State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill, Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill

I move, That the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills are part of the Government’s wider plan to control debt and to keep investing in our economy. [Interruption] They are part of a wider plan to control debt and keep investing in the New Zealand economy.

There are some people who think that the global financial crisis is over. They do not understand the relentlessly worsening international financial situation. There are more and more countries confronting the problems of debt. Greece, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Italy—countries that are fast running out of choices, because they refused to control debt and get their public finances in order. Their situations are precarious. The ability of these countries to continue investing in growing and protecting their economies is significantly at risk. But New Zealand wants to take action to ensure that we can continue to invest in our country’s growth and prosperity, and at the same time control our debt.

This Government has carefully planned its spending and borrowing through the financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquake. Through good financial management over the next few years our country will return to surplus and we will keep our debt under control. When we inherited this economy after the 9 years of absent management by the party opposite, our country owed $8 billion. Through protecting our country from the sharp edges of the recession, we now owe $52 billion, and in 3 years’ time we expect to owe $72 billion. New Zealand must control its debt. The mixed-ownership model is about freeing up some of our capital tied up in a minority of these companies, and using that money to control debt by allowing us to continue to invest in schools, roads, and hospitals—important infrastructure in New Zealand. That is what this legislation allows us to do—to control our debt and continue to invest in important things like our schools, our hospitals, and our roads. This legislation enables the sale of a minority of these companies to the value of between $5 billion and $7 billion, which will give us cash up front in an uncertain world, when we would have otherwise had to borrow from foreign lenders.

Over the time of this debate—this debate that has not happened through urgency; this debate that has involved the public—this Government has made it absolutely clear that we are not going to be diverted by the scaremongering and nonsense of the three-headed party opposite. Fact: this Government will maintain majority New Zealand control of these companies through its legislated 51 percent shareholding, with a 10 percent cap on any other shareholder. Contrast that with the experience when that party was in power in the 1980s and sold $10 billion of assets to the highest bidder, 100 percent, without getting a mandate from an election—without getting a mandate from an election. This Government expects that 85 percent to 90 percent of these companies at float will be owned by New Zealanders. The Government will make sure that it gives effect to this policy through its ability to control the allocation, and will ensure that everyday New Zealanders who want an opportunity to participate in these businesses will have that opportunity. It will ensure that superannuation funds, KiwiSaver, and other New Zealand institutions where New Zealanders save for their retirements also have an opportunity to get shares. This policy helps control debt. Our critics have exaggerated the numbers. They have been very selective, but it is very clear in the Budget documents—simple and clear—that the estimated impact of the mixed-ownership programme is a $6 billion reduction in our net debt.

In their desperate attempts to discredit that for which this Government has a mandate, we have had this latest claim that this policy will drive up electricity prices. Remember question time last Thursday, when the Opposition said that all the information shows that the State-owned electricity companies are cheaper than private companies? Well, what we know is that a more comprehensive analysis shows that there is no difference, and that what really matters is the level of competition, not the ownership. Our Government, in our first term, set about fixing the competition issues and making sure that the regulations were right, such that in a 6 or 7-month period 425,000 New Zealanders have changed power companies. In 14 of the 21 power regions, the private companies are the cheapest. That is what happens with competition. New Zealanders get more choice and they are getting more competition, and that is what we want to see.

The other nonsense we have heard from the party opposite is that this is a rushed process. Are we doing this through urgency? When that party opposite was in Government and sold assets it put everything through under urgency. Did we invite the public to make submissions? Did the Prime Minister announce this policy in January 2011? Did we have an election on this issue? Was it the centrepiece of Labour’s election campaign, and did Labour get the lowest vote it has ever got? This was what the entire election campaign was about. From Labour’s perspective, every dollar that it cobbled together went on campaigning on this issue—and the Greens’ dollars—and Labour got the lowest vote it has ever had, and National got the highest vote that any single party has ever got under an MMP election.

We do have a mandate. We do have the support of New Zealanders for our wider economic package to control debt and get this economy on the tracks that we need to have future prosperity. And that is what this is about. Unless we control our debt and free up money that we can continue investing in our schools, and our hospitals, and our roads, then New Zealand is at risk. We are at risk of being seen by the international lenders as on a par with other countries that are losing control of their destiny. So this Government has a mandate from the people of New Zealand—no doubt about that.

This Government has a focus on protecting majority New Zealand control through a 51 percent legislative guarantee in the law, passed in this legislation, with a 10 percent cap on any one shareholder. That money, the future stream of dividends that we are making available to the minority shareholders, will be captured up front in the price that we get for the shares. And that money will be put into the Future Investment Fund, and that money will be available for investing in schools, roads, and hospitals. So this is what works for New Zealand. We control debt, and at the same time we protect, grow, and invest in our economy, and that is what New Zealanders would want us to do.

Over the next few weeks we are going to continue to hear a whole lot of nonsense from our opponents. These are our opponents who, when they sold public assets, did it without a legislative mandate, did it to the highest bidder, and never gave everyday New Zealanders a look-in—never gave everyday New Zealanders a look-in. That is not what this Government will do. This is about giving everyday New Zealanders a chance to own shares in these businesses, whether directly, or through their superannuation funds, or their KiwiSaver, or their other Crown financial institutions. This Government wants to be absolutely clear with New Zealanders. This is part of a wider plan to make sure that we protect and grow our economy in these difficult times. When you do not have a Government with that sort of commitment, you end up seeing what New Zealanders are seeing on their television news, 6 o’clock bulletin after 6 o’clock bulletin. Countries that do not control their debt and do not invest in the future begin to lose control of their destiny. This Government will not put our country in that position.

I knew that if we waited around here long enough we would hear “If we don’t do this, we’ll end up like Greece or Spain or Italy.” It is the classic, is it not? You have got to look offshore and say: “If we don’t sell off our assets, we’re going to be like Greece.” What a lot of nonsense. What an absolute travesty of the truth. It is absolute nonsense.

We may be finishing this legislation, the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill, in this House today, but I can tell you what, the fight is not finished. It will be out of here and on to the streets. That is where it is going. That is where we will continue to fight this battle to keep our assets, because we are taking the petition to have a referendum on these asset sales to the people of New Zealand. I can tell you that when you go out there and ask people to sign the petition, they clamour to sign it. They stand in line to sign the petition, and they are not just, as Mr Key would say, people who vote Green or Labour or whoever. These are National Party supporters who are standing in line, and they say that. They come up to you and they say: “Look, I voted National but I’m willing to sign this petition because I totally disagree with this Government selling off our assets.”

So today, in the third reading, this legislation is likely to go through. But it is likely to go through with a wafer-thin majority, brought about by Peter Dunne of United Future, who has not really taken a very active part, I have to say, in this debate.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He hasn’t spoken any time.

I think he has maybe spoken once, but he has certainly not taken an active part in this debate, and why would he? Because we know that in his electorate, where we have been collecting the most signatures of any of the electorates around the country, they are dead against him selling off, and putting his name alongside the National Government in selling off, our assets. So it is a wafer-thin majority that is coming before this House, and our assets are being sold off in a piece of legislation that can be seen and understood only as being particularly obnoxious.

Let us ask a few questions about this legislation. Would we be better off? Actually, no. It is a little bit like selling a profitable business to put an extension on to your house. What you end up losing is the revenue that is coming in to the Government—the revenue.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Year after year.

Year after year after year the people of New Zealand will lose this revenue. Will this mean we have more risk? Absolutely, because even today we have Tūwharetoa, and we have the Māori Council, which is putting in court cases and claims against this legislation, and who bears the cost of that?

💬 Hon Annette King: The taxpayer.

The taxpayer will bear the cost. The taxpayer will own only, according to Mr Ryall, 51 percent, but they will take the entire risk of any litigation against this legislation. So the taxpayer will take all the risk. The taxpayer will lose out on the revenue.

But what about the cost? What about the cost to put this through? Well, Goldman Sachs Group, Macquarie—those banks are going to receive around about $120 million in revenue to put this deal through. I can think of a lot more things that I would rather like to do with $120 million, and that might include decreasing class sizes. It might even go to getting behind and reversing the $45 million that this Government took out of improving teacher in-service training. That was supposed to increase the teacher quality that now this Government decides it wants to fix. And what about power prices? Well, Mr Ryall is leaving the Chamber before he hears this—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! The member must not refer to that.

What about power prices? Well, as an indicator of what is going to happen to power prices, let us look at what is happening already to the directors of these companies. They have just doubled their compensation to $2,500 a day. That is good work, when you can get it, is it not—$2,500 a day that you will receive if you are a director of these companies. Already, they are not even sold off and they have bumped up their compensation for being a director. And where is that money going to come from? Well, the only place it is going to come from is out of the pockets of New Zealanders, because they are the people who are paying the power prices. So are power prices going to go up? Of course they are going to go up. Of course they are going to go up. There is nothing surer than power prices going up.

