State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill

I move, That the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. This is a very straightforward piece of legislation. It is built on the back of 80-plus percent of New Zealanders who are opposed to their State-owned assets being sold in part or in whole offshore, or being sold back to them and having to use their money for a second time to buy back what they already own. In essence, the bill is about protecting the remaining strategic assets that we have on the schedule—that is, New Zealand Post, Kiwibank, KiwiRail, Radio New Zealand, and others—for future generations. Any Government, under this piece of legislation, trying to sell these assets will need a 75 percent majority in Parliament or to win a referendum. That is a fair policy. The bill ensures that strategic asset sales will need to pass a higher hurdle than they have in recent times with this Government, which has used every device in Parliament, in the face of rising public angst and opposition, to ram through asset sales legislation, abusing the constitutionality of the select committee process and Parliament as a whole.

This will be, I have said publicly, an acid test for the Government, because if it is the Government’s intention not to proceed with other asset sales, it will support this bill. This bill was not drawn from the ballot until after the asset sales legislation was rammed through by the Government, and those assets that are now on the block, of course, are outside the schedule, so this bill deals with those that are inside the schedule. But I have to say for the record that if it went to the select committee, the Labour Opposition would not be opposed to amending this legislation to bring those assets that are now outside the schedule and threatened with sale back inside it, but that is for another day. We would be very happy to accept and propose that amendment. This is about enshrining and protecting what we have left, and if the Government’s intention is to sell only those assets that it took out of the schedule—i.e., Solid Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis, Meridian, and Air New Zealand—then it would have no problem supporting this legislation. If it does not support this legislation, if it does not accept this piece of legislation and back it, we will know that despite the musings of Bill English back in 2008 and again in 2010 about, for instance, finding it acceptable to sell off KiwiRail, it has an open intent to proceed beyond those assets that it has taken out of the schedule to other assets like, for instance, New Zealand Post, KiwiRail, Radio New Zealand, Kiwibank, and others. It is a very straightforward piece of legislation.

It will also be interesting to see whether the Hon Peter Dunne votes for this legislation, because, of course, he made a promise not to sell Kiwibank, not to sell Radio New Zealand—

💬 Hon John Banks: It’s going nowhere. You’re wasting your time.

Well, I know that it is a waste of time for Mr Banks, of course, because Mr Banks would sell his own grandmother if he had the chance. He would flog everything off. We know that. So my comments are not actually addressed to “Lazarus”, the man who has lurched out the crypt and waddled around, and come back into Parliament. My comments are not addressed to him.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Lazarus was more positive than that.

Lazarus was more positive, that is true. He was a positive human being. But the sort of political cadaver that has come out of the crypt and back into Parliament, I do not address my comments to him at all. It is a waste of time, an utter waste of time. In fact, actually, it is a waste of time addressing any comments to Mr Banks, because 30 seconds after you say something he will have forgotten them, of course, because he has amnesia. With your leave, Mr Assistant Speaker, I am happy to repeat my speech twice or in triplicate so that he will actually remember the words, or, perhaps, his own name.

But more seriously, this is a simple choice for Parliament. Mr Banks can say that it is a waste of time, but it is a simple choice. It is a simple choice that says that we are not prepared to stand by and allow a Government, holus-bolus, to go and sell off the strategic assets that we have. We know 80 percent of New Zealanders are against the National Government selling the assets it has put on the block now.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Bollocks.

We know that—what was that? I will not actually use the “b” word that Mr Coleman used, because I think it was in relation to male anatomy or something like that, and it would not be appropriate. But it is not rubbish to say that 80 percent of New Zealanders oppose these asset sales. It is not rubbish at all. Dr Coleman will remember those remarks as we take this fight out and when we get the referendum. We will have very little talk about mandates when the New Zealand people get a chance to put this to a vote in a referendum. So the choice for the National Party is very, very simple. I invite Dr Coleman to get up tonight. We know that John Banks would sell anything he could, but I invite Dr Coleman and the other Ministers to get up and tell us whether they are prepared to support the bill. If they are not prepared to support the bill, then that tells us clearly that this Government does have an intent to go well beyond, at some future date, the assets it has put on the block. Are they prepared to answer this question, then: is Dr Coleman prepared to guarantee that he will not sell KiwiRail in part or whole whilst he is in Government?

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well, there are no plans to.

Sorry? Hang on, let us hear it. Sorry?

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: There are no plans to.

Oh, there are no plans to. Well, that is in stark contrast to what Steven Joyce said. He said that he could not give a guarantee. He could not give a guarantee that KiwiRail would not be put on the block. So there are no plans to. That is not a guarantee of anything. Those are weasel words, which say that it could well be on the block.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s what Roger Douglas used to say when it was going to happen that afternoon: “No current plans.”

Indeed. And I suspect that Dr Coleman would probably be the last person to be told anyway. But let us look at this—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: John Banks would forget.

