Written By:
- Date published:
9:01 am, May 18th, 2026 - 46 comments
Categories: economy, kiwisaver, nz first, privatisation, winston peters -
Tags:
You can tell it is election year.
Winston Peters is doing what Winston Peters does, coming up with policy that will not happen and milking the media attention for all it is worth.
His latest is his announcement that NZ First will, if it can, renationalise the Bank of New Zealand.
He also announced a strengthening of Kiwisaver by opening an account for all newborn Kiwis, despite being part of a Government that last budget halved the Government contribution.
From Radio New Zealand:
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has announced a policy to automatically enrol all newborn New Zealand citizens into KiwiSaver with a $1000 government contribution, alongside a proposal to buy back the Bank of New Zealand and merge it with Kiwibank to create a new state-owned bank.
… Peters said the party would make KiwiSaver enrolment compulsory at birth for New Zealand citizens as part of what he called the “KiwiSaver Generation”.
Speaking at a campaign event in West Auckland on Sunday, Peters said the party would make KiwiSaver enrolment compulsory at birth for New Zealand citizens as part of what he called the “KiwiSaver Generation”.
Under the policy, each child would receive a one-off $1000 Crown contribution at birth.
Peters said the scheme would work alongside New Zealand First’s existing proposal for compulsory KiwiSaver enrolment across the workforce, with employee and employer contribution rates eventually increasing to 10 percent.
“Universal birth enrolment will ensure every child begins their financial life as a KiwiSaver member,” Peters said.
The party also unveiled plans to buy back the Bank of New Zealand from Australia’s National Australia Bank and merge it with Kiwibank to form a new fully Crown-owned bank, to be called the “National Bank of New Zealand”.
Note the Kiwisaver policy is for citizens and not residents. Peters never saw a policy that he did not want to make racist.
One could take his BNZ announcement more seriously if it was not for the fact that itthe Government was again working on plans to partially privatise Kiwibank.
Although to be fair to Peters he has said he would not entertain a partial sale.
But if he was actually keen to strengthen locally owned banks he could get the Government to give Kiwibank a capital injection. $7.5 billion will seed fund a whole lot of first mortgage lending.
And use of the word “renationalisation” should be seen for what it is, a cynical grab for media attention.
Peters is drifting leftward in terms of the campaign territority he is seeking to conquer.
But a vote for NZ First will continue a National led Government complete with its anti democratic, anti Maori, environmentally destructive and Trumpian policies that we have witnessed over the past couple of years.
Peters is drifting leftward in terms of the campaign territory he is seeking to conquer.
A nimble way of framing Labour voters as potential suckers without actually saying so! Yet are these people really nationalist in their ethos? I doubt it.
Anyway, the renationalising ploy will only work on folk who realise banks provide a basis of resilience for a state. Statism works in the tacit realm as an effective control system that folk take for granted instead of thinking. Think of banks as mental infrastructure, like the fence around the paddock that gives sheeple a sense of security.
Winston is on solid ground here, but the devil lurks in market details and the strategy only gets viable from use of leverage – which voters may not give him. He would have to buy the thing back at market rates. A devilish play…
It will probably work on anyone who thinks it inappropriate that a bank with the name "Bank of New Zealand" should be owned by Australians.
He is always playing to the 5% plus disaffected to gain Parliament, and he has mostly managed to place himself in the decision making spot of pivot point in the MMP system.
He campaigned hard for MMP, and has used it ever since!!
He blamed both National and Labour for selling off BNZ. Correction!!
He was in Jim Bolger's National government when BNZ was sold once in 1992.
Winston Peters fudges facts to suit himself.
Out of curiosity where does the number $7.5 billion as possible new capital of Kiwibank come from? Is some party proposing that?
It would be nothing like enough to buy back the BNZ of course. NAB has a market capitalisation (as of last Friday) of $A112 billion. The BNZ is generally considered to be about 17% of their overall business and that would be the absolute minimum they would accept even in a forced sale if they were desperate to raise money. That is ($A112 billion * 0.17) or about $NZ23 billion dollars as a starting price to buy it.
Luxon said it would cost NZ$30 billion to buy BNZ on Morning Report this morning.
