6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Does he stand by his statement to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that “it is going to be pretty difficult to maintain” the value of New Zealand Post and TVNZ, and if so, will he rule out ever selling these State-owned assets?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
Yes, I stand by my statement. Both those Government-owned businesses face particular challenges from technology, which is fast moving and is putting considerable pressure on the revenues of both organisations. In relation to the second part of the question, I simply repeat the statements made by the Prime Minister, who has ruled out the sale of Kiwibank and its parent company, New Zealand Post. In respect of other assets, the Government’s position is quite clear: there will be no asset sales during this term of office, and if that position changes, then the Government will take it to the electorate for 2011.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Why, when John Key had ruled out selling Kiwibank or its parent company just days before, did the Minister volunteer to the Finance and Expenditure Committee the prospect of selling its parent? Was that accident or design?
No, that is not actually what happened. I think it would be negligent of the Government if it was not able to talk about the real challenges of owning assets that are challenged by technology and could potentially lose value. I think it is important for taxpayers to understand that the Government owns $200 billion worth of assets on their behalf. At any given time some of them are going up in value, some of them may be obsolete, and some of them are going down in value because of events that are beyond the Government’s control. I think it is important that the Government is free to be transparent about what is happening to assets that were paid for by New Zealanders’ hard-earned taxes.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
So which of the Minister’s positions is correct: his position in 2008 that Kiwibank will “eventually” be sold, his position the day after the Budget that he is considering putting Kiwibank up for sale, his refusal to rule out selling Kiwibank or New Zealand Post, John Key’s promise that they will never ever sell Kiwibank, or his position today that it will now be up for sale in a second term?
The member is talking nonsense. If he listened to the answer to the first question, he would know clearly what the Government’s position is.
Amy AdamsThe Government owns a very large asset portfolio worth, as at June last year, $219 billion. As the Budget stated, we expect that over the next 4 years the value of Government assets will grow by around $35 billion. Given the size of these assets and the fact that they have been grown off the back of New Zealanders’ taxes and people paying their power bills, we owe them a very high standard of stewardship. The Government’s main aim is to ensure that all public assets are well operated and deliver high-quality services to the public. I might say that that was not the case under the previous Government, whose stewardship could be described as, at best, negligent, and, at worst, damaging.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Does he agree with the TV3 poll that showed that 85 percent of Kiwis oppose the sale of Kiwibank, that 80 percent of Kiwis oppose the sale of any State assets, and that 53 percent of Kiwis say that John Key cannot be trusted; if not, why not?
I find myself agreeing with some parts of the TV3 poll and disagreeing with other parts. The part that I agree with is that Phil Goff’s leadership ratings are going down. It has also become quite apparent from the way that Chris Carter has conducted himself that Helen Clark is much more influential—
Mr SPEAKERBoth sides have offended equally, I would say, and therefore we will just take a deep breath and cool down. A point of order was called by the Hon David Cunliffe.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
As you will be aware, the primary question was specific to the question of the sale of Kiwibank, and so were the poll results that I referred to around the privatisation of assets. I argue that it is outside the ambit of both the primary question and the Standing Orders for the Minister to play it in the way he did.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
The question that the member asked was whether the Minister had seen the TV3 poll. He then said it showed something, and asked whether the Minister agreed with it. It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to put the poll in context, which I think he did very well.
I have to be honest with the member. As I listened to his question, I thought: “Here’s a problem.” The member asked whether the Minister agreed with these aspects of a poll. I understand the member’s point of order: he is pointing out that he asked about certain aspects of the poll in respect of these issues. But to expect me to then confine the Minister to any kind of answer, when the question started by asking whether he agreed with a poll that showed something—I really cannot assist. Any other approach to the poll, I might have had some opportunity to assist, but when he started the question by asking whether the Minister agreed with the poll—which, I believe, is how the member started the question—I really cannot assist.
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just a small point. You have got into the habit of saying things like: “Both sides have offended equally.”, and that is not quite accurate. You will find that the members of the Māori Party, the ACT Party, United Future, and the Green Party are sitting here like paragons of virtue.
I apologise to those parties. On this particular occasion, at least, I was referring to both the National Party and the Labour Party in the House. I apologise to other members who might have felt offended by my comment. The member made a perfectly fair point of order.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Why did he not tell Gerry Brownlee that both he and the Prime Minister had discussed John Palmer’s comments that Solid Energy should be partially privatised before they were made public? Was it to try to cover up that the Government is now considering privatising Solid Energy, given that John Key agrees that Solid Energy needs more capital?
The member, I am sure, understands that if an entity like Solid Energy has plans to expand, it will need access to capital. Those are matters that we would expect a growing organisation like Solid Energy, Kiwibank, or any others to discuss with the Government. We take our responsibility as a shareholder seriously.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific about why the Minister had left Gerry Brownlee out of the loop, and he did not address that part of the question, at all.