And John Banks would forget, that is right; he would forget which way the washroom was, and the Cabinet room was, and his own name. What we have seen with the passage of the State-owned enterprises legislation is that one vote in this Parliament, one vote out of 120 members of Parliament, kissed goodbye to some seriously heavy-duty assets that are bringing in millions and billions of dollars for this country. It was down to one vote. I think Kiwis, by their very nature, think it should not be down to one vote and there should be a proper process. What this bill does is it sets in place a higher hurdle. If the Government will not support it, then the Government has signalled to the people of New Zealand, as have Mr Dunne and “Rumpelstiltskin” in the corner, that it is prepared to actually sell and go further than those assets that are on the block. [Interruption] Well, there were a few dwarves—one was Dopey, I think, but we will not go there, or Sleepy, who I think had amnesia as well.

But the point is that if the Government representatives are not prepared to support the legislation, then I invite them to get up and tell us whether they will not go beyond, in terms of selling assets, those that they have taken out of the schedule. Will they sell additional assets? Will they guarantee that they will not sell additional assets? What this bill will do, whether it is up or down tonight, is tell the New Zealand people very clearly what the agenda is, what the agenda could be, and what the Government’s intent is. I invite the House to support this legislation. I look forward to the contributions. I know we will have some very strange speeches. But the acid test for this crew—not him, John Banks—and Peter Dunne is that if they do not support this, we know that other assets will be on the block.

The last speaker in the debate was, in fact, the author of the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, Mr Cosgrove, and he asked Government members to stand up and say whether we would support this legislation. I can categorically say to Mr Cosgrove that the answer is that, no, we will not be supporting this. You see, this is an opportunist piece of legislation that continues a discussion with the public of New Zealand that was held for the whole of last year, and that the New Zealand public had an opportunity to vote on. This legislation also is unworkable, and I will address that in a moment.

You see, this Labour member’s bill seeks to entrench schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act and schedule 2 of the Crown Entities Act so that removal of any entity from the schedules would require the agreement of 75 percent of the House or a majority of votes in a public referendum. So is that not wonderful? Mr Cosgrove is saying that it would take 75 percent of the members of this House to do anything else around any partial sale or full sale of these assets in the schedules of these two Acts. But what he has not realised is that to amend this legislation or to throw this legislation out, if it became law, would take a simple majority of the House. So one vote more in favour than against would destroy this piece of legislation, which he has thought long and hard about, and would get rid of it.

What I would also say is that in so far as asset sales are concerned Kate Wilkinson last year campaigned on the mixed-ownership model. She campaigned on reducing debt. She campaigned on making sure that the Government was accountable in so far as the economy is concerned. She campaigned on investing in new assets for New Zealanders. And she won that election, and went from being a list MP to a constituent MP.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Which seat was that? Which electorate?

From a list MP to a constituent MP in the seat of Waimakariri. We also had the incumbent MP, Mr Cosgrove, who has brought this bill before the House. He did not campaign on this piece of legislation. He did not campaign on it. What he did was campaign against the mixed-ownership model, the partial sale of assets. He campaigned against the Government getting debt under control, investing more in the New Zealand economy, and growing our asset base for New Zealanders. What happened in that election? He went from being the constituent MP to a list MP. The people of New Zealand, all over New Zealand, but in particular people in the Waimakariri electorate had a chance to consider supporting a list MP who was campaigning on a mixed-ownership model of the partial sale of assets, or for an incumbent MP who was saying “Don’t sell these assets. Let’s not have the mixed-ownership model.” I can tell you that the people’s voice was clear.

I also note that one of my colleagues said that during that campaign, when Mr Cosgrove realised that it was not going as well as he wanted, he de-branded from the Labour Party. The Labour slogans were taken down all over the place. He took them off his hoardings. He got rid of them, and he became Clayton Cosgrove, man of the people. Well, the people did not want him as their man; they wanted a great woman, Kate Wilkinson, and good on them.

I want to say that in this bill there are a couple of issues that are of particular concern. One of those is around what has happened in the past and what could happen in the future. The only piece of legislation we have enacted in New Zealand with the same provision currently entrenched in law in this manner is the Electoral Act. That is important, because we do not want parties playing around with electoral law just because there may be a bit of political gain in that. Indeed, all that Mr Cosgrove is trying to do with this piece of legislation is mislead New Zealanders, drag them back to the debate that happened over the whole of last year when John Key, as Prime Minister, made a case to them. More New Zealanders voted for John Key and the National Party than any other party ever under MMP, and actually that was the second election in a row where that was the case. Mr Cosgrove is trying to divert New Zealanders from that and the job at hand.

Let us have a look at the record of the Labour Party on issues like this, which must have motivated Mr Cosgrove to draft this bill, to go out and consult with New Zealanders, and then to put it in the ballot and bring it to the House. So what has Labour done under the mixed-ownership model previously? Well, we know that it never enshrined in law a mixed-ownership model that would guarantee, under the law, 51 percent ownership of any State asset by the Crown. We know that it did not do that. When it had an opportunity, it sold things wholesale, left, right, and in the centre, as fast as it could.

