Between the lines: Flying in face of model for SOEs

By SELWYN PARKER

In the Airways Corporation controversy, the Government needs to be careful not to shoot out its own tyres.

State Owned Enterprises Minister Mark Burton has every right to be fully informed of the corporation's multiple bid with Lockheed Martin and others for 46 per cent of Britain's air traffic control system.

However, details surrounding the departure of former company lawyer Ezequiel Trumper, and any concerns about the safe management of our own airspace, do not give the big picture.

The big picture is that little old Airways Corporation from the bottom of the world is involved in a deal that could make it a world leader in air traffic control.

And, of course, it would deliver the enterprise and indirectly the Government a substantial windfall and a future stream of profits.

Assuming the Auditor-General does not find anything untoward in his investigation of the circumstances surrounding the deal, the Government should then do what it can to promote the bid.

This is not a time for politicking. New Zealand organisations either play in the wider world or, in the long run, they do not play at all.

This is particularly true of a naturally global industry like air traffic safety. Presumably with the blessing of previous Labour and National Governments, Airways Corporation has worked its way steadily towards the company it presently keeps in this bid with Lockheed Martin and British financiers such as Apax.

Its consultancy arm has sold its expertise all over Asia, the Pacific and in Canada, just like New Zealand Post and other SOEs do.

Under the SOE model, that is what they are meant to do.

Although Prime Minister Helen Clark rightly worries about how well the corporation does its job in New Zealand, there does not appear to be much evidence, if any, that the UK bid is affecting its performance in our airspace.

Anyway, there is not much commercial future in running New Zealand airspace.

It would be surprising if the Auditor-General comes up with much that the shareholding ministers, Finance Minister Michael Cullen and Mr Burton, do not already know.

The corporation's board saw the ministers when they sought $30 million to invest in the consortium.

That request was refused but presumably the ministers got a thorough briefing.

The juicy issue, of course, is whether Winston Peters is right in his privileged allegations that corporation chairman John Maasland and others stood to personally gain $30 million from winning the UK bid.

Right now, the emerging evidence suggests Mr Peters is on very thin ground.

If New Zealand First's leader turns out to be wrong, he would have to apologise handsomely not only for casting such a monumental slur but for hurting a deal that could mean a lot for New Zealand.