6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by all of his statements on the sale of shares in State-owned enterprises?
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes, although I repeat that no final decision has been made about extending the mixed-ownership model.
When the Prime Minister said on radio this morning that the vast bulk of Contact Energy’s shares remain “in widespread Kiwi mum and dad ownership”, why did he not tell New Zealanders that 75 percent of all Contact’s shares are owned by big corporates, with the majority of those shares being owned by an Australian company?
Presumably, the Prime Minister meant that the vast majority of shares originally obtained by mum and dad investors remain in their hands.
If the Prime Minister cannot even get his statements about asset sales in the past right, why would anyone believe that he can get his statements about asset sales in the future right?
Because the Prime Minister has a very good record for keeping his promises to the public of New Zealand, unlike when that party came into Government in 1984 promising not to sell State-owned assets, and then went ahead and did it.
Chris TremainYes, he has seen a press release stating that the Government has approved a proposal, subject to competition watchdog approval, to reduce its shareholding in Air New Zealand to 63.55 percent. That would have meant a 22.5 percent shareholding going to Qantas, a foreign investor. That press release was from 2002, and released by Ministers Cullen, Swain, and Mallard.
Did the Prime Minister also say on radio this morning in regard to Contact Energy: “The float when it started gave 51 percent to an Australian company Origin. That was the starting position and it did not change.”; if so, was his statement correct?
Hon Trevor MallardI am just finishing the answer. Originally, of course, Edison bought its original 40 percent directly from the Government, and not, by the way, from Kiwi mums and dads.
Hon Sir Roger Douglas Link to this
Does the Prime Minister accept that the sale of any asset to a foreign buyer or purchase of any foreign asset by a New Zealander cannot possibly change the net claims of one country on another, because for a foreigner to buy a New Zealand asset is simply to swap a foreign asset for a New Zealand asset—nobody wins, nobody loses; they just end up with a different portfolio of assets and liabilities?
Broadly, the theory may have some merit, but this Government has laid out five tests that have to be met and they are slightly different from the model that the member outlines.
Did the Prime Minister in that same radio interview this morning make an accusation that Phil Goff was “financially inept” for supposedly not understanding that Origin owned 51 percent from the start, when it did not; if the Prime Minister did make that statement and the statement was wrong, does the Prime Minister now accept that it was he who was mistaken?
Hon Sir Roger Douglas Link to this
Does the Prime Minister see any validity in the arguments from Labour and the Green Party that the sale of any shares in State-owned enterprises will lead to increased overseas ownership of New Zealand; or does he agree with the ACT Party that this argument reflects the unfortunate common economic illiteracy in Labour and the Green Party about savings and investment issues?
That is a far more straightforward question from the member. The answer is that he agrees with the ACT Party.
I seek to table a Treasury document from its website, which shows that the sale of Contact Energy was originally a 40 percent sale to Edison and not a 51 percent sale to Origin.
Mr SPEAKER