Labour has said that it is opposed to the partial sale of State-owned enterprises. Well, with Mr Cosgrove’s member’s bill Labour wants to entrench the ownership of Government shares in State-owned enterprises into law. Yet when those members were last in Government they established a mixed-ownership model for Air New Zealand and they did not do it then. It was all right for them back then with Air New Zealand. But today, after not campaigning on this issue, after not raising it with the public, after going out and saying they were against the mixed-ownership model but being rejected resoundingly by the public and sent back to Opposition—not just sent back to Opposition but with fewer members of Parliament, fewer constituent MPs, and more list MPs like Mr Cosgrove—now they are in favour of it. Then they sold Government-owned shares in the airline. They sold those shares. They would not entrench them.

In 2007 they sold 49 percent of the State-owned Spring Creek Mine for millions of dollars to an American multinational. That sale was approved by Trevor Mallard. They did not entrench anything then; they sold it wholesale. And when Labour was in Government the time before that, it sold 15 State assets for almost $10 billion in 3 years, supported by Phil Goff, Annette King, and, again, Trevor Mallard. There was no legislation to entrench anything then; it is just today that they want to do that, after having not campaigned on this legislation or gone out to the people of New Zealand to make a case against the mixed-ownership model. New Zealanders voted in a Government that is focused on what is right for this country.

Labour members also do not include any electricity generation on the list of infrastructure assets that they think must be owned by the Crown, and they refuse to commit to buying back a single share sold under the mixed-ownership model. As Mr Cosgrove has challenged us, I ask him to stand up and make a commitment that under a Labour Government they would buy back those shares. I recognise that one party has a position on that, but the party making the most noise on this issue certainly has not.

The reason National will not be supporting this legislation is that it does nothing about what is important to New Zealanders. It does nothing about law and order and making people safer in their communities. It does nothing about getting rid of intimidation from gang members. Labour had an opportunity; it did not support that earlier here today. It does nothing about what is important to New Zealanders and why we were elected—re-elected—with an increased vote. This Government is focused on responsible management of the Government’s finances, returning us back to surplus and reducing debt, building a more competitive and productive economy by investing more in assets for New Zealanders, delivering better public services for New Zealanders—something New Zealanders wanted; they voted for it in the past, and they will vote for it again—and, of course, rebuilding Christchurch. If Mr—who is the member who lost his seat to Kate Wilkinson? If Mr Cosgrove had his way, then he would get rid of all of that. There would be more debt, there would be less responsibility in Government, there would be fewer public services delivered for New Zealanders who need them, and Christchurch—on the edge of the electorate that he used to be the member of Parliament for and now is no longer—would not be rebuilt. We will not be voting for this legislation, and I am appalled that Mr Cosgrove has taken up this House’s time with such an un-useful piece of legislation. Thank you.

The member opposite, Todd McClay, had the opportunity to make a reasoned defence of National’s plans to embark on future asset sales, but chose not to. I think he has demeaned his party and himself in advancing arguments as spurious as those that he has just done. To launch into an ad hominem attack on my colleague Clayton Cosgrove on the basis of his seat, rather than addressing the issues at hand, is not worthy of the highest standards of this House.

He said in one sentence that this bill, the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, was unworkable, but then provided absolutely not one shred of evidence or argument to say why. Actually, the bill is very simple, it is very clear, and it only takes the Government at its word by entrenching future assets into a 75 percent threshold, thereby requiring a broad range of the representatives of New Zealanders to assent before what is the common heritage of all New Zealanders is sold. If we had that kind of requirement, the truth is we would have a better informed debate. We would move more carefully through the issues that this Government has run headlong into—things as important and as basic as the Treaty rights debates around water issues. One would have thought the Government would have asked itself, before it committed to this sale. The truth is it could not paddle a canoe down the Waikato River to save itself. It could not organise a party in a brewery, this lot. It is shameful that it is not prepared—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Keep the analogies going.

We will not go into any ad hominem arguments, which so obviously tempt the member sitting just behind me and to my right.

The argument was raised that the previous Labour Government sold some assets. You know, that is factually correct. The problem with that for the Government today is that we learnt from that experience. The difference between a fool and a wise man is that only a fool repeats the same mistakes twice. We have learnt from it. We know that the privatisation of Telecom, which both parties worked on, was done with an insufficient regulatory framework. We fixed it and we learnt from that. But the Telecom sale did actually include an entrenched Kiwi share obligation, now known as the Telecom share obligation, which includes restrictions on foreign ownership and provides protections to New Zealand consumers. It was not done with no forethought; it is just that those protections were not strong enough. In my view, that privatisation should not have proceeded at all on that basis.

You know, the member then said that there was nothing about gang members and there was nothing about DPB mums. What he was really saying was it is a bill without dog whistles. Well, New Zealanders are sick to the back teeth of being dog whistled at while they are on the dole queue. They want to feed their families, they want decent jobs, and they want a home to live in, and the well-heeled members opposite, who are troughing in their own tax cuts, might laugh, but New Zealanders are very concerned about those issues.