And are these shares going to end up in corporate ownership? Well, of course they are going to end up in corporate, overseas ownership. Of course they are, because if they do not, they will not get the price that the Government needs. That is what Treasury told the Government: “You’ve got to sell overseas, otherwise you won’t get the price.” So did the Government put mums and dads—that cutesy little phrase, “mums and dads”—in the legislation to make sure that these mums and dads, these New Zealand investors, will get to the front of the queue? Well, no, of course the Government did not do that. Of course it did not do that. If the Government was going to guarantee it, it would have put it in the legislation, and it did not do that.

So here we are, standing in front of legislation that is obnoxious to New Zealanders. More than two-thirds of New Zealanders do not like this legislation and do not support this legislation. More than 100,000 people out there already—in a few weeks—have signed on to the citizens initiated referendum petition, and are queuing up to sign. This Government is still persisting in putting through this piece of obnoxious legislation.

💬 Grant Robertson: Out of touch. Out of touch.

As Grant Robertson just said, this Government is so out of touch with the way ordinary New Zealanders feel, and the way New Zealanders feel about selling off their assets. Mr Ryall has the audacity to say that compared with when Labour sold off assets in the 1980s—two and a half generations ago, almost—somehow this is less bad. That was awful, but this is somehow “less bad”. It is still bad, but it is just slightly less bad than what it was in the 1980s. Well, it is still bad. It is still bad policy. To liken New Zealand’s situation to that of Spain and Greece frankly is an insult to New Zealand and an insult to the people who work so hard.

The Labour Party will be working hard out in the streets to get those 300,000 signatures, and, as I said, people are queuing up to sign that petition. We will bring that back to this House. We will bring that back to this House and we will have a referendum on whether New Zealanders want this or not. I can tell you now the way that the referendum is going to go. It is not going to go well for the Government. In 2013 or maybe even 2014 there is going to be a referendum on asset sales that will flow through to the election in 2014.

💬 Chris Hipkins: And the one after that.

And the one after that, because New Zealanders do not want these assets to be sold. If that is not a Government out of touch, and if that is not a Government that is arrogantly dismissing the wishes and the desires of New Zealanders, I do not know what is. I do not know what is, but I can tell you and give you the commitment right now that the Labour Party will be out there fighting every inch of the way to make sure that these assets are not sold. We will be out there, come rain or sunshine, to get those signatures to make sure that the referendum goes ahead, and that New Zealanders get a real chance to have a say in the future of their country. Thank you.

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. The last speech from the Leader of the Opposition reminded me of a speech I heard on 25 November last year. It was a Friday in Rotorua, and the sun was shining. At a dam not so far away, in the Taupō electorate, the then leader of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, was standing with three or four of his supporters, and I heard a similar speech on the news that night. It was all about what was wrong with New Zealanders, how the Government was not listening to them, and what a great error they would make the next day if they voted for John Key and his Government.

I say to the current leader of the Labour Party: the solution is simple, and it is within his grasp. It is possible for him and his colleagues, during this debate, to stand up and say to New Zealanders: “We will buy these assets back.” Stand up and say to New Zealanders: “We believe this is so wrong that today we make a commitment to buy those assets back.” Can I say that at least one party in this House has stood up and laid its cards on the table in this respect, and told New Zealanders what it will do. I look forward to hearing that from the other speakers in the debate. Stand up and say to New Zealanders: “This piece of legislation is so wrong that today the Labour Party makes a commitment to buy it back.” And you know what? I do not think we are going to hear that, at all.

In January of last year, 2011, Prime Minister John Key stood up and said to New Zealanders that there was a plan to sell parts of assets that were currently owned by the Government. He told New Zealanders about the mixed-ownership model. In January of last year, that was—19 months ago. Then all parties in this House campaigned on this issue, and 10 months later there was an election where New Zealanders knew, if they re-elected this Government, what would happen. They certainly knew from the Opposition what its position was on this issue. On that day, on 26 November, 1 million New Zealanders voted for a National Government—the largest vote that any party has had under MMP. Significantly fewer voted for the Labour Party. In fact, I did a quick bit of research. It was one of the lowest votes that Labour has ever had under MMP. [Interruption] In fact, my colleague tells me that it was the lowest vote. So on the one hand we have a party that campaigned on an issue that was announced 11 months earlier, and we got the largest vote possible. We had another party that had a one-issue campaign—a one-issue campaign; it is the only thing we can remember them talking about—and it got the lowest vote possible under that scenario.

Today this debate is about three things and three things only. It is about controlling debt and not borrowing more money, it is about strengthening capital markets, and it is about funding for new high-priority infrastructure programmes. That is all that this is about. We will hear lots of things from the Opposition, but that is all it is about. Do you know, the difference between what is proposed today is simple. Over 11 months last year this was campaigned on. Our Prime Minister, John Key, fronted up to New Zealanders and said that we will not do what other parties did previously and that we will retain 51 percent control for the Government on behalf of New Zealanders. He said that 49 percent would be offered up for sale to New Zealanders, for KiwiSaver, for the Superannuation Fund, and to iwi, and there will be a 10 percent maximum put on that so that no party other than the Government can own too much of these companies.

It is estimated that $5 billion to $7 billion will be raised to invest in important projects in New Zealand. It is not to go and borrow more money; it is to invest in important projects for New Zealand for New Zealanders to benefit from. You will hear in the debate from the Opposition that this is not a problem, that it is not about debt, and that this is all about other things. Well, our debt in New Zealand is forecast to peak at 30 percent of GDP, about $72 billion, and we are forecast to get back to surplus in a couple of years’ time.

When we came into Government 4 years ago we inherited an atrocious amount of debt, where it was forecast to spiral out of control. I am very proud as part of this Government that we have been able to turn that round in a small period of time. New Zealand will have one of the lowest levels of debt of any developed country in the world because of sound financial management and because of important sound financial decisions. When it comes to assets we have heard previously in the House that currently the Crown, on behalf of New Zealand, owns about $245 billion of assets. We have a very strong plan to grow that over the next 4 years to $267 billion. This is not, actually, about just what we own, because our commitment on this side of the House to assets is clear.

So what is going to happen to these funds? We are not going to go and borrow; I have said we are going to invest in important projects for New Zealanders. The Future Investment Fund will be established, which is another thing that our Prime Minister told New Zealanders about before the last election. He came forward, he made speeches, he spoke on doorsteps, he visited all parts of New Zealand, and he talked about our plan. So $1 billion from this will go into modernising and transforming New Zealand schools, and what a great thing that will be. As I visit schools around New Zealand, boy, do they need that support, and one of the best things we can do is to support young New Zealanders by doing more for them in education.

Already $88 million is set aside for further hospital redevelopment, and I think we have only just started to hear the start of what the fund can be used for. For example, $250 million will go into KiwiRail. Some would say “What a waste of money.”, but, actually, the previous Government paid more to get it back than it was worth. There are some Australians who think that is a great idea, but we have made a commitment to turn it round and make it work for New Zealanders, because you cannot keep borrowing money to prop these things up. You cannot keep taking taxpayers’ money and putting it aside, as the last Government did, to prop things up. They have got to work well, and this Government will invest further in that.

There will be $400 million for irrigation. What is going to get parts of our economy, our rural sector, going than good, solid, positive irrigation that balances the environment with the needs of the farming community, so that we can produce more and export more—not borrow more, as the Opposition would have us do, but actually to export more. And then there is money going into industrial research, high tech, and so on and so forth. Those are some of the things we have announced in the Budget, some of the things that are still to come.

But can I say to you very clearly: New Zealanders have had an opportunity to come to this House via the Finance and Expenditure Committee and talk about this issue. The committee has given them all of the time that we could. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I understand that members opposite do not want to make decisions; I accept that. I understand that members opposite at the last election said they were against this piece of legislation; I understand that. And I understand—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! What I want is what everyone wants in this world, and that is order.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will do my best to stay in order. I understand that members opposite do not want this legislation—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member was able to speak. He was continuing. I want to question whether you should be protecting him, given the fact that that member was the one who stopped New Zealanders speaking when they wanted to—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member may well have a point, but he also knows that that is a debating issue as well.

I can at least be grateful that Mr Mallard directs these attacks at me in the House, not outside, in the back. That has happened before. Can I say very clearly that members opposite do not like this; I understand that. They were making those speeches the whole of last year.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You just asked the House to come back to the debate. That chicken member, who would not hear the debate in the committee, has gone right away from it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The House is getting a little bit out of order, and we are starting to slide down. I just ask members to reflect on this. This is a robust Parliament, as it should be, but we should also be mindful of the contribution of others. Courtesy is contagious.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although I accept your ruling that courtesy, indeed, is contagious, one other issue that draws the House into disorder is when people tell untruths, and that becomes contagious.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member knows—he is a longstanding member. He is a longstanding member, and he knows. The member will stand and withdraw.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I withdraw.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The term “Tell the truth!” is a phrase that creates disorder. That was a ruling from Speaker Wilson in the last Parliament, and it is in Speaker’s ruling 42/3. I would ask the member to withdraw.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You will recall in the Parliament before last the obscenities, including terms far more incendiary than that—including words like “corruption” and other things—that were hurled at members of Parliament by that side of the House. If we are going to rule out the phrase “Tell the truth!”, then I suspect we will not have a debate at all, in many cases, in this Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Can I just ask members to reflect on the debate as it stands and debate the issues. But I have looked at Speaker’s ruling 42/3, and it is indeed by Margaret Wilson. She said: “it is a phrase that creates disorder in this House, so from now on it will be considered an unparliamentary term.” So I ask the member to withdraw. Withdraw.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Oh—how gracious!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The truth of the matter is that for 11 months of last year the Labour Party told New Zealanders not to vote for John Key and the National Government, as they would sell assets. The truth of the matter is, for 11 months of last year John Key told New Zealanders what he would do if we were re-elected to Government. He told New Zealanders about our plans. The truth of the matter is New Zealanders had an opportunity to vote. They did so. I commend this legislation to the House.

