11. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
E mātauana ia kei te tukua te whakahaere o ngāhua me ngātaunaha a te Karauna, pērāiērā katoa a ngāhinongaKāwanatangai te wānei, mātētahi huarahi whakakahaakeaii te wāriu o ngāhaumi a te Kāwanatanga, meināāe, he aha ai?
[Is he confident that the management of the Crown’s assets and liabilities in the case of all State-owned enterprises is currently delivered in a way that enhances the value of the Government’s investments; if so, why?]
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) Link to this
In a financial sense, yes. In the 12 months ending 30 June 2006, State-owned enterprises earned nearly $1.5 billion in profit and saw equity growth of nearly $2.7 billion, or over 30 percent. Of course, individual issues of one sort or another will always arise.
What explanation, then, does the Minister have for the following comment made by the Prime Minister on Monday: “It has come as something of a surprise to many of us that Landcorp was disposing of land at the rate that it was, particularly land in sensitive areas.”; and would the Minister agree that the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit’s management is less than satisfactory if even the Prime Minister is unaware of the business operations of that State-owned enterprise?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am not directly responsible for the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit. That unit is the responsibility of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. In any case, the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit is not responsible for the decisions made by a State-owned enterprise; it is responsible for oversight. In terms of the member’s original question, that issue, of course, is not one about the value of the Government’s investments being enhanced; it is about whether some of those investments should not have their value enhanced in a financial sense but be used for other purposes.
Hone HarawiraTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s management of Whenuakite Station, which has recently been described as patches of woolly nightshade, ragwort, half-sprayed gorse, and cattle carcasses of skin and bones rotting in the paddock, is an insult to the Hauraki iwi who have been fighting to get that land back in good working order, or does he see it, as most people do, as being symptomatic of a Government that has no genuine consideration for the Māori partner to the Treaty settlement process?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I completely reject the latter assertion. Of course, no specific claim has yet been lodged by a mandated group over Whenuakite Station. The issue here is that land with potential value was being disposed of, particularly coastal land, without Ministers being made aware of it. Quite different processes are now in place to deal with that kind of issue.
Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s comments at her press conference on Monday that Landcorp is not just any other commercial farmer, and that the Crown has entrusted its land to Landcorp to use properly; and why did it take the actions of Ngāti Kahu at Rangiputa Station, of Tūwharetoa at Taurewa, and of Hauraki iwi at Whenuakite before the activities of Landcorp were brought to the Prime Minister’s attention?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I know the member will find it hard to believe this, but the actions of the iwi at Whenuakite did not cause Cabinet’s reaction. Cabinet’s reaction was around the potential disposal of very high-value coastal property in a very sensitive area in terms of coastal values. This highlighted the need for both a review of the processes and also a review of the total landholdings of Landcorp where some of those landholdings might be better situated within other agencies such as the Department of Conservation.