New Zealanders do not want dog whistles; they want solutions. A solution is not selling off the family silver to make up the deficits of today because the Government is devoid of real ideas to grow the pie, to build high-value manufacturing, and to build a high performance economy. Those so-called stewards of the public interest have come up short—they have come up short. A few chips short of a Happy Meal, as the kids would say—a few ideas short of a strategy. Privatisation of existing assets to simply transfer the value to a foreign owner is not a strategy. If it is such a good strategy, we say to the Government to have the courage of its convictions and give us a 75 percent threshold.

There is one thing that needs to be put on the public record today, and that is that the people of Waimakariri are great judges of character. The ultimate test was election day last year, when they transferred the mantle of authority from that Labour member, Clayton Cosgrove, to the member we have got now for Waimakariri, Kate Wilkinson. That proves that the people of “Waimak” are great judges of character. They would not have—

💬 Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I noticed that Mr Banks has notes and I move that we allow him to read from his notes in case he forgets his speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member will sit down. That is not a point of order and it is up to the Speaker to judge.

The sponsor of this bill is the former member for “Waimak”, who has been transferred to the Labour Party list, and so he should. Like the sponsor of this bill, this bill will be unplugged. Like the sponsor’s head, this bill will be unplugged by the National-ACT coalition this afternoon in Parliament.

The bill begins with an own goal—the bill begins with an own goal. The explanatory note tells us: “Once a State enterprise or Crown entity company has been omitted from [the Act] a shareholding Minister may sell, … the enterprise or company. Future parliaments would thereby be limited in their ability to reverse such changes.” That is what it says in the explanatory note of this silly little bill, sponsored by this silly little fellow, formerly the member for “Waimak”, who is now transferred rightfully on to the Labour Party list—low on the list, at that.

We do not hear rational evidence based on policy from the Labour Party like we used to. The Labour Party electorate of “Waimak” used to have a member called Mike Moore, and this front-bench list member sponsoring this bill is no Mike Moore—he is no Mike Moore. Mike Moore was a tower of a man, short in height but tall in stature in this Parliament, and “mini-Mike”, the sponsor of this bill, is no Mike Moore. But this is what Mike Moore had to say about this—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you were listening to the member speaking and you will reprimand him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): This is a very robust debate. There have been a number of interjections, and I guess the member is reacting to them, but I would ask the member to speak to the bill.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you indicating you were not listening to what the member said? Because if you were you would have required him to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I was listening, but I—

💬 Hon Chris Tremain: The member who initiated this debate used all sorts of expletives about the member down in front. It is tragic for this member to stand now and claim that the member in front of me should not be using those sorts of words. It is crazy.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have heard enough. It is one all.

The World Trade Organization was ably led by a man that this side of the House promoted to the World Trade Organization, the former Labour front-bencher Mike Moore. The sponsor of this bill is—sure as hell—no Mike Moore. More recently, this is what the real Mike Moore wrote, and this is what he would have to say about this bill: “What’s the common denominator in success and failure? Open economies always do better. Trade and competition drive up better results and [help to combat] corruption, as well as allocate resources more efficiently. Private ownership, spread through society, works.” That is what the former front-bench member of the Labour Party the Rt Hon Mike Moore had to say about free trade and private ownership.

But the days of Mike Moore towering above this House no longer exist. What do they have today? They have the member of the Labour Party who formerly represented “Waimak” as the towering pigmy of former member Mike Moore, who was the World Trade—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Righto, I have heard enough. The member will concentrate on the contents of the bill. This is the first reading of the bill, and we want to hear the substance of the bill.

The problem with the bill is that it will not work. The introductory remarks of the bill state that a shareholding Minister may sell a public asset. What is the bill all about if a shareholding Minister may sell a public asset, enterprise, or company? “Future parliaments would thereby be limited in their ability to reverse such changes.” We know that Governments are not good owners of public cash-earning assets. We know that the private sector can run public assets better than the public sector. Labour needs this legislation because it cannot defend public ownership on evidence. These have been studied to death. Public or private ownership of assets has been studied to death in many, many studies, and the jury is in. Private enterprise runs businesses better than the Government can. That is why we do not need this bill, and that is why members on this side of the House, in the majority, will be voting this bill down.

When I look at bills like this one today, it is little wonder that the good people of “Waimak” made a solid decision and chose Kate Wilkinson, who will be voting against this bill today and who will be voting down this bill today on behalf of the people of “Waimak”. We will be voting it down today on behalf of the people of Epsom. The ACT Party opposes this bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. In between the ad hominem attacks that have characterised most of the Government speeches so far in this bill, there has actually been some interesting debate around the role of State ownership, and I would like to talk a little bit about that.

The Green Party believes in a mixed ownership of the New Zealand economy, in the sense that we have a combination of the State sector but also the private sector. I think that if you look at most successful modern economies, they involve a combination of the two. For that reason the Green Party just does not have the problem with the role of State energy companies in our economy that, clearly, the ACT Party has and also the National Party has.