The truth of the matter is that the member Todd McClay chaired a select committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that abused, and truncated the contribution of, submitters. And that member, as instructed by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, by his own admission—in fact, he admitted it in the meeting—instructed Treasury to produce a report on submissions. Do not shake your head. He should not shake his head. If he reads the minutes he will be shaking all right, but it will not be his head that is shaking. He instructed Treasury to prepare a report on submitters before they had finished submitting. Then in this House he and his ilk tried to stop the official minutes of the Finance and Expenditure Committee being let out and put on the website so that journalists and others could see their record of blocking the contribution of submitters. That is the truth of the matter. That chairman has made history in this place. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, led by the nose by his Minister, to do exactly what he was told. And they were so afraid of the truth getting out that even when we asked Treasury officials questions, that chairman instructed the committee to block our request to have those answers tabled at the committee before we lodged our minority reports, because they did not want the answers.

There is a saying—Edmund Burke, I think, said it—that those who do not learn by their history are in danger of repeating it. I place on record the comments of Trevor Mallard and others that, yes, in our time in Government in the 1980s we sold assets, but we learnt.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: When the member was at primary school.

When I was 14, and, apparently, according to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, totally responsible for all the ills of the 1980s Labour Government. We sold them, but we learnt. This mob, under the Bolger Government, sold the assets, and they are doing so again as quick as they can after they were returned to office under the Key Government. They learnt nothing.

There is a person in this House—because this is a day of shame for this House and a day of infamy for New Zealanders as this bill goes through, if it goes through, by a wafer-thin majority—who has never contributed anything to this debate. He has contributed not one speech, not one whimper—well, maybe a wimp—and not one contribution. That person is Peter Dunne. He is the man, of course, who would not even see his own constituents and talk through the issues, the man who has made no contribution and has hidden at every stage of this debate, and the man who will have the unique place in history as the man who gave the Government the vote it required to sell every New Zealander out—the generations of New Zealanders who built these assets; the generation of New Zealanders, their grandkids and their kids, who have benefited from the revenue of these assets; and the future generations who will not benefit from the revenue of these assets.

The truth is that this Government has failed to convince New Zealanders of the worth of its proposition. We know that, consistently, polls have said that 80-plus percent of New Zealanders are against the sale of assets, which they already own. The Government uses as its justification the fact that it won an election, but what it forgets to tell New Zealanders is that it booked the proceeds from the sale of these assets in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update but did not book the loss in dividends. What the Government fails to tell New Zealanders is that, yes, you save $266 million in debt-servicing costs but you give up $360 million per annum in dividends. That is a loss to the New Zealand taxpayer of 100 million bucks. What these people think is that Kiwis are silly and that after this bill—if it goes through—is passed, and after the Governor-General gives it Royal assent, like many issues in this Parliament, once the legislation is through, Kiwis move on.

The problem this Government has, of course, is that all this legislation does is put the bullets in the gun. It enables this Government to sell assets, and then every year, at least for the next 4 to 5 years, this Government’s programme, by its own admission, is to assent to sell a major asset. The Government says the first one will be Mighty River Power. The day the power bills go out, with the large increases, etched on the memory of every Kiwi will be the words “With the compliments of John Key”. Those power prices will be visited, and those increases, on Kiwis—ordinary Kiwi mums and dads—who have no guarantee in this legislation that they will be first in the queue to get anything, because most of them do not have the thousand bucks they are going to need to look after their families, let alone buy a parcel of shares. They will know that those power prices are the direct responsibility of the John Key Government. And next year we will have another one, and the next year—which, hey presto, happens to be election year—there will be a third. That will be a weeping sore for this Government, a reminder—and Kiwis will not forget—that every year another bit of the family silver goes. They will remember, and my prediction is that they will visit retribution on these members. Peter Dunne will be, and is, a political cadaver over this issue, as we speak—the walking, the crawling, dead. The body bags will be out for that member as the man who gave this Government the power, the vote it needs, to sell out ordinary New Zealanders.

The Government says that it expects 85 to 90 percent of these shares to be held in Kiwi hands. Well, let us look at the factual history of that. We have Contact Energy, which in 1999, on float, had 225,000 individual shareholders. That has now decreased by 65 percent to 78,225. That was without a loyalty bonus. And let us get to the loyalty bonus, because the loyalty bonus simply means this—here is the prediction—it simply puts off the fateful day when ordinary Kiwis will do what is best for them. I respect their right to do what is best for them, to survive in the economic archaeology that these people are leaving us. Kiwis will sell those shares because they will have a windfall gain, and if they do I respect their right to do so. But here is the deal: firstly, that costs this crew money, and, secondly, what I predict will happen is that the offer will expire, or take effect, from just after the next election, so that Mr Key can prance around like a sort of cock sparrow and say that 95 percent of New Zealanders, or whatever it is, are still in the scheme. Of course they will be, because they will wait for that loyalty bonus, they will take that windfall gain, and then they will do what is right for them in terms of their economic survival. Shares will be onsold, and there is no control in this legislation as to who—foreign or domestic—will be the recipients of those sold shares, just like there is nothing in this legislation, as we were told at the select committee, to stop the proverbial bus being driven through the 10 percent cap, and nothing at all to guarantee that Kiwis will be first in the queue.

So I say to the Government that it has ridden roughshod over public opinion, and in its arrogant way believes that it is right. And in our society—

💬 John Hayes: Not true.

It is not true? So it is wrong?

💬 John Hayes: Not true.

Well, make up your mind. In our democratic society we have a thing called an election and a Parliament, and those who have the numbers can push things through. That is the nature of our sweet little democracy. But the people also have a say and the people also have a memory. The people have said that they do not want this to continue, and the people are now out on the streets—not just, as John Key said arrogantly, the Labour Party and its members, the Green Party, and New Zealand First. Oh no. You have got Grey Power—which, the last time I checked, I thought would have a few members who are a bit blue—the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and a whole series of community organisations that are galvanised to stop this happening.

The next test for the Government will be when this referendum gets up and is triggered. The Government will stand and be humiliated as 80 percent from a few opinion polls—in fact, a lot of opinion polls—becomes formalised to, I would predict, 80-plus percent of the voting public in a referendum who say this Government is wrong. Then we will have the ultimate sanction in 2½ years’ time, as members of the public go into the polling booth and give their verdict in respect of this Government’s conduct. They will remember the rush. They will remember the arrogant statements. They will remember, and they will stand firm on their principles, which is to say that they own these assets, they have always owned these assets, they want to continue owning these assets, and they do not want these assets flogged off by any Government of any shade.

I invite Mr Dunne—wherever he may be in this Chamber; I am sure he is somewhere cowering under a desk—to think very, very carefully on that as he casts his vote. The year 2014, colleagues, ain’t that far away.

I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the third reading of the Government’s privatisation legislation, the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill. History is the victory of remembering over forgetting, and I guess most New Zealanders—if the polls are right—understand their history. It would seem that most of the Government members do not, and they have lost, or forgotten, the lessons of history as they go down the privatisation path once again.

What has, I think, been really inspiring about this debate is that most New Zealanders actually do have a vision, a long-term vision, for their country. The Government is promoting a very short-term vision: “We will just sell it off and pay the bills today, but we will have nothing left to pay the bills tomorrow.” But most New Zealanders do not subscribe to the short-term vision of this Government when it comes to asset sales. What we have seen over and over again is that in spite of the Government’s public relations campaign, most New Zealanders overwhelmingly do not want their power companies privatised. Most New Zealanders understand that this is part of the long-term vision for their country.

When people sign the referendum petition they are not just signing a piece of paper that says: “I demand my say on privatisation of the assets.” What they are saying is: “I believe in my country.” What every one of those people who sign the petition—the 100,000 people who have already signed the petition—is saying is: “I believe in the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.” Every one of those people is saying that. The 350,000 people who will be signing the petition to force the referendum on asset sales, those people are the future of our country. They are the people who believe that Aotearoa New Zealand has a future, that they are a part of it, that they want to invest in our future, and that they are willing to hang on to the assets and make an investment in the future of their country.

National has decided that the way it will solve its short-term economic and fiscal problems is to flick off the assets that it inherited when it got into Government. In order to pay the bills that the Government has and in order to fill the fiscal hole that it has because of the tax cuts to upper-income earners—the fiscal hole that this Government created because of the tax cuts that it gave away to upper-income earners—it is flicking off the assets. It is selling the assets that were built up over generations.