He also said buying the BNZ "sounded like a Labour or Greens policy" which was a particularly stupid thing to say as it is a policy from somebody he is in coalition with and nothing to do with those parties.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019035448/weekly-interview-with-prime-minister-christopher-luxon
Peters was incredibly garbled earlier on Morning Report. He has jumped the shark with this silly policy announcement.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019035438/winston-peters-live-after-unveiling-election-promises
It is making $1.5B in annual profit.
A 5% return on market value would indicate c$30B.
$30B plus a premium for what would be a hostile take over. And a HTO of a bank, which will respond like a bank, so probably $50B. What would KiwiBank look like with that capital injection.
They could nationalise the bank and pay a fair price by way of compensation. A fair price would not include a "premium for a hostile takeover".
My comment was predicated on the cost of getting NAB to divest of its BNZ subsidiary willingly. If a New Zealand Government decided to force the nationalisation of a major business asset like this there would be consequences for all areas of the economy and society.
Paying the premium to buy it off a willing seller is going to hurt a lot less than forcing a nationalisation. And capitalising Kiwi Bank by half the willing seller amount would probably be more effective.
If a New Zealand Government decided to force the nationalisation of a major business asset like this there would be consequences for all areas of the economy and society.
There may be "consequences" in Australia, I wouldn't know, but these would not be our concern. In NZ we would have two government owned banks for a while, until the merger could be effected, but in the meantime both would continue as they usually do. In return for its expenditure the government would own another asset.
Paying the premium to buy it off a willing seller is going to hurt a lot less than forcing a nationalisation. And capitalising Kiwi Bank by half the willing seller amount would probably be more effective.
Even if capital were pumped into Kiwibank they would still be a minor player.
One would of course expect Luxon to play the "show us the money” card. It's the old Oscar Wilde type cynicism dodge.
Winston’s low ball ‘offer’ is part of his narrative – he did say he’d would nationalise if they don’t accept.
Read the links in the OP before you ask your wily questions.
Ok, so that $7.5 billion is Winston's low estimate of what they might accept. The man is an idiot. The comments in the RNZ story tend to confirm that and Luxon's $30 billion is probably in the right area for what they would have to be offered in order to get a willing seller. My $23 billion is merely my estimate of the absolute minimum if they were fairly desperate.
I can't imagine National or Labour going along with his nationalising the business. The Green and Maori parties no doubt would consider it, probably simply doing a simple seizure with no payment at all.
ps Links don't show up very well on the screen of my computer. I have to run the cursor right across the whole post to find them. I don't know whether it is the screen or my eyesight.
Yes, the visibility of hyperlinks in Posts is a known complaint. In my comments I prefer to put ‘raw’ URLs in parentheses instead of using embedded links, but in Posts this makes the text too ‘busy’ and tends to interrupt the text flow too much. Some Authors use footnotes instead (that may or may not contain links).
I have just ben reading the NY Times and they put in these links but always underline them. It seems to make them stand out a great deal better.
Would that be hard to do? It certainly makes them, to me at least, stand out.
It’s super-easy in Firefox but personally I hate it because my screen fills up with underlined text (I read TS in the back-end). Try it out!
I think it’ll be easier if users optimise/customise settings at their end rather than LPrent trying to please everyone at the TS side – WordPress can make seemingly simple things difficult.
The links are clear on my machine but their text is in blue. That may not help with some screens.
Winston is not an idiot but he likes calling other people idiots.
He knows better than most how our magpie brains work and how we’re attracted to shiny objects and headlines. He also knows that we tend to fall too easily in ‘value capture’ traps (cf. links in my comment: https://thestandard.nz/daily-review-15-05-2026/#comment-2062399).
Winston has an uncanny knack for setting up the narrative and letting others do all the work [for him] – he’s much smarter and more efficient than AI.
Does any of that 17% comprise assets domiciled in Australia, which they may wish to hold onto, giving them a different name.
Should we give more oxygen to Winston?
Next question.
Labour, the Greens and TPM should be shouting this from the rooftops!
Children of a person with right of permanent residence are citizens from birth.
https://www.govt.nz/browse/passports-citizenship-and-identity/nz-citizenship/types-of-citizenship-grant-birth-and-descent/
Winston does have an answer for that too, one which won’t involve contraception. You can do the numbers.