In this debate around State ownership the Hon John Banks did make an interesting point. He said that private management is always better. That was the essence of his argument. It is interesting to look at the most recent case, which is, of course, Mighty River Power. Mighty River Power was recently given the award for best energy company of the year in New Zealand. There are a number of energy companies in New Zealand. Mighty River Power is one of the State-owned ones, but there are a number of others that are privately owned. TrustPower is one of them, for example, and Contact Energy is the other major one. There is competition within New Zealand between State-owned energy companies as well as privately owned energy companies or companies listed on the New Zealand Exchange. When that competition was put to the test by the peers—the peers in the industry considered these different energy companies—they came to the conclusion, most recently, that the best energy company, and electricity company in particular, in New Zealand was Mighty River Power. That, I think, demonstrates that it is not always the case that private sector managers are always better than public sector managers.

There are many other criteria you could use to make this assessment. If we were to look at the case of Air New Zealand, after it was privatised and handed over to private sector managers they immediately bankrupted the company when they made a very poor decision to buy Ansett Australia. As a result, the State had to step in again to rescue that company. So we have numerous examples where private sector companies have made very poor decisions that resulted in quite considerable economic damage to New Zealand, and public sector companies, or State-owned companies, have made good decisions and have been good managers. No doubt the reverse is also true. So to say, point-blank, as a kind of blanket argument that private sector managers always do better is to argue against the evidence. The evidence, actually, is a bit more mixed than that and it is not necessarily directly related to whether it is State-owned or privately managed. I think that that is very important to this debate.

Putting aside the question of who are better managers—because you simply cannot argue in a New Zealand context that, looking at the energy companies, the private sector energy managers are always better—the question is what the characteristics of the New Zealand economy are that mean it would be a bad idea to privatise the energy companies. One of the characteristics is that, in fact, it is a small open economy that runs a large current account deficit, and the reference to Mike Moore is, I think, pertinent in this respect. As a small open economy, if these energy companies were privatised it is very likely that they would simply fall into overseas ownership over time. This is, of course, what happened with Contact Energy.

An economy that consistently runs a current account deficit has this problem. How do you fund a current account deficit? There are three ways: the main two ways are you sell assets or you borrow, and, of course, the third way is you print money. The main two ways are to borrow or to sell assets. Once these important companies were privatised, if the Government went down that route, it is very likely over time that they would fall into overseas ownership. That would add to New Zealand’s current account deficit, and that is a long-term strategic problem for New Zealand.

In particular, in relation to the energy companies that the Government is talking about privatising, the Green Party has gone to some length to put up a positive alternative, and that is that these energy companies should be part of a renewable energy sector—an export sector to the rest of the world. Mighty River Power is already exporting geothermal technology to the world, and Meridian Energy is doing the same with some of its renewable projects. This should be New Zealand’s next Fonterra. We should be world leaders in renewable energy exports, but we can do that only if we keep these companies, with their headquarters in New Zealand and with their research and development maintained in New Zealand, and that means keeping them in State ownership. That does not mean that they do not partner with the private sector. Of course they should partner with the private sector. But if we are to get the real economic advantages from a renewable energy export sector in New Zealand, we need to keep these companies in public ownership, and that is why the Green Party has taken that position.

It is my pleasure to speak on the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. I have to admire the indefatigable nature of Mr Cosgrove. There is no doubt that we fought an election on this very issue, where it was front and centre right throughout the election. They lost, so the legislation for the mixed-ownership model programme was brought before the House. Mr Cosgrove fought very valiantly at every stage, at every step, and through the select committee process. Now, having failed in that area, we have this bill. I, of course, do not want to engage in any ad hominem attacks, and, like I say, I spent the weekend listening to the Remuera lunch club, when they raised the matter of the House engaging in all sorts of attacks and that we need to work together. So I want to focus on the broader issues of this bill and the broader constitutional issue about how often we should be constraining ourselves in this way.

It seems to me that this bill, which is requiring 75 percent support for the Government to sell such things, would want to freeze-frame the current situation, the current status, and the current asset list of the Government for ever and a day. The Government is creating new assets all the time, every day, and if we were to pass this bill, we would certainly be reducing the flexibility of the Government and our ability to respond to circumstances as they arrive. I do find it hard to imagine that Mr Cosgrove would be introducing such a bill if, indeed, he was in Government. So I will be very interested to see. I am a little bit nervous that this bill will not pass this time round, but I will keep a copy of it, and I will be very interested to see whether, in 10 years’ time or 9 years’ time, when Mr Cosgrove does get another chance to be a Minister, he reintroduces this bill. I do not think he would like to have it constraining his activity when he is in Government.

Indeed, I have been hosting these 40 or 50 young people in this building at the moment, and they are trying to work out whether the country needs a new constitution, and whether we need to change our constitutional arrangements. This very issue of whether Governments should be shackled by entrenched legislation is one of the ones that they are wrestling with at the moment. There are only two pieces of legislation, I understand, that are entrenched in this way, and they relate to some very fundamental aspects of our governmental arrangements, so to throw this one into the box alongside them does seem rather bizarre.