The people who have been signing the petition—the people who believe in the long-term future of our country—are saying: “I believe in the long-term vision of my country. I am willing to make a stand.” It is not just about saying “I demand that I should have a say.”, although it is about that. People are saying: “I should have a say about the future of my country and these assets that the Government is selling on for short-term gain.” People are saying: “I believe in the future of my country and I am willing to stand up for that future.”

The Green Party put up an alternative future for these energy companies in the election campaign. In that election campaign the majority of voters cast their vote in favour of parties that wanted to retain the assets. A minority of voters voted for parties that supported asset sales. There is a very narrow majority in this House—61 votes to 60—in favour of asset sales, because some of the parties that supported retention of the assets did not make the 5 percent threshold. In that election campaign the Green Party said: “We should retain these assets. They are our future.”

This is the next Fonterra for our country. The renewable energy sector is growing dramatically internationally, and these companies have the expertise and critical mass to actually project New Zealand into that global renewable energy market and renewable energy future. That was the alternative vision, and that remains the alternative vision. These companies should partner with private sector entrepreneurs. We have always supported that, because we believe that the private sector has a huge contribution to make. But by retaining the companies in State ownership, we ensure that the headquarters stay in New Zealand and we ensure that the research and development stays in New Zealand.

We have seen what happens to every other infrastructure sector in New Zealand when they are flogged off. Whether it is telecommunications or banking, the companies get bought up from overseas, the headquarters are moved overseas—usually to Australia—the research and development is moved to overseas, and New Zealand simply becomes a profit centre for a multinational corporation. These companies will no longer become an export platform to the world, and part of New Zealand’s economic future. Instead they, like the banking sector, simply become a drain on the New Zealand economy.

We stood up against that and most New Zealanders voted against that at the election. Every poll shows that the vast majority of New Zealanders believe in the long-term future of their country, which is why they oppose privatisation. The majority of New Zealanders understand what this Government is doing. They understand that this is a short-term fix and that it will, in the end, simply leave us with more debt in the long term. It does not solve the underlying challenges, which are quite real, that face the New Zealand economy. That is what this legislation does.

So every person who signs the referendum is writing their name down and saying: “I believe in the future of New Zealand.” That is what that referendum is all about. That is what the petition is all about. It is all about people who are willing to stand up against the short-term vision of this Government, a Government that has embarked on a reckless fiscal and economic path, and a Government that is selling assets in order to cover a short-term fiscal hole. New Zealanders are saying: “We don’t agree with that strategy. We have a vision for our country, and that is why we are signing the petition. That is why we believe in our future.”

The other part I think that is important about this debate is the understanding of the nature of the electricity sector in New Zealand. There is this naive belief within the Government that there is competition within the electricity market in New Zealand—that perfect competition will solve all of the problems in the electricity market in New Zealand. It is a naive belief. It is childish to think that that is the case. The electricity sector will always be characterised by problematic competition because there are so few players. The retailers and the generators are hooked together as one in so many of the major companies. There is actually very limited competition in the sector, so it is very easy for these companies to extract super-profits out of the electricity market. So the naive belief that we hear from the Government that somehow perfect competition will lead to lower prices is simply not true, and the evidence is to the contrary.

The private electricity companies charge on average 12 percent more for electricity than State-owned enterprises do currently, when you look at the analysis of the data. This will only get worse, because Contact Energy and TrustPower have made public statements that they resent the State-owned enterprises because the State-owned enterprises put an anchor on the price of electricity in New Zealand. And once that anchor is lifted, then they are free to jack up prices and extract even more revenue from the sector.

We have a long-term challenge around climate change and we have a long-term solution in front of us in the form of these energy companies. This is one of New Zealand’s great opportunities to take advantage of the growth in the global green economy, and this Government does not seem able to see the reality that is facing it right in the face. It cannot seem to listen to all the leading business people from Pure Advantage and numerous other groups who have spoken to it about the green economic opportunities that are available, of which these companies are some of the prime examples, yet over and over this Government does not understand. It is trying to build an economy in the 19th century when we are in the 21st century. All it does is invest in carbon-intensive and fossil fuel - intensive companies.

The transfer of wealth involved in this privatisation from the 99 percent to the 1 percent is a disgraceful transfer of wealth that the National Party, Peter Dunne, and John Banks are forcing through this Parliament. The fight is not finished. Every person who signs the petition is saying “I believe in the long-term future of New Zealand.”, and the Greens are with them.

It is my pleasure to speak on the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill. Given the heat from the other side, it is hard to think that this is the Labour Party that was quite happy to have the mixed-ownership model for Air New Zealand for all that time. It is hard to think this is the same Labour Party that Mr Cunliffe was a member of when he said, only in 2010, to the Institute of Policy Studies: “in a capital constrained environment, [Labour] will better leverage the Crown’s balance sheet in new and innovative ways.” He also said that we need to unleash State-owned enterprises to create and grow them with private partners and private shareholders.

That was Mr Cunliffe only 2 years ago. But now Labour members are manufacturing a great deal of heat over their opposition and it makes me wonder why they are doing it. Maybe they feel that the Greens are breathing down their necks and they are panicking, and now they are trying to get very excited about this. I suppose the question is whether they will buy it back when they get the opportunity. I am not sure that they will.

So why are we doing this? We are doing this to reduce our need for borrowing in a dangerous global financial environment. We need to build a more competitive and productive economy based on savings and investment and away from debt borrowed from foreign lenders. It is about controlling our destiny by keeping the total amount of Government debt under control. We watch the travails in some European countries and too often we assume it could never happen to us. Well, why not? New Zealand is heavily exposed in private debt, and that is why it is critical that our Government debt remains as low as possible. So our mixed-ownership model policy is part of a wider economic programme to reduce debt, increase savings, and get our country through one of the worst economic crises in 100 years.

There is so much that we want to invest in in this country, and this ownership structure will free up $5 billion to $7 billion to invest in the Future Investment Fund in new, high-priority infrastructure projects. That is why it makes good sense. Another benefit from this legislation, as we have heard, is that it will help deepen New Zealand’s capital market, extending ours into an ownership society. It is a policy that will boost the New Zealand stock market and broaden the pool of investment for New Zealanders. That is important, because that is how our companies will get the opportunity for more capital to grow further and to add more jobs, if we have a more effective capital market.

Thirdly, the most important aspect of this legislation for me is that by introducing a share of private sector investment, this legislation will strengthen the companies involved, by bringing to those companies private sector scrutiny and governance. The tenor of the debate from members on the other side of the House has been anti-business and anti - private enterprise. Profit is a dirty word, and private enterprise is all about putting prices up and ripping people off, they say. “They do not care about customers.”, they say. It just goes to show that the Labour and the Green members on the other side have no idea about the reality of businesses.

If a company is always more expensive than the opposition when providing the same thing, it will go out of business. That is how market capitalism works. And a company will be successful for its shareholders—half the Crown and half the private sector—only if it services its customers well, and to do that it needs to be as efficient as possible and to look after its own staff. The only time that that basic law of capitalism does not apply is when the State controls the provision of the goods and services and when there is no healthy competition.

I commented in the Committee stage by quoting David Lange, when he referred to State trading enterprises that his Government had inherited in the 1980s. He said that they were “ludicrously overstaffed, horribly overcapitalised, just embarrassments”. So the State-owned enterprises that we have today are infinitely—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: And people lost their jobs.

And they went on to do more effective things; they actually spent their lives doing something productive. That is what it was about. So we have a situation where we have an electricity market today that is working very effectively. In 14 out of the 21 regions in New Zealand the Powerswitch website indicates that it is the privately owned company that is the cheapest. In the past year 422,256 customers have changed retailer. So that indicates to me that we have a very effective market working, and that is the key to it.

Finally, I wanted to say that if ever there was a policy that was clearly spelt out by a party coming into an election with a clear mandate, this is such a policy. We did not hide our light under a bushel. We came out in January 2011 and said: “This is our policy.” Labour’s entire campaign was focused on saying that this was going to happen. The Greens were opposed to it vigorously, and what happened? We had a very strong, clear mandate, the strongest polling result for any party in MMP’s history. I am not surprised that most people are now turning their attention to buying it.

What do they expect us to do—to go back on our word? We made a clear indication prior to the election. We are going to stick with what we promised we would do, which is go through with this mixed-ownership model. We have also heard a lot of nonsense about the process. I was involved with the select committee process and I heard every single one of the submissions. It was a fair and detailed and extensive process.

Finally, we are looking forward to hearing Winston Peters speaking next. I will be very interested to hear him tell the House about back in 1988—he has Shane Jones, his next deputy behind him—and the 1988 prospectus for Auckland International Airport. It was signed off by the then Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, Mr Peters, when he said: “We are very pleased with the most successful public sale. It’s popular capitalism in action.” So I will be very interested to hear from him as to what has changed in the last 12 years, when he was quite happy to sell that. Now he is so strongly opposed to any of these things.

