Generally speaking, when something isn’t making you any money, you try to get rid of it.

That’s in business, especially. And it looks like that’s the approach National might want to take with state assets too.

Christopher Luxon says he’s open to it, and I am too. To a point. And maybe not in the way Christopher Luxon is thinking.

The Prime Minister is saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he’s willing to take it to the next election.

But let’s be honest, he’s more than just open to it. Especially when you hear him saying things about “recycling” assets making good sense if you’re not getting an adequate return on your capital.

But when I say I’m open to the Government selling-off some of its assets —or our assets— the approach I would want to see taken is a bit different from what most people think of when they hear talk about governments selling assets.

Anyone who opposes selling public assets —and these can be assets that are owned by the government but also owned by other outfits like local councils— argue that once something is sold you can’t get it back.

Which I get. It’s like finding yourself in a bit of financial strife and selling an old heirloom or something precious to you because you need the money. And then, down the track, you really regret it. Once something’s gone, it’s gone.

Which is how some people will be feeling about the PM saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he’s open to it and willing to take it to the next election.

And he seems to be up for asset sale - like his predecessor, Sir John Key, who said on Newstalk ZB this morning that, if he needed urgent health care today, he wouldn't give two hoots about who owned the bricks and mortar.

And maybe that’s an easy thing for someone with plenty of money behind them to say.

But if you put that aside, he’s actually spot on. If something happened to you today, all you would care about is getting the treatment you needed.

And, if the government is going to down the track of selling assets, this is what it should focus on.

It should be trying to find buyers for all of our hospital buildings. It should be trying to find buyers for all of our state school buildings.

It should be selling all of the things that actually suck money away from the key public services that are provided inside those buildings.

Because the challenge when it comes to selling anything, is finding buyers.

The Christchurch City Council discovered that a few years back when it wanted to sell City Care because it wasn’t making it any money.

But I bet that if we put all of our hospitals and schools up for sale —I’m talking here about the bricks and mortar— I reckon the Government would have no problem finding buyers.

As former Labour and ACT party politician Richard Prebble puts it in the NZ Herald today: "If we want to be a first world country, then are we making the best use of the Government’s half a trillion dollars plus worth of assets?”

And I would argue that owning the bricks and mortar that Sir John Key talked about isn’t the best use of government capital. Owning hospital buildings isn't, nor is owning school buildings.

Because who cares who owns the buildings?