But it is worth restating, before I finish, just why we are involved in this mixed-ownership model process, and that is all about building a more competitive and productive economy, based on savings and investment, and moving away from debt and borrowing and relying on foreign lenders. In essence, this programme is about freeing up some of the capital that we have held up in minority stakes in these large companies, and allowing the Government to purchase new assets without borrowing more on financial markets at this difficult time. That is a very sound and sensible policy. The Opposition, I accept, does not agree with it, but unfortunately it lost the argument, so here we are debating this bill. The Opposition is filling the ballot with all sorts of strange pieces of legislation at the moment. I am afraid that I will not be supporting it. Thank you very much.

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the State-owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, which has been brought to the House by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. New Zealand First, of course, will be supporting this bill, because protecting our State assets and keeping the assets of the Crown in State ownership is certainly a fundamental principle of New Zealand First.

This country has but a small population, somewhere between 4.5 million people and a little bit more than that, plus another 1 million New Zealanders living abroad. We have the same geographic area as the UK, which has 70 million - odd people. In order to provide the necessary infrastructure for a small population of 4.5 million people, this country over many, many, many decades and the many great people who have gone before us in this House have had the foresight and the inspiration to provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure that what was about 2 million people when I was born and growing up, and has now grown to 4.5 million people, could have what this country required in terms of reasonably good infrastructure for a First World country—almost on a par with that of our former mother country, Great Britain.

Most of us in this House would be very proud to see the infrastructure this country has developed, in the form of our railways, our roads, our national airline, our transmission lines, or our national grid, our power companies throughout New Zealand, our Television New Zealand—the former New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation—Radio New Zealand, and many of the other significant entities that make up the framework and the fabric, and, in fact, the backbone, of this small country. Without the State backing provided to many of those entities, they simply would not have grown to the size that they are today, because private enterprise and personal investors simply would not have been able to build up that infrastructure in New Zealand to the point where it is today. So we can be very thankful and very proud of our forebears and those who went before us, the many Ministers, members of Parliament, and people within the bureaucracy, local government within New Zealand, and all sorts of parts of the framework of government in New Zealand, who have helped build up what we have today.

Therefore, this is a very sensible bill. It is sensible to say to this House that unless three-quarters of the people in this House support selling off some of these very, very important assets, which my grandfather, my grandmother, your grandfather, your great-grandfather, your great-great-grandfather, and beyond, helped build up, we should really not be considering doing it. I am reminded of what the Rt Hon Winston Peters pointed out to me a few months ago. He can recall the saying of—

💬 John Hayes: Mike Moore?

No, Sir Keith Holyoake, actually. Thank you. Sir Keith Holyoake had a saying. He used to say that unless at least 60 percent of the people within the House of Representatives would support something, he certainly would not ramrod it through. He would not push something through unless he had at least 60 percent support for it. Yet this Government is prepared to do something with a slim, 51 percent majority—a paper-thin, you know, breath of a majority. I like the thought of going back to a situation where three-quarters of the House—75 percent—would make sure that things were protected, where if things were to be sold off, by far the majority of the House had to have considered it properly and agreed to it.

This bill also refers to a referendum, and, again, I would support this. It states that should there not be support from 75 percent of the House, there should have to be support from a majority of voters in a referendum. Again, New Zealand First supports this, because if we go to the people in a referendum and they support something of this nature, we should be listening to them.

At the present time, the majority of New Zealanders are saying we should not be selling State assets. Most of the polls are showing that 70 or 80 percent think we should not be. This bill brings that in. This a good piece of work. We certainly hope that all parties in this House will give it full consideration. Thank you.

I would like to begin by reminding Mr Andrew Williams, who just made that contribution, that his much-admired leader, Winston Peters, was the champion of selling assets when he was the Treasurer in the late 1990s. His signature is actually on the documents that enabled the Government to sell its shares in Auckland International Airport. Just for the record, and for Mr Andrew Williams, I would like to say that at the time Mr Winston Peters, the leader of New Zealand First, said that the sale of shares in the Auckland International Airport was to be celebrated as popular capitalism—popular capitalism. So my challenge to Andrew Williams and to New Zealand First is that it is awful double standards. When Winston Peters is a Minister and a Treasurer, he signs documents to enable the quite sensible floating of a very successful company like Auckland International Airport, but now that he happens to be in Opposition, he sings a very different tune. That just shows not only how shallow the argument is but also how shallow this bill is, the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill.

Let me come to the sponsor of this bill, Mr Clayton Cosgrove. I have a very simple question for Mr Cosgrove. Where was he when the previous Labour Government in 2007 sold 49 percent of the shares in the Spring Creek Mine? I have gone back and looked at the Cabinet papers.