So we are looking forward to this. I believe that this is excellent policy. I am very glad that we finally made the third reading of these bills and I commend them to the House. Thank you.

What is private enterprise when the object is to raid the public enterprise? What is private enterprise about that? The second thing is that the previous speaker, Paul Goldsmith, knows full well that back in 1998 a party called New Zealand First walked out of a Cabinet and walked out of the second most powerful job in the country as Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer because we would not sell Wellington International Airport. We learnt from our experience. How devious and specious is the National Party when it gives its word on issues like that? So let us have no more humbug like that. The day you do the same thing, we will know you have got some grit and courage to stand up for principles. That is our bona fides. What is yours?

Let us have an obituary first of all. Let us begin with an obituary for the MP for Ōhariu. For 28 years Peter Dunne has sat in this House, periodically switching sides so as to avoid the winds of change when they occasionally gust through here. His proudest achievements include being the only man in history to lead three political parties to oblivion. But he is also the only politician in the whole wide world to have planked on television. Remember that? That is his fame: 28 years in Parliament and he planked on TV. That is his record. What a plonker! What a plonker! Such was his desperation for relevance at the last election.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier in the debate I was forced to withdraw for using an expression that had been widely used. Much as I am reluctant to defend Peter Dunne, I think calling someone a plonker for planking is probably not quite within the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the spirit of the debate was light-hearted—at least, that is the way I interpreted it—but we really do not want any offence. That is why we have rules that all members are honourable members, and that appropriate nomenclatures and names should be used at all times.

Saved by Mr Key in a desperate exercise in deceit, Mr Dunne has one last chance to redeem himself, one last chance to represent his electorate and to stand up for the people of New Zealand, and one last chance to act for the people of this country, not for his own selfish, personal, egregious self-interest. In case Mr Dunne has forgotten, let us remind him. In the last election, this is what the United Future party’s website said: “New Zealanders would never—or should never—accept a sell-off of the supply of the water, or any of the aspects around it.” That is what he campaigned on, and then he used public, taxpayer money to do the same on TV in his party’s advertisements and its commercials. You know, the last time we checked, Mr Dunne, power companies had dams. Dams are there to conserve water. Genesis Power, Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, and Solid Energy all have an interest in the country’s water supply. That is a fact. That is what the promise was, and, yes, for the previous speaker’s sake, we do expect members of Parliament to keep their word. That is what he campaigned on. He cannot hide behind semantics now.

Again, I say that he leads the party that said: “New Zealanders would never—or should never—accept a sell-off of the supply of the water, or any of the aspects around it.” That unequivocal statement was repeated in United Future’s taxpayer-paid television advertisements. So we challenge the member to dig deep, find the courage of his convictions, and do what is right for the people of Ōhariu and New Zealand. It is his last chance, so that he is not disregarded as a footnote from 28 years of doing nothing, and remembered for planking. Or does he want to be remembered as the man who at the eleventh hour came to his senses, regained his integrity, and stopped the sale of critical taxpayer-owned assets?

Why should we keep them? Well, the great English philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke—of course, he used to be a paragon of virtue to the conservatives of this country at one time, when we had real conservatives and not sell-out merchants—said: “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.” In short, people who do not appreciate what happened in the past leave a poor legacy for the posterity of this country, and that is what National’s mission is now. Those members should take heed. These words are as relevant today in the 21st century as during Georgian England.

The dams and power stations that supply this country with electricity were built by men of vision and stamina, and across party lines. When Labour and National were running this country decades ago, they agreed on these fundamental things being in the hands of New Zealanders. Their hard work and sacrifice must not be forgotten, for they believed in something that the members opposite me today do not. They believed in New Zealand. They believed in our collective identity as a nation. They believed in a national purpose. But this is a Government with no sense of history, no sense of purpose, and no sense of what is right. They are short-term thinkers with no vision or plan to lead the nation into the 21st century and out of the crisis we are in now.

You know, we were told National would lead us to the brighter future.

💬 Brendan Horan: Over in Australia.

Yes. National was going to lead us to a brighter future. “I am aspirational”, says “Mr Spray and Walk Away”; “I believe in the glass being half full.” Of course he is aspirational. Basically, what is he in the job for? So it can be on his CV before he swans off back to Hawaii when the going gets tough.

💬 Brendan Horan: With his bodyguards.

With his bodyguards—oh, not bodyguards this time. Oh no, you cannot take the bodyguards when you are an ex - Prime Minister.

You know, back then people believed in the collective identity of a nation and national purpose. These members have no such belief. They said they would provide sound economic management. They even said they would stop the exodus to Australia. What a con that was—what a con! And all they have to offer is some half-baked, hare-brained scheme that might raise a small amount of capital in the interim, but in the long term will leave the country worse off. Every independent economist has said that. Everyone who came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee said that as well. Almost 1,500 submissions all said that.

💬 Andrew Williams: And they blocked them.

And they blocked them. So, panicked, they got the bill out of the select committee, and now they are debating it in Parliament. The parliamentary report-back date for that select committee was 16 July—16 July. Three weeks from now.

💬 Hon Member: They’re efficient.

No, no. They wanted it out of the way. This sale will lose hundreds of millions of dollars of dividends to the country in respect of retained profits, and that is only a conservative estimate. I daresay we can expect the actual figure to be much higher. To think that after 3½ years this is the best National could come up with—the best it could come up with after 3½ years.

The worst part is that we have been here before, as other speakers have said. Look at Telecom. It was sold for $4.25 billion in 1990, and delivered dividends to its foreign owners and its new owners of $15 billion. Nearly $9 billion of that went overseas.

💬 Andrew Williams: Overseas.

Yes. It was sold for $4.25 billion, it delivered $15 billion in dividends, and $9 billion of that has already gone offshore, and those members think it is a good idea—they think it is a good idea. It is a huge transfer of wealth—like a giant vacuum cleaner—out of this country every year, and they talk about a brighter future. I suspect they are doing it because of the financial backers of the National Party. It is why Mr Key spent so much time with the boys from the Macquarie Group. Check out his diary—that is the inside word. That capital, as I say, could have been reinvested in other New Zealand productive enterprises.

Another example is BNZ. It was sold for $1.5 billion in 1992. It has transferred to its Aussie owner $13 billion in wealth every year, like a giant vacuum cleaner. No matter what we do now, we are a standout economy in this context. No other similar economy has so much of its ownership in foreign hands. And we have got a group of people over here who wrap around the national flag at election time but do their utmost for the next 365 days, times three, to sell the flag down the river. That is their legacy: treachery and treason. They can do and say what they like, but those are the facts.

I will tell you what is going to happen. When the next election is over and the dust has settled, we are telling everybody—and I mean this, because New Zealand First is notorious for being tough negotiators—that we will take it back at the price we paid. [Interruption] Laugh now and cry later. I have seen these members climbing over cut glass to get to New Zealand First. Well, here comes part of the price—get that clear now. We do not intend to vacate our responsibility to the New Zealand people just because some, temporarily empowered over there, have decided that treason, treachery, and betrayal will be their political mantra.

It has been interesting in the House this afternoon listening to commentator after commentator, member after member, talking about history. Well, a bit like the Leader of the Opposition, I was in the aid business before I came to this place, and here is some history. It is actually set out in Time magazine this week, on 25 June, page 9. “Who wants to be a millionaire?” is the little heading, and it ranks the countries with the greatest proportion of households as millionaires. The lead country has a 17 percent share. What is the name of the country? Can anybody tell me? Let me tell you. It is Singapore. Singapore is the same size as Lake Taupō, it has no assets, no natural resources, and it has the same population as New Zealand. So how come Singapore is at the top of the pile? When I went to Singapore in 1977, to our high commission there—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You should’ve stayed there.

—your Government was giving them foreign aid. What was one New Zealand dollar worth in 1977? It was worth 3.40 Singapore dollars. What is it today? One for one. Who has got to the top of the millionaire pile? Singapore. Where are we? We do not even rate. There has got to be reason for that. How is it that Lee Kuan Yew and his Government have moved his country from the Third World to the First World in 30 years?

I will tell you how it was done. It was done without corruption, because it has a clean Government. It was done through pragmatic, common-sense economic policies. And if we want to stay in a poor space for our community, if we do not want to buy Herceptin for women who have cancer, if we do not want to retire at 65 and we want to push the age back to 75, then just stick with the Labour and New Zealand First arguments. Just stick to the New Zealand First, and Labour, and Green arguments. I would rather listen to the community—the community that voted in the last election. And in my electorate the community voted for exactly this legislation. I stood on the platform—there was not a New Zealand First candidate, but there was from Labour and there were from the Greens. They got trounced by the people in Wairarapa. Those people said: “No, no, no. We don’t want to listen to holding these assets. We don’t want to have more foreign debt so we can pay interest to foreign bankers offshore, thank you very much. We don’t want to increase debt. We don’t want a downgrading of our credit rating. We want to sell 49 percent of some of our assets so that we can use the capital to build better skills, to build better science blocks, to keep the Wairarapa Hospital going in Masterton, and those sorts of things.” That is what the community said.

