Shifty energy games - not in my name, thanks.

Wednesday, the business section of the NZ Herald reported "Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee has said that improved productivity, rather than continual price rises, was expected from the generators". Today, the Herald informs us "The Government has summoned the heads of State-owned enterprises to an April 9 meeting, where they will be told to improve their performance."

The "E" word from the 90's - efficiency - re-emerged, too. Back then it was by-word for a governmental process that essentially crippled public enterprises in order to run them down and thus justify eventually sell them off.

"We are keen to talk to them to make sure they are contributing to the economy in an efficient way," State-Owned Enterprises Minister Simon Power told NZPA.

"In the six months to the end of December 2008 we have seen the net profit after tax across those portfolios reduce by 50 per cent.

"That is a matter that a shareholder of any commercial enterprise would be concerned to discuss."

What does he mean by "contribute to the economy in an efficient way"? Lower prices? How then can they earn higher returns? Lower costs? They are already under fire for old and / or inadequate infrastructure. Given Energy Minister Brownlee has said they shouldn't increase prices, it looks very much like National is setting the SOE boards an impossible set of conditions: increase profits - presumably by the 50% referred to - without increasing price.

The Herald reports Minister Power summoned the SOE heads to a meeting to discuss measures to improve their financial performance.

Labour's Charles Chauvel says, "This is code for SOEs charging higher prices to the public. ... There is fundamentally one way that energy SOEs can contribute higher dividends to the Government - by charging higher prices."

History says he is right. Power's reference to taxpayers having a $24 billion dollar investment in the power companies makes it clear he expects a commercial rate of return - no matter what the economic circumstances at the time may be. That rate of return could be - say - 10%. That would be annual profits on the order of $2.4 billion dollars. Maybe more. Maybe less.

In my opinion, National's setting up a Kangaroo Court for the SOE boards. If they do make the money he demands from them, he'll call them robbers and sack them for putting prices up. If they don't make the money, he'll sack them for non-performance. There's no way these organisations can meet these conflicting requirements and any one of these pretexts can be used to sack the boards. It would seem the Minister doesn't want them to succeed. No other conclusion fits the situation National is creating.

Once again National confirms for me they aren't a party I could ever vote for. Ideology aside, they way they operate is simply shifty. That makes them bad employees. Our employees.

Not in my name, thanks.