Ian McLean Spokesperson for the Green Party

The arguments about whether the asset sales referendum sent a clear message have already begun. The reality is about two-thirds voted ‘no' and one-third voted ‘yes'. How representative this vote is of the true constituency view will remain forever unknown.

What is clear is almost all of the non-voting electorate would need to have voted ‘yes' for the vote to have sent a clear message the other way. That is unlikely. Many of the people who did not vote either do not have a clear opinion, or are simply disinterested.

A general election should attract almost anybody with an interest in political issues. Voter turnout in the last general election was 74 per cent, which is therefore the likely maximum voter turnout that can be achieved in any vote. If every one of that extra 25 per cent of the electorate had voted ‘yes' in the referendum, the outcome would still have been about 50:50.

The message is clear. The Government does not have a mandate for asset sales.

Add to the mix the significantly lower income generated from each completed sale, the insolvency of one of the businesses proposed for sale (Solid Energy) and disgruntled asset purchasers, who have mostly lost money.

Conclusion: this is a failed policy in every respect.

The test is next year's election, where the National Party is likely to remain mute on asset sales.

Certainly, the incoming government, whoever they are, will inherit a reduced income base. More debt may be on offer as well; first, because overall debt servicing costs may have been reduced by less than the lost income from the sold companies; and second, because of the possibility of having to buy those businesses back.

We did that already with the railways, at an enormous cost.

We have the resources to build a sustainable economy. If government would focus on achieving this long-term outcome, rather than on short-term capital gains, we might really get somewhere.