And I can tell you what the polls are saying now. The polls are saying that 60 percent of those polled want to buy these shares. They want to buy these shares. So I do not understand what the Opposition is on about. The community has said that it wants to build a more competitive and productive economy based on savings and investment, because that is how Singapore got there. It had 30 percent savings in their economy and everybody paid. And we want to move away from foreign debt. We want to move away from foreign lenders. We want to keep the money in our country. [Interruption] Just keep in mind, Mr Peters, that we see on television, almost every night of the week now, the damage that too much debt has done to countries like Greece, a failed State. Debt has damaged Spain, and it is going to come up and damage Italy. It today damaged Cyprus. We can see that damage, and we do not want it in New Zealand. No, we do not. My people in the Wairarapa do not want to see that, at all.

So what this legislation does is say that we will guarantee that the Government, the people of New Zealand, will own 51 percent, a controlling interest in the shares, and that we are prepared to strengthen our capital markets by attracting money from other people, particularly New Zealanders, to purchase these shares. And doing that will help us not go to foreign lenders. Also, requiring and preventing any other than a New Zealand shareholder owning more than 10 percent will ensure widespread New Zealand investment.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Plug him in again; he’s run out of steam.

This, Mr Peters, is a partial share float. It is a partial share float, not a whole share float, as your Government presided over. It is a partial share float, and the point of doing it is to broaden and deepen our capital markets—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: This member’s broad.

But he’s not bald. We need to grow our capital markets because that is how our companies get the opportunity for more capital to grow further, to add more jobs, and to get into businesses like pharmaceuticals and electronics, like Harvest Electronics in Masterton, that will grow significant businesses and export income for this country.

This debate is about three things: it is about controlling our national debt, it is about strengthening our capital markets, and it is about providing funding for new high-priority infrastructural projects. If Opposition members are so against the partial sale of these assets, then I would invite them—any member of the Opposition, in New Zealand First or the Greens—to stand up in this House in this debate now and give an undertaking that should they make the Treasury benches, they will buy the shares back. I want to see a brighter future for my children, for my grandchildren, in this country. I support this legislation unreservedly. Thank you.

This legislation, which arises from the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, has been described as a “Dunne deal”. Many people have pointed to the opportunity the member for Ōhariu has to stop this deal in its tracks. I want to say that it is more than just a “Dunne deal”; it is a “Dunne-y deal”. This is a deal that flushes a big chunk of New Zealand’s economic sovereignty down the toilet. This is a dunny deal for New Zealanders. Today is the third reading of this legislation. It has been an atrociously rushed process. We had in our Finance and Expenditure Committee, despite what members opposite have said, a rushed process. Five minutes was the limit for many submitters. We were allowed to ask one question—one question.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Undemocratic.

It was undemocratic, as the member says. We reported back 5 weeks early, despite no time pressures, and we had rushed teleconference arrangements, which meant many people could not make their contribution. There were no visits to my home town. Many people felt aggrieved by these rushed processes.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I thought they promised to go to Dunedin.

They talked about going to Dunedin, but they never went there.

Unfortunately, this process still gave the Government an overwhelmingly negative message. It still fed back to the Government that nobody likes this deal, this “Dunne-y deal” for New Zealanders. Just 0.6 percent of the submissions that we heard were in favour. Of the over 1,400 submissions, just 0.6 percent of people wished to speak in favour of this legislation. But the Government had cotton wool in its ears.

It has no mandate. We have heard various members opposite try to argue for one. They will try and try but they will fail. More votes went to parties in the election just gone that opposed asset sales than to parties that supported asset sales. You cannot rewrite history, I say to members opposite. The mandate is not there for these sales. Only 0.6 percent were in favour. Over 98 percent were against these sales. We had people voting for parties that opposed these sales, not parties that supported them, in overwhelming numbers, and we had a rushed process designed to take the heat out of this issue. Well, it will not happen. The issue will not go away. New Zealanders know that this is a bad deal.

Mighty River Power is the first asset that National wants to put on the blocks. It is owned by all of us now; National wants to make it owned by a privileged few. There is a citizens initiated referendum out there that is gathering momentum. We know that it already has got 100,000 signatures, and we know that New Zealanders will be out there campaigning as it goes on. More and people are collecting these signatures. We know that number is going to grow. We know that the necessary number of signatures will be reached, probably before this year is out. So the New Zealand public is giving the Government a clear message. It still may not hear it, but it would be a very foolish Government that ignored a citizens initiated referendum. I would not put it past this Government, but I would say it would be a foolish Government that would ignore it.

We heard Bill English at question time today shedding some crocodile tears over salary increases for chief executives and directors under his watch. There were crocodile tears that the salaries had risen under Labour’s term. Well, there can be no way that those crocodile tears mean that increasing them still further is a good idea. Yet we have heard that directors’ salaries have gone up again. And how are they going to be paid for, we ask ourselves? How are those directors’ salary increases and chief executives’ salary increases going to be paid for as these companies are prepared for private sale? How are they going to be paid for? We know. We know that those salary increases will be paid for by higher power prices. This is something that we had submitters tell us through the select committee process. We asked the Government to do some research on it, to have its Treasury officials do it, but unfortunately it had already asked the Treasury officials to write the report, before we had heard all of the submissions.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No!

No, I am deadly serious. Treasury wrote its report. It was against democratic principles.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It was that Todd McClay.

It has been a rushed process. Mr Todd McClay was involved; it started from the chair. It is outrageous. These chief executive officer and board salaries are like the farmer fattening up the pig before it goes to the slaughterhouse. A recent New Zealand Herald survey found that the chief executive officer pay of the four energy companies rose 26.3 percent between 2010 and 2011, compared with general chief executive officer salaries going up just 0.4 percent overall. Those directors’ fees have risen, and who will pay for them? We know. We know who will pay for them. It will be us. It will be the consumers of power in New Zealand.

There are also Treaty issues that have not been put to bed. Again, the select committee process gave room for these issues to be addressed, but they were put to one side. The chair dismissed them and said they were no problem. Well, we glossed over them in the select committee, but Tūwharetoa have not yet let go. They said that they were contemplating action that would undo the asset sales legislation. If the Government wants to use the water resources that Tūwharetoa say they gifted for public good, without working through the Treaty issues, it is running a big risk. We know that when Richard Prebble tried to sell off State-owned forests in 1989, the Māori Council took the Government all the way to the Privy Council, because the Government was about to sell land that was subject to unresolved Treaty claims. And it won. It won, and Tūwharetoa will use that as a precedent. The Government will lose. It has not learnt from history. The Labour Party has learnt from history. The National Government refuses to learn from history.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s right. Some of us learnt with our jobs.

Mr Mallard said earlier that he lost his seat, and his colleagues Mr Goff and Ms King lost their seats, as a result of the asset sales that took place in the 1980s. They spent 9 years in the wilderness, and they learnt their lesson. The National Government did as many asset sales as it could in the 1990s, but here it is, back at it again. It does not bode well for National’s future election chances for it to ignore the will of the New Zealand people, but on it goes. It is not willing to listen to the will of the people.

What did John Key promise, as we went into the last election campaign? He promised, and these are his words—the words of John Key—“We’re giving people a commitment that 85 to 90 percent of the entire company will be owned by New Zealanders. That is my commitment to them tonight, as Prime Minister.” He said that in the leaders’ debate. Well, we wonder now what those words were worth, because we now know that those words are not given effect in the legislation. It is like the Prime Minister promising not to put GST up. We know where that led. That led to tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders while the rest of New Zealand—middle New Zealand—struggles on. So we know that those words may well not be honoured, because they are not worth the sentence that they make up. There is nothing in the legislation to ensure it.

The other point to make is that this is about mums and dads being at the front of the queue, so the rhetoric goes, but we know that New Zealand mums and dads already own these assets. The sale of these assets makes no sense. Most mums and dads do not have any cash to spare once they have paid their electricity bill at the end of the week. They sure as hell will not have the money to stump up to buy these shares.

John Key says that the typical individual bundle of shares is about $5,000 worth. So if you want to keep your shares in Mighty River Power, in Meridian Energy, in Genesis, in Solid Energy, and in Air New Zealand, Mr and Mrs Consumer out there are going to have to fork over a total of about $25,000. It is not the mum and dads I know who have that cash floating around. Most Kiwis cannot afford to pay $25,000 to buy something they already own.

This is made even worse by the economy, which National has been neglecting. Rather than promoting policies that would promote growth in our country—pro-growth tax policies, decent savings policies, research and development policies, and other policies that would support our exporters—National seems to be interested just in selling off those assets we already own. It is not interested in supporting exporters. We had submissions in the select committee that this policy would increase costs and red tape. The National Government was not interested in doing its homework. It does not actually care about New Zealand businesses. It does not actually trust New Zealand businesses to grow our stock market. It thinks we have to get Government assets on to the stock market, because it does not think New Zealand business people are capable of growing our capital base. That is the message that it is sending, and it certainly has lost touch. That is the thing we need to note from this.