Clayton Cosgrove was in the Cabinet room when 49 percent, a shareholding worth tens of millions of dollars, was sold by the previous Labour Government. Did Mr Cosgrove, on that occasion, say that that sale of shares cannot proceed until such time—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: All it did was delay the closure.

—as there is a 75 percent majority, as proposed by this bill? Of course not. He did not say boo. In fact, Mr Mallard is interjecting. Mr Mallard’s signature is on the papers that nailed a sale—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Proud of it.

—of 49 percent of the shares in Spring Creek Mine. Mr Mallard has just cried out in the House that he is proud of that. So now we know the policy of the Labour Party. When Labour sells shares in State companies, it is a good thing. When some other Government sells shares, suddenly it becomes a bad thing, and that certainly does not stand up to any sort of integrity in terms of policy and history.

I do want to take it back, because in my early days of involvement in politics, I remember very well in Christchurch that Clayton Cosgrove was a campaign worker for Mike Moore.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I was 14 years old.

Well, I was not that much older. But, Mr Cosgrove, I remember it very well because at that time there was a Labour Government. It was not just selling a little bit of assets. It sold 20 State-owned enterprises, which in today’s terms would be worth over $30 billion. And where was Mr Cosgrove? Mr Cosgrove was very strongly supporting those sales. Was he demanding at that time? I will tell you the difference, Mr Cosgrove. Let me explain the difference. In 2011 National went to the electorate with a very clear policy around mixed ownership. What was different, Mr Cosgrove, was that when Labour sold a large number—100 percent—of the shares in a large number of State businesses, there was absolutely no mandate at all, and that is really the difference. The difference between—

💬 Andrew Little: Why didn’t you buy them back? Why didn’t your Government buy them back?

Mr Andrew Little chips in. I would love him to say where he was when he was the Labour Party president and 49 percent of the shares in Spring Creek Mine were sold. Where was Mr Little? Mr Little was silent, and that is where—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

I do not want to make a long speech on this bill, the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. I would note, going from the last point, that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove was, I think, at the time a fourth-former at St Bede’s College. I am told that Gerry Brownlee was there, also in the fourth form, but in his case it was for the third time. The member Nick Smith referred to Spring Creek Mine. Spring Creek Mine was a joint venture that was set up between Solid Energy and—it was a subsidiary company that was set up to be a joint venture in order to sell a pile of coal to a guaranteed buyer, a guaranteed offshore buyer, and to keep a pile of jobs that would not have been there if it was not for the setting up of the joint venture. I know Nick Smith hates Kiwi workers having jobs. He prefers Aussies and the Chinese to have jobs, but that was done to give some miners on the West Coast some jobs. I note that now it has been wound up by the National Government, those workers today got the sack, and Nick Smith is the person who is responsible for that. I say shame on Nick Smith—shame on Nick Smith for that.

This is not the shape of the bill that I would prefer. It is not the approach I would have taken, but it is great to highlight the disgraceful approach to State-owned assets that this Government has.

The members who are promoting this bill, the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill, across the other side of this House are economic illiterates. There are three ways of growing a business, and none of those ways involves locking up 75 percent of the ownership of a company in a way that would bring this country to its knees. The bill proposes—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Put some enthusiasm into it.

I do not need to shout. I am discussing ideas. The bill proposes that there should be a public referendum. Well, there was a public referendum at the last election, and I was in Mr Cosgrove’s seat, the electorate that he was busy trying to become the member of Parliament for, and I was listening to what the community was saying. It was not supportive of his ideas because he was campaigning against the National Party. He did not support asset sales. Why did he not phone his good mate Mike Moore in Washington, who is New Zealand’s outstanding ambassador in Washington, who was head of the World Trade Organization, and who was a Minister in Labour Cabinets over a long period of time? I ask why he did not ring his mate Mike and say: “Hey Mike, am I on the right track with this legislation? I’ve got a lot of time on my hands, now that I’m a list MP. I’m looking for a member’s bill to write. Would this be a good one?”. If he had, Mike Moore would have said: “No, forget it. You’re absolutely on the wrong track.”

Mr Cosgrove is also on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and he may remember—if his memory is going to last that long—that John Palmer, chair of Air New Zealand, spent about 30 minutes in our committee extolling the virtues of mixed public-private ownership and its benefit to Air New Zealand. I am not sure why Mr Cosgrove would not have heard what Mr Palmer was saying. He is a well-respected businessman in this community. He was saying: “Forget it. This is not a smart deal. You get much greater synergy, much better decision-making, when you bring in representatives of the private sector to run the board.”

We stood at the last election and said we are going to be selling up to 49 percent of assets in State-owned companies. Why are we doing that? Because we do not wish to borrow more than 30 percent of gross national income as debt, and we are going to invest the proceeds from the sale, first of all, into the community by giving it a broader capital base and share options for older folk who are retiring and want a cash flow into their retirement. We are going to use the money to benefit our young people through better education facilities. My electorate in the Wairarapa has no shortage of need in that area, to bring our 100-year-old schools up to today’s technology. We are going to spend money on hospitals, to again look after our older and young people in the community.

