Woodhouse Michael; Rurawhe AdrianHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I pick up that gauntlet laid down by Dr Clark and I don't think 10 minutes is enough but I'll do my best in the time I have. I probably was the first person to raise the Muldoon-esque nature of this Government by describing the Prime Minister as Muldoon with slogans and kindness and that got quite a bit of pushback. But now we're seeing that from somebody who actually looks a lot more like Rob Muldoon than the Prime Minister does and that is Grant Robertson. Now here is the number one point Dr Clark and it may well be that the Ministers have not read their own briefings because the briefings to the incoming Ministers from Treasury around Crown entities and State-owned enterprises is very clear. Page 10 of Treasury's briefing dated December 2020—Hon Dr David Clark: Chapter and verse number? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Page 10 last line and listen up Dr Clark says Shareholding Ministers have no powers to direct the listed companies." Shareholding Ministers have no powers to direct the listed companies and Rob Muldoon wouldn't have cared. Hon David Parker: Read the letter. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Grant Robertson doesn't either. Oh "Read the letter."—certainly Mr Parker. "I am writing … to convey the Government's expectations". The Government—Hon Member: Yeah it's not a direction is it? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh so now we're dancing on the head of a definitional pin. These aren't expectations these aren't directions; they're guidelines. They're ideas. "We're just riffing. We don't really mean it."—so that's their excuse. It's not a form of direction; it's just a think piece. It's a thought piece. I doubt it and guess what? The institutional shareholders of Air New Zealand will certainly doubt it and I don't know how many times Mr Robertson used—Dr Duncan Webb: We're all buying the shares though—look at the share price. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Ah thank you Dr Webb. I will because I have and I'm thinking about Mark Twain's "lies damned lies and statistics" when both Dr Clark and the Minister of Finance talk about how great the share price is—how it's gone up. Ha! Actually in COVID it dropped 78 percent and yes it did recover a bit. From $3.10 it went down to 89c and now it's up to something like $1.80. But guess what's happened since this letter was written—did it go up or down? Damien Smith: Down. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It went down—exactly. It's gone down. So any suggestion that share price is somehow an endorsement of this approach is the worst kind of straw man argument. But I want to come back to the comment that Mr Robertson kept making about majority shareholders because they're in the majority as if this was an all or nothing—"We have 52 percent so we can do what we like."—and the binary response to Mr Seymour's intervention that somehow because he made a reference to new aviation fuels now he's a climate change denier because he thinks that's a bad thing. Well firstly he didn't say that and secondly he said that there shouldn't be that level of direction. I agree with him. Air New Zealand is subject to the emissions trading scheme (ETS). If the Government isn't happy with the manner in which Air New Zealand or any other company that relies on stationary fuels like aviation fuel to carry out its business change the ETS. Don't inflict on the minority shareholders the will of the majority. I thought the Labour Party stood up for the little guy stood up for the minorities. Hon Louise Upston: Not any more. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Not in this case—not in the case of the minority interests not only of institutional investors but of mum and dad investors of ACC of KiwiSaver funds. Yes there are overseas investors and I can tell the House that when the mixed-ownership model was being followed and Air New Zealand was looking for purchasers of the proportion of the company that went from—what was that Mr O'Connor? Is there a problem with your nose? That looked like a very interesting action and it's a pity we can't put it on the Hansard. That went down from 75 percent to 51 percent and the effort that needed to go in to get institutional investors over the fact that the company would still be majority-owned was a considerable mountain to climb. They were nervous. They were nervous because of the very kind of intervention that is articulated in this so-called thought piece. This is nothing but a direction letter in my view in very direct breach of the advice that was given by Treasury to the Ministers in December last year. I've also got no doubt that those nervous investors will take flight and that won't be bad—[Interruption] they scoff—just for those shareholders; it will be bad for New Zealanders who are the shareholders and the value of this company will go back down again. It is true that a majority shareholder will have a significant degree of influence over the appointment of directors but there is a process. In a publicly listed company there is usually a nomination process and a selection process that is actually at something of arm's length from the shareholders majority or otherwise that is then voted on at an annual general meeting. What the Minister of Finance has said is "Forget about"—Hon David Parker: By whom? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: By the shareholders. That's what I'm saying—that there is a degree of influence. That was my prefacing comment Mr Parker. But there is no doubt that what is inferred in here—if it's so obvious why put it in the letter? The reason is the Minister of Finance wants to do something different from other listed companies. Otherwise he'd just sit back and say "OK bring me your nominations and I'll vote at the AGM in the way that I can." but no. He will influence who goes on this board and I have to say without naming names he may well have influenced who has been on this board in the past and who is no longer on the board because I can think of a very highly qualified competent director that is no longer a member of the Air New Zealand board and I can only speculate on the degree to which there was some political interference in that process. My question is: will it get better or will it get worse? Now the Minister talks about the loan facility and both Mr Mitchell and I are still completely flummoxed. I don't want to steal Mr Mitchell's thunder because he may well introduce this in his speech but I have no idea why Air New Zealand had to take a loan facility from the Government of up to $900 million at rates of interest that by comparisons with the aviation lending market at the moment are completely eye-watering. It begs the question of whether or not Air New Zealand is being milked for interest for Crown revenue and that this was an opportunistic action by Air New Zealand. When we compare Air New Zealand's loan facilities with that of our trans-Tasman neighbours in Qantas I think from memory Qantas were paying something like 2.75 percent. We're paying about three times that in a market with a strong balance sheet. Yes there was a significant hit last year and a trading hole but I can't understand—in fact frankly the chairperson of Air New Zealand could not answer the question in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—why that loan facility was required and not one on the open market. Well I think this is a stalking horse for nationalising it. Hon David Parker: Ha! Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: "Oh" he says "couldn't possibly do that." because they've only done it several times before and if the Hon Julie Anne Genter's speech is anything to go by they will have them cheering in the Green Party benches for that action. It's not only that. Why if every organisation and including this one that holds itself up as a very very high-quality employer with no labour disputes is it necessary to ask Air New Zealand to enhance its role as a best-practice workplace relations company? Or if it was practising sustainability—as I know it is—to then further "enhance"? But of course it's only a thought piece—it's only suggestions. They're not being directed according to members on the other side and the comprehensive domestic route network is the ultimate level of operational interference. Yes we get grumpy when routes because they are not sustainable because they are not supported by those communities are actually having to be ceased. But I actually sense that we'll see some of these loss-making routes come back and if Julie Anne Genter compares Air New Zealand to KiwiRail goodness knows what it's going to look like in a few years' time because KiwiRail is a money pit. Three-quarters of a billion to a billion dollars is poured into that organisation every year and under this Government—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."