Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15348. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: How has the Government’s asset sale programme increased the confidence of “mum and dad investors” in capital markets and improved the standard of living for New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes I do believe it has increased the confidence of mum and dad investors in capital markets because tens of thousands of New Zealanders took part in those share sales and more of them will have the opportunity early next year subject to market conditions. When the Government confirmed the share sales programme as a part of its larger programme to lift New Zealand’s living standards we said it would help reduce Government debt increase opportunities for investment for savers and improve the companies’ financial performances. All of those things have been achieved and so far the Government has $4 billion in the bank to spend on other public assets. We are waiting to hear from the Opposition about whether it is so opposed to asset sales that it will buy the assets back. So far it has not committed to that.Hon David Parker: Does he agree that the partial sale of State assets to 2 percent of the population has increased the gap between the rich and the poor in this country; if not why?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well no particularly since the main complaint about it is that those who felt they were wealthy enough to buy the shares are now less wealthy several months later which shows that the taxpayer got good value for those assets and investors need to take a long-term view.Hon David Parker: How can he stand up and seriously claim that forgoing half the revenue and the ownership of State-owned enterprises to 2 percent of the population is to the benefit of the country as a whole when the sales make the Crown’s income account worse every single year till the end of the forecast period?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because what I have said is correct. Secondly if the Opposition believes that the Government would be better off owning the assets then it would commit to buying them back particularly if a majority of those who vote in the referendum are against the sales. I would have thought it is up to Opposition to take that referendum seriously and commit to buying the assets back.Hon David Parker: Would he still be begging the Opposition to buy the energy companies back in a desperate attempt to pump up the slumping share prices if the asset share programme had been a success rather than the failure it has patently been?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No we will be advising—not begging—the Opposition to abandon its policy around the electricity assets where it is the only political party in the world we can find that is promising to undo a competitive electricity market and go back to central control. The last time it happened was 1917 in the Russian Revolution but it actually has not happened since. We are very pleased to have completed three-quarters of the asset sales programme. The people of Christchurch will get a newhospital financed by the proceeds of those sales and they will be wondering what Labour and the Greens are going to do about buying back the assets.Hon David Parker: Given that only 2 percent of New Zealanders invested in shares and that the price of the shares for each energy company is now below the float price how does that build confidence in capital markets?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is up to investors. The member cannot claim that those sales have widened the gap between rich and poor because as he has pointed out himself they bought the shares and they are now worth less so the gap between the rich and the poor must have closed.