example of countless similar experiences worldwide.
It is time for an honest conversation about government asset ownership in New Zealand. This report provides the framework for that discussion. I commend it to anyone interested in how we might better manage our national assets for the benefit of all New Zealanders.
