Barry Maggie: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:3026. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise to support the Mixed Ownership Model Bill which of course is sponsored by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises Tony Ryall. It is set down for its second reading and I would have to say that there has been a great deal of wilful misinformation and alarmist rhetoric that we have heard this afternoon from across the other side of the House. We have also seen it in the grounds of Parliament. Earlier this afternoon I noted that there were a couple of dozen people holding out placards stating: “New Zealand is not for sale”. I agree with them—it is not for sale. That was what Labour did in the 1980s and 1990s. That is not at all what we are about.  
Earlier we heard the former member of Parliament for Waimakariri who is on the phone at the moment talk about having political regrets and how his party has learnt from its former mistakes. Well I doubt that somehow. I doubt whether he has learnt very much at all. Unlike Labour through the 1980s and 1990s— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: He’s not listening to you.  
MAGGIE BARRY 
: He never listens. He never listens—paper ears. Unlike Labour we have looked carefully at the legislation. We did not sneak it in. On 26 January last year our Prime Minister John Key outlined the mixed-ownership model. We campaigned on it. We went into detail on it. I am going to go into a bit more detail in a few moments because I think it has been lost in a lot of the misinformation and stuff and nonsense we have heard today.  
But we have a mandate and that has been questioned by some people in this House. Our mandate is called election 2011. There were a lot of people who listened to what we were saying about the mixed-ownership model because we were up front about it and they decided that we were right and they voted for us. We got 47 percent of the party vote—the most ever. Labour on the other hand dug up a whole lot of old signs stating: “No asset sales.” It campaigned hard on that. What did it get?  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Worst result ever.  
MAGGIE BARRY 
: The worst result ever. So what does that tell members opposite? Not very much actually because they are not listening to it but in fact they should have learnt from their mistakes but they absolutely have not.  
In the years when I was on  
Morning Report 
 and working for the then National Radio I saw Phil Goff and all the others come into the studio day after day. The phrase: “They’re selling off the family silver to pay for the daily groceries.” was invented for what Labour did and a lot of those members are still there. They were the architects of the old misfortune and they continue to plague the Labour Party of today which is why they lurk in such low numbers on the opposing side of the House.  
We are committed to the mixed-ownership model because it is needed. As we heard earlier today from Ministers Joyce and Foss it is all about the debt. Our partial share float where the Government maintains a majority shareholding is essential if we want to control our out-of-control debt. We do not want debt for New Zealand. Unlike the others we do not want to borrow. We are not prepared to put future generations of New Zealanders under the yoke of debt that Labour has consigned us to. Why expose us to it?  
The mixed-ownership model has many advantages and I will recap on them because there has been a lot of misinformation so let us look at it. The mixed-ownership model does provide much-needed money to invest through the Future Investment Fund. I will go into that in a bit more detail later but we do not need to borrow more to invest in things that we need in this country and that is a very important thing to keep in mind in these difficult financial times. There will be huge benefits to New Zealand’s capital markets. We need more attractive investment opportunities for people in our capital markets because they are a bit moribund so the mixed-ownership model will provide more opportunities for investors.  
The other thing is that we are keeping control of the assets. Yes it is the “c” word: control. We are keeping 51 percent control and we are getting in the dividends. [ 
Interruption 
] No I was getting a bit close to the wind with the “c” word but it is about control. It is not a word that members opposite know a lot about when it comes to fiscal responsibility but we are well across it.  
These mixed-ownership model companies that we are proposing to partially float are companies they are businesses and they will benefit from operating under a more commercial model. What is a Government doing in the day-to-day running and the minutiae of electricity companies? If you get other people involved there will be more money that we as a Government do not need to borrow. They can invest and grow these companies. There are a lot of good things to come from the discipline and scrutiny of the model that we have proposed. They can get access to capital and grow and expand without us needing to borrow it.  
Kiwi-owned is a very important part of this. We are committed to keeping a very strong Kiwi ownership in these companies because we think it is important—so important that we have set clear targets and guidelines around it: 85 percent to 90 percent of Kiwis’ ownership will be there at the time of the offer. That is what we are looking at. We will also have very strict ownership limits and those are going to be enshrined in legislation. There will be a 10 percent share cap. No other investor apart from the Government of course which retains 51 percent will be able to own more than 10 percent of the company.  
There are a lot of New Zealand companies that would like to get involved. Iwi and superannuation funds instead of investing their money overseas in farms in Canada or Tasmania will be able to invest in strengthening the future of good New Zealand companies and I think they are clamouring to invest. Kiwis who apply for shares will be at the front of the queue. So here is a question. Would you rather that dividends were paid to New Zealanders or would you rather that we paid interest to overseas debtors? What do you think? Members opposite would go for the debt every time because that is the limited perspective they bring to this.  
The Future Investment Fund which again was very well-signalled is something that we have already earmarked. Just consider for a moment how far $33.8 million is going to go towards modernising and transforming New Zealand schools. There will be $88.1 million going into the health sector. That is going to develop hospitals and again we will not need to borrow to do that. There will be $250 million towards the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan. The Greens are always banging on about how much they hate roads; we have got New Zealand rail benefiting. These are all good things. Up to $400 million is going to be used as equity investment in irrigation projects that will help increase our productivity grow our rural economy and create jobs—measures of course that members on the other side loathe and abominate—and there is another $80 million that we have earmarked under the Future Investment Fund that will go towards transforming Industrial Research Ltd into an advanced technology institute. Again that is investing in the future of the way that we are looking at rolling out broadband—the “high-tech HQ” which is part of the vision that we have for New Zealand investing in our future.  
Members have also said in closing that we have rushed this through. I absolutely reject that notion. There were 1490 submissions. We heard 124 of them. We were here in Wellington hearing them we went to Christchurch and we went to Auckland.  
Dr David Clark 
: How many were in favour?  
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Yes there were a lot of Labour people and a lot of Green people who submitted. That is what they did. They were motivated to do it the language was pretty similar and they said their bit. Then we had the chambers of commerce. Some people have disputed that chambers of commerce actually represent people. They were absolutely in favour of the mixed-ownership model and there are a lot of them. In Auckland alone 20000 small businesses are represented. I spoke to Michael Barnett who actually came and submitted and he said that the vast majority of his members were absolutely in favour of it. So it is not rushed. We have the mandate that is known as the 2011 election this is essential for our future it makes sound economic sense and I commend it to the House. 
The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.