We have passed legislation that guarantees the Government will own at least 51 percent of the energy companies and prevent any other shareholder from owning more than 10 percent. There is no need for this bill. Why would you completely clog up any ability in this community to move sensibly forward with an elected administration? Under an MMP system you have to involve a cross-party selection of other parties in this House. I think that if you go to the community and you get its backing, then this particular draft of the bill is simply trying to fill up this House with absolute nonsense. It is a bill that will not pass. I do not support it because what it would lock us into is higher debt, higher interest rates, and lower gradings from Standard and Poor’s. I think what we need to do is to broaden the pool of investments for New Zealand savers and deepen our capital markets. I am sorry, but I do not agree with this bill at all. Thank you.

I am not sure whether that was a good impression of Dr Dolittle, Mr Magoo, or Sir Les Patterson, I cannot quite work it out. [Interruption] Yeah, those members are animated now. Can I just say this to the House. Mr Hayes talked about the Government guaranteeing various things. What he failed to say, and what every National member has failed to do when they got up in the House tonight, was guarantee that the Government would not go beyond selling those assets that it has already put on the block. They never got up and said “We will guarantee we will not sell KiwiRail, not sell New Zealand Post, not sell Radio New Zealand”, etc. Not one. In fact, we know from the record of the House that Minister Joyce actually said there was no guarantee that the Government would not go further. That is the one thing Mr Hayes did not talk about when he talked about guarantees.

It has been an interesting debate, because this will come down—as Trevor Mallard said, this State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill highlights what the Government is about. If it chooses not to support this—likewise, Peter Dunne—then we know it is open slather. We know that at any given time in the future, these guys—

💬 Nicky Wagner: No, we don’t.

Well, Nicky Wagner says no, it will not. But the problem Nicky Wagner has got, as she joins the battle late in the piece, is that none of her senior colleagues have provided any guarantee. That is the difficulty she has. Is she going to stand in the House now and provide a guarantee that the Government will not sell Kiwibank, for instance? No guarantee at all. So the acid test is simply this: if those members are prepared to guarantee they will not go beyond the assets they have already taken out of the schedule, and they are prepared to say they will not sell any more assets and guarantee that to the people of New Zealand, then they will support the bill. If Peter Dunne is prepared to back his election promise to not sell Radio New Zealand and the rest—New Zealand Post, Kiwibank, KiwiRail—then he will support the bill. If those members will not, then there is a gaping hole in their argument and the people of New Zealand will simply judge them accordingly.

It is really interesting the arguments that have been put up. They are paper-thin, wafer-thin arguments, apart from being a bit of good old-fashioned—I do not mind it—colourful invective here and there. We all participate in that. Apparently, I am responsible for all the ills of the 1980s, having been a 14-year-old at St Bede’s College in the fourth form. Gerry Brownlee was hovering around. I am not sure whether he was in a capacity as a student or a teacher at that time, but apparently—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Hey, is it true he used to coach rugby from the sideline, driving his car up and down?

Look, I would not want to bring that fact into the debate. But that is the sort of wafer-thin argument. But it is a simple thing, ladies and gentlemen. Over that side of the House, those members are going to signal to the people of New Zealand that either they guarantee not to go beyond those assets that they have put on the block or it is open slather. That is the simple mechanism that this bill—critical though they have been of it—will trigger when the vote happens. Very simple. If you are not going to do it, then stand up. If those members are not going to do it, they should stand up and say “We will not go beyond what we believe we have a mandate for.”, because that is what, of course, they keep prattling on about.

The fact is that their Ministers—Steven Joyce, particularly—have stated in this House that they cannot guarantee, for instance—as he referred to—the partial or whole sale of KiwiRail by this Government or by a future National Government. He was asked in this House and he provided no guarantee. In fact, he confirmed what we already knew, which is that he would not guarantee that. So that is the acid test for this crew over here. Despite all the hullabaloo, and the sorts of soft tones of Mr Hayes attempting to be a latter-day statesman and trying to be logical—the problem Mr Hayes has got, of course, is that when he talks about what it will do with the money, the difficulty is his Government has stuffed up the sales so badly and mismanaged them so badly that there is no guarantee at all that he will even—thank goodness—get a sale away. But as Mr Hayes pointed out, he has already spent the money. He has already booked it. He has booked the dollars from the sale in his Budget before any sales have gone ahead—before any sales have gone ahead.

Mighty River Power is on the skids in respect of the Waitangi Tribunal and probable court action. We know Solid Energy is in deep trouble now. We know with regard to the share price of Air New Zealand that it has been signalled it is not a good time to sell. Genesis Energy will suffer a similar fate and a similar set of issues to Mighty River Power, and, of course, Meridian Energy is over a barrel at Tīwai Point by Rio Tinto, its biggest client. So the Government has mismanaged it so badly, and it has almost spent the dough—it has booked it—but it has not completed or even started one sale. So this where we are tonight—the acid test. The vote will go through and then the people will know.