To conclude, I want to just say that these asset sales make no sense. New Zealanders know that, the citizens initiated referendum is going to bring that home to the Government, and it will proceed with these sales at its peril. This is a “Dunne-y” deal. We are flushing more of New Zealand’s sovereignty down the toilet. It makes no sense.

This is a split call. The first call goes to the Greens.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. If New Zealanders thought it was such a good idea that they should have to buy assets that they already own and pay twice for them, first through their, their parents’, and their grandparents’ taxes for the infrastructure that the State-owned enterprises have built up—the dams, the hydro generation capacity—and then through paying to get shares in the assets that the Government is now selling, we would not need a massive public relations and advertising campaign to try to convince the public that it makes any kind of economic sense.

Government members are scared. They are scared of what is happening in Europe. They are scared that in the middle of the global recession they will get so little from the sell-down of our energy companies that they will have created an even worse economic mess. They are scared that they will not be able to spend up large and underwrite irrigation schemes that they have been promising agribusiness and the construction industry. But most of all they are scared that New Zealanders will tire of their stunted economic thinking.

They are scared because most New Zealanders oppose asset sales. Most New Zealanders know that it does not make sense to sell these strategically important and highly profitable assets. That is why tens of thousands of New Zealanders are signing the petition to get a referendum on these asset sales, and that is why the Government is spending $120 million, some of which is going to organisations and companies like Clemenger BBDO and SenateSHJ, to run a public relations and spin campaign to try to persuade Kiwis that it is a good idea.

The expertise in our State-owned energy companies could be the cornerstone of a cleaner, smarter, and more robust economy. It could help New Zealand lead rather than lag in the race for green growth. As the recent Pure Advantage report noted, many OECD countries are demonstrating the link between green growth and strong economic performance. To quote the report: “Countries all over the world are investing in green development to help their economies’ transition to a more robust, sustainable and economically benign platform.” But not in New Zealand. No, under this Government we lag behind, both in our environmental indicators and in the Government’s seeking of economic nirvana through dinosaur thinking of the last century on intensive resource exploitation. We are seeing that this week with the aerial surveys over the South West New Zealand World Heritage Area to find mineral resources.

We have the resources in Aotearoa, and we have the expertise and the experience in producing renewable power and in managing grid systems that supply renewable energy. The Government is selling our best opportunity to become large-scale exporters of renewable energy technology, and that is because under this legislation there will be no statement of intent provided to the companies by Ministers, no principle of social responsibility, and no ability for Government Ministers to influence and direct the companies towards cleaner energy technologies and to have an operating strategy that benefits New Zealand’s overall energy strategy and mix.

Worse still, this legislation will make our debt problems worse. The Government says that it has an expectation that no more than 10 to 15 percent of the shares in these companies—that is, 20 to 30 percent of the shares it wants to sell—will end up in foreign ownership, but that is $2 billion more foreign ownership, $2 billion more on our net international liabilities. We already send about $10 billion a year overseas in profits to the owners of our companies and to our foreign debtors. Selling our energy companies to foreign owners will only make that worse. Even on the very conservative numbers provided by the Government, about $100 million a year in profits will flow offshore. That is $100 million a year that we will have to make up for by borrowing or selling more assets.

There were amendments suggested in the Committee stage that would have put a fence round foreign owners and investors buying these assets. Those amendments were sensible, but they were opposed. So there is nothing in this legislation that ensures that Kiwis get the major stake in these assets, and that is because the Government knows that Kiwis cannot afford to pay again for what they already own, and so it needs to sell to overseas buyers. If the Government and its support partners were serious about these asset sales being an opportunity for Kiwis to invest, they would have supported those amendments.

We oppose this legislation. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders oppose it and are standing up for Aotearoa and a better economic future.

We often have robust debate in this House, but there are very few days that you can actually say are a day of shame for the New Zealand Parliament. This, unfortunately, is one of those days. National knows that it does not have a mandate to sell State assets. It knows that despite the fact that we are going to save some money in terms of debt servicing, we are going to be losing more money in terms of the revenue flow from those companies, and we are going to be $100 million worse off. National members know that. They know that overwhelmingly New Zealanders do not want them to do this, but they do not care. They do not care, because the people that they really represent in this Parliament, the people they trot down to Wellington every week to truly represent, do support asset sales. They are the 1 percent that is going to benefit from the hocking off of the assets that the rest of us own. There are very few opportunities to see that glimpse of truth of whom National really represents. Rarely do we get it, but we have got it on this legislation. The 1 percent—that is whom those members come down here to represent. That is who is going to benefit, and it is the rest of us who are going to pay for it.

They like to say that this is a great opportunity for mum and dad investors. Well, mum and dad investors already own these companies. And if there ever was a more true definition of Tory charity, it is selling people something that they already own, and then expecting them to be grateful for it. Mums and dads already own these assets. Most mums and dads I know are more concerned about how they are going to pay the power bill than trying to buy the power company. That is how out of touch the National Party is.

The quality of the Government’s arguments and speakers we have had so far speaks volumes. We had Todd McClay, chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who oversaw a shoddy process where he reported back 5 weeks early. He rammed the Mixed Ownership Model Bill through the select committee process so that it did not have the public scrutiny it needed. They often say that the role of the Finance and Expenditure Committee chair is an audition for Cabinet. Well, I can say that based on his performance, he can look forward to a long political lifetime of patsy questions, Mr McClay—a long lifetime. I remember when I sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and the National Party went apoplectic about how rushed that process was. Do you know how long that process took? It took 58 hours of hearing submissions and 16 hours of deliberation. Well, under Mr McClay’s watch the committee departmental report was written before the submitters had even submitted, and there was less than an hour of deliberation—less than an hour. That is a double standard, and it shows just how scared National is about the political impact of this legislation.

Then we had Paul Goldsmith, who lectured us on the virtues of market capitalism and told us that only private companies can ever run anything efficiently. Apparently, the global financial crisis was just something that happened to other people, in Mr Goldsmith’s world. He says that we have to do this because that is the only way we are going to get productivity out of these companies.

But National’s king-hit argument is that it is doing it because Labour did it a quarter of a century ago. Well, it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Labour paid politically and electorally for those decisions, and, more important, the country paid economically for those decisions to privatise in the 1980s and 1990s. That is why the last Labour Government sold no assets. In fact, we had to purchase some of them back because they were being stripped and because they were at risk of falling over. I wonder whether Mr Goldsmith thought that Air New Zealand was a shining model of market capitalism when it nearly got bankrupted and the Government had to bail it out—the Government had to bail it out.

Kiwis know that we are all going to be poorer as a result of these sales. They know that power prices are going to have to go up when the motive becomes profit maximisation rather than any kind of aspect of social responsibility. The State-owned companies under their current legislation have to show restraint around pricing and have social responsibility. That is why, on average, they charge less than the privately run companies. The Government’s response to this is to say that, no, people are going on the internet to swap power companies, and that shows the market is working. No, it does not. It shows that people are desperate. It shows that they already cannot pay their power bills, and they are looking for any way to reduce that burden. That is why New Zealanders oppose these asset sales: because power prices are going to go up.

New Zealand is unique in the world in not having any protections for domestic power consumers to ensure that they can pay the power bills. That is why, since the global financial crisis hit, in New Zealand power prices have continued to increase while everywhere else in the world, as those protections have kicked in, power prices have gone down. There is no protection for domestic power consumers in New Zealand. Power prices will go up. The Government does not have a mandate to sell these assets. It should admit that. Where is Peter Dunne, the man whose—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Time has expired.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. I am pleased to take the opportunity to represent the Māori Party in setting out our position on this legislation. The Māori Party has maintained a clear position on the mixed-ownership model from the moment it was mooted, and that is to oppose this legislation, which enacts National’s decision to sell a significant share in specific State-owned assets. The planned sale of power companies raises issues of ownership and management of freshwater and other natural resources that are still under discussions between iwi and the Crown. We absolutely support the well-founded right of Māori to be party to those discussions. We also remind the Crown of its obligation to enter into dialogue with its Treaty partner, and I hope to speak to that matter shortly.

Let me make it clear that we strongly oppose the removal of the four State-owned enterprises from the State-Owned Enterprises Act, and the proposal to sell 49 percent of these important Crown assets, until historical Treaty settlements are concluded with all claimants who wish to include these assets in the redress package. We should not claim that not a lot is left in the bucket on the one hand while, at the same time, selling off the resource.

Our position has been informed by the context of some fundamental kaupapa that the Māori Party believes in, and it forms the foundation of our analysis of the legislation. Kaitiakitanga talks about resource management and healthy water, land, and people. Whakapapa relationships talks about the relationship between the sea and inland, and our commitment to enhancing the well-being of whānau, hapū, and iwi. It is also about understanding the interconnectedness between the different elements of our environment. Mana whenua and mana moana are about rights and responsibilities. These are the sorts of kaupapa that give us a Māori world view and concepts by which we should operate.

Then we must consider the historical context: a history shaped by far-reaching decisions throughout our history in education, land, te reo Māori, forestry, radio, and television. It is a history that has helped define our nation, ensuring that Māori have the same rights as others to the protection of law, and recognising our unique distinctiveness as tangata whenua and as one of the two partners of the Treaty. Vitally, it reminds us all of the constitutional significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as instructing us on how we should live together as partners.

