Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15202. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Why has he revised the estimated proceeds from asset sales down to a minimum of $4.6 billion?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In the first place it is Treasury’s estimate rather than the Government’s. As I said this morning Treasury figures in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update will revise the estimated range of proceeds to $4.6 billion to $5 billion with a mid-point of $4.8 billion. The revised assumption of the share sale proceeds is based principally on the fact that Solid Energy is clearly in no position to be sold any time soon. The proceeds will be less mainly