1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Is it current Government policy that no State assets will be sold either partially or fully?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) Link to this
This Government has said many times it is Government policy not to sell State assets in the term of this Government. That means not selling an ownership interest in State-owned enterprises or Crown companies, and we have stuck to that policy. If the member is referring to tenure review and land that is sold as a result of that, tenure review has been going on since 1948.
Does the digging up and selling off of publicly owned minerals in our national parks by privately owned firms benefit private interests?
That is a very unusual interpretation of the policy, but in respect of the schedule 4 consultation document I would think there is absolutely no prospect that in this term of the Government—even if we accepted her interpretation—there would be mining in any of those areas. [ Interruption]
Mr SPEAKERI apologise to the honourable member Metiria Turei. She had not even got out a word of her question before there was an excessive level of interjection. That is unreasonable.
Is a 5 percent Government share and a 95 percent private share of the profits from the mining of State-owned minerals a full or partial privatisation of a State asset?
The member may be interested in a word game around that. The fact is that mining occurs regularly on Crown-owned land. I have never before heard that described as any kind of privatisation. The previous Government gave out mining licences, because the Department of Conservation provided access to mining on the conservation estate. We do not regard that as privatisation.
Can the Prime Minister clarify whether the State-owned minerals that he plans to sell off will still be there for future generations to utilise, or will they have gone into private hands?
I think the answer to the question is obvious: if minerals are dug out of land owned by the Crown—which happens in a large number of cases right now—and they are sold, then those minerals are not there for future generations.
So the Prime Minister does understand, then, that when he sells something to someone else it no longer belongs to him, and that if he sells off a public asset, which is the mineral wealth belonging to the public, to someone else—
I have been listening very carefully, and I have been unable to discern a question in what the member has said so far. I do not expect the member to start with a question word, but I was waiting to hear a question emerge.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did start the question with the phrase “does he understand”.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be from the Hutt Valley and that might be an explanation for this, but I heard the member say “does he understand”. That is a question.
I invite the member to repeat her question. Please make it more clearly a question, because it started out “So, the Prime Minister does understand … that …” and then went on with a statement. I think we should really have a question.
Does the Prime Minister understand that when he sells something to someone else it no longer belongs to him, and that the selling off of publicly owned minerals to private interests means that they no longer belong to the public?
Yes, he does understand that, and I am impressed with the sophisticated analysis that the Greens are applying to this complex issue.
Given the Minister’s answer that he does not expect there to be the selling off of State assets in this term, can he confirm that it has been National’s plan all along to have a fire sale of New Zealand’s State assets in 2012?
No. In respect of the position on State assets, the Government has stated many times that in this term of office it would not sell State assets. If that were to change, it would announce a position prior to the 2011 election and campaign on it.
How can the public have any confidence in this Prime Minister when, in breach of a promise he made to the electorate, he still plans to dig up and sell off a publicly owned asset, the mineral wealth of this country, destroying sections of national parks held dear to the hearts of New Zealanders across the country, and when he is attempting to dupe the public by saying this is not the privatisation of a public asset?
The member has quite an interesting combination of conclusions that she has jumped to and assertions that she has made up in that respect. The fact is that the Government has put out a consultation document on whether there should be mining on some schedule 4 land, submissions are being made on that document, and the Government will then make decisions after it has heard public views. In the meantime, as I understand it, under the previous Government, which the member supported, there was a considerable amount—and there still is—of mining occurring on publicly owned land, generally to the benefit of New Zealanders, who get well-paid jobs, and of the service industry, and without a major impact on the environment.