Since the famous New Zealand Māori Council lands case in 1987, Treaty protections have kept economic and strategic assets of huge value in New Zealand hands; they have been guaranteed protection by the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. To arrive at a point whereby that partnership is beginning to be recognised by the Crown through its legislation has taken many, many years, and we have been absolutely determined to follow that through and preserve it. This legislation is a backward step that makes a mockery of a proud history and, in particular, section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, which declares that “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

Despite voting against this legislation, we are happy enough with the precedent established by that section 9, which is retained in this legislation. We fought very hard and to the wire to ensure those protections were maintained, but we know that the fight is not over. Although we know that the legislation imposes Treaty obligations on the Crown, there are, however, some fish-hooks about how the Crown will exercise its Treaty obligations. As a case in point, the Crown Treaty obligations apply only to the exercise of the Crown’s powers as a shareholder. And what would that mean in practical terms? That is pretty much uncertain at this point. Under this bill the Crown-appointed directors would not be subject to the Crown’s Treaty obligations. Although it would be unorthodox, it would have been a showing of good faith if this bill spelt out how the Crown’s Treaty obligations would be met through its directors. These questions prompted us to vote in support of the amendments put forward by Mr Mallard and Mr Parker at the Committee stage that would enable companies and the directors placed under a mixed-ownership structure to continue to be bound by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but it was not to be.

This legislation has been a mammoth exercise that iwi Māori have been actively engaged with. The Māori Party pays a huge tribute to all of those iwi and, indeed, to the 1,488 submissions, of which many were from iwi and hapū groups, for being prepared to stand up and be counted. It would be impossible to summarise these views, but I did want to ensure that this final debate ends with the words of iwi. In this case I have turned to the submission from one of our own, Te Ariki Tumu te Heuheu, on behalf of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The collective Ngāti Tūwharetoa position was to oppose the bill on five clear grounds, and I will outline those now.

Firstly, they said that “Ngāti Tūwharetoa are the legal owners of the lakes and rivers used by Mighty River Power and Genesis Power …”. Their concern is that the model privatises electricity generation operations on their waterways without them having any say in the matter. They are not prepared to stand by and watch private commercial interests generating private profits from lakes and rivers they own in freehold title.

Part 2 of the submission was about the fact that these power schemes were established to generate electricity for the public good, not for private profit. Sir Tumu, in his eloquent way, said that “The model expressly enables the privatisation, and consequential commercialisation, of schemes that were previously operated in the national interest.” Tūwharetoa also remarked that it was a very auspicious occasion in 1993, under the National Government of the day, when Lake Taupō was returned to the hands of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. This legislation will now urge them to reconsider their position around public free access, in light of the likely commercial exploitation of the Taupō waters.

The third element I want to talk to from the Tūwharetoa submission was that “justice dictates … our opportunity to reach a fair resolution … Treaty claims should not be foreclosed by the sale of the SOEs.” This is a key position for iwi across the motu—that our rights need to be properly provided for before the sale of any State-owned assets results in the trampling of those rights. The fourth issue raised was that Ngāti Tūwharetoa has a relationship with the Crown and is therefore entitled to expect that the Crown will act honourably and consistently with its Treaty obligations. This is what they expect as a party to the Treaty relationship.

Finally, they said that relationships with the Crown are critical to the success of electricity generators like Mighty River Power and Genesis, and yet this does not get translated into this bill. Tūwharetoa describe the significant relationships that they have entered into with various landowning entities and Mighty River Power, such as the joint ownership of Tuarōpaki Power Station.

I want to make it clear that we are not here to tell iwi what to do with their money, but I think that the points that Ngāti Tūwharetoa and, indeed, many iwi have made in opposing this legislation are really important drivers as to how the Government can expect to work in good faith with iwi going forward.

One of the critical omissions in this legislation is that it does not include a social responsibility requirement, as in section 4(1)(c) of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. That section requires each State-owned enterprise to, amongst other things, be “an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.” This has been a really important basis for many iwi in establishing an effective relationship with the entities. It has provided an important balance to the commercial focus of the State-owned enterprises and reflects the public good—say, for electricity generation—for which they were established. A lesson for the Government must be to build on these relationships and to be socially responsible.

Finally, I want to reiterate the Māori Party’s strong opposition to this legislation but also our commitment to futureproofing the next generation. Thinking ahead is an important pillar to making sure that we look after our natural resources and the management of them. Our customary rights to use resources were founded on customary responsibilities to protect, sustain, and enhance. We agree with the analysis by Mr Brian Gould that the stated reasons for iwi being keen to be buyers in the question of our State-owned assets deserve some attention. His view was that iwi have made it clear that their intention—and here is the punchline—is to buy so that they can hold the assets in trust for future generations of Māori. In this respect, we have pushed for iwi to have their own share category as tangata whenua, and we know that these negotiations are still in progress. How National responds will be an ongoing marker in the relationship it has with whānau, hapū, and iwi into the future. We oppose this legislation.

As the last speaker in regard to the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill, it gives me great pleasure to be in this House today. This is a debate that has changed over the course of the last hour or so in this House. We have seen the debate develop into one of economic management and economic discipline. We have seen a debate around a plan for the future of how we deal with the situation that New Zealand and the rest of the world face. Clearly you have, on one side of the House, the Opposition, which has an economic model that has been unproven and ineffective. On this side of the House you have an economic plan that is about good, strong, economic management and making the right decisions, even though they may be the hard decisions to make.

When we look at this legislation we all realise the issues involved. There is a lot of tension around the House around this issue, and there is a lot of respect for the issues and the arguments that can be made on either side of it. But we have to make the right decision now. These are difficult times, and in difficult times we need leadership. This leadership that you are getting here today is one from the Government where we have identified an issue that has gone to the public over the last year. We have looked into that issue and made a hard decision on how we deliver the best economic management for New Zealand going forward. That leadership has to be to follow that decision through. That is hard, and it is difficult in any organisation and in any country. Yesterday you saw it in the dairying industry, that it had to make a hard decision, even though there was a difference of opinion. Sometimes, in this role of governing this country, we have to make those decisions.

Energy assets will always demand public attention, and they will in the future because we have a growing population and we have a growing world economy that will look at food and energy as major resources going forward. The Government has recognised that with the 51 percent strategic shareholding in these assets.

We have heard many comments in this House about the political history of asset sales or the mixed-ownership model in New Zealand. We have heard parties say that they have been through that and have learnt their lessons. I do not know whether that is necessarily the case. I see those parties over there using that as a convenient byline at this time. They do not go back and buy back BNZ and Telecom, even though they like to use those examples in this House. We need to be realistic about economic conditions in New Zealand and around the world. We as a Government cannot own everything, we as a Government cannot control everything, and we as a Government cannot do everything. This country relies on a partnership between the Government, individuals, enterprise, and industry. This legislation enables us to bring that partnership in one of our most crucial industries going forward.

We often hear about the loss of dividends. Well, that is not the case. The public out there need to understand that there has been a distinction between capital and income dividends, and that you have seen the Opposition using a higher figure to inflate its argument. The returns will still be taxable here, and New Zealanders understand this.

We need a Government that will make the right decisions to invest in our country going forward. This is what you are getting from this Government. We are looking at what are the best ways to manage this economy, without raising too much debt and without inflicting an economic management that would kill the growth of the country going forward. If we do not make these decisions now, New Zealanders will not have the choice around how those decisions will be made in the future. We need to make those decisions now, and this legislation makes those decisions, but it also gives flexibility to the Government in how that float process is undertaken. When we look at that float process, the Government has made it clear that it wants New Zealanders to be at the front of that queue. We look forward to that progress, as we go through the rest of this year.

This is important legislation. It is not about the rhetoric on both sides. It is about doing the right thing for New Zealand in these difficult times. We are doing that. This is leadership. It is tough, but sometimes tough decisions need to be made in the best interests of your country.

Order! [Interruption] Order! I have called for order. Members, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill that was reported back to the House was divided into two bills in the Committee stage, so there are two questions.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw your attention to Standing Order 141, “Personal vote following party vote”, where it says: “A personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” I think this vote is so close, and this is very, very significant legislation before this House. I would request that a personal vote be taken. I would seek the Speaker’s ruling that this become a personal vote on this matter.

The answer is that this is a vote that has been carried by one, which has quite frequently been the case. In no previous case, in my experience in the House, has a majority of a single vote—where there have been clearly cast votes—been any reason for a personal vote to be taken. So the point of order is overruled.

💬 Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Well, we are not going to address the same point of order, Mr Williams.

No. We cannot be 100 percent sure that all—

Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I have ruled on this matter. There is no reason for a personal vote. I call on Government order of the day No. 3.

💬 Andrew Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Look, I have ruled on this matter.

💬 Andrew Williams: Well, I would like to seek that the Speaker be—

I am the Speaker, for the purpose of this Parliament. If the member raises one more point of order, he will leave the Chamber.