Agree that it is far better to support Kiwibank and put state money into that and commit to not selling it off. Speaking as a loyal customer.
Kiwibank are very slowly making headway, with 13% of new mortgages. But only a $31 billion mortgage book.
BNZ has 17% of new mortgages, with a mortgage book twice the size at $65 billion.
It's a good headline but a future government who wants to really spend that kind of money should first buy back at least one of Genesis, Meridian, or Mercury Energy. Targeting one would sink the shares on all, to make then attractive targets.
Interesting to see prospective Labor candidate Andy Burnham wanting to renationalise all of water and all of electricity generation. Thump those tubs pal!
Ad Labour NZ Labor?
No, UK.
Costing
57,705 children, c50,000 citizens – $50M each year.
Politics in an election year – to maximise their base votes
National play the we cannot afford to support Kiwibank card. Fiscal responsibility
NZF plays we can by merging it with BNZ. The government can do nationalist stuff
Next year if they are in a coalition
Kiwibank gets supported by the sort of measures NZF say they would use for a buyout of BNZ. Peters says he saved Kiwibank.
They are gaming the electorate.
Love his kiwisaver ides , not worth buying bnz , just bankroll kiwibank to grow.
The government could choose to bank with Kiwibank handling payrolls etc that would certainly help them along.
Westpac, clearly, has enough money.
The contract to process inwards and outwards transactions for the government is largely managing a process. So for example on a payday, or NZ Super day, etc; the government will give an electronic file of accounts to be paid and how much to each, then account for money received on a particular day and watch that come through, and before the daily close make a further deposit or withdrawal so that the balance of assets held by Westpac is very small – Treasury is effectively a bank itself. That is not how banks make a lot of money, but Westpac get good publicity from doing a lot of accounting, and probably make a small profit from fees paying for their systems and a small number of staff. That is my understanding, but if I'm wrong there must be a bank person able to give a better explanation.
If Peters is serious about socialising finance in order to direct financial investment away from socially useless activities such as acquiring portfolios of residential real estate or environmentally useless activities such as building LNG import terminals, we might be inclined to listen.
If he is also serious about redirecting investment towards developing nationally-important infrastructure, building resilience in the face of supply shocks and climate disasters, or just growing the common good public sphere more generally, we might listen some more.
If he promised to do this without corrupt gift taking, pork-barreling and self-aggrandisement, we might keep listening. And if he conceded that acquiring BNZ was one suggestion for doing all this and there could be better ones and it needed proper thought, we might start being interested.
But if he just wants to hoover up some left wing votes so he can further dominate and bully Luxon when he goes back into coalition with National in December, we shouldn't listen. Which is it – and do we care enough to work that out? Probably not.
"If Peters is serious about…"
Ha! Ha ha ha ha ha!
If the left was interested in reacquiring BNZ they could support Peters on that one issue, regardless of who is in government. Get it done before the election!
Oops, sorry Ad – buy back (at least) one of the big
fourthree partially government-owned Gentailers; 100% privately-owned Contact is probably too far gone.I think I would also change Kiwibank's name: "kiwi" is a good name for shoe polish but it lacks the gravitas needed by a bank.
"Loot" bank?
"Lucre (filthy)" bank?
"Bank of Mammon"?
Any good?
First English Bank of New Zealand Citizens
Your suggestions have merit of course, but I don't think they would attract customers.
\sarc
Mental! Breaks CER. Why? He's bloody cray cray. Is he trying to steal labour votes? Or does he actually have 30 billion behind the couch cushions ?
I like the thought of getting more involved in Kiwisaver, but that does not need to be at birth. Even more important would be to ban withdrawals which just lead to lower paid New Zealanders not having a large enough balance to support themselves in retirement. Finance for first home buyers could be done through a modern equivalent of State Advances – possibly using Kiwibank to administer it (rather than using bank capital) to keep lending rates low, but also encouraging lenders to bank with Kiwibank . . .
Just an addendum – it would not cost 30 billion in cash to re acquire the BNZ. You could simply pay out shareholders with government bonds, with staggered bond maturity dates.
That is how, for example, Attlee did it in the 1940s.
Winstone wants a bob each way the only way he deserves is the highway we NZ voters need to show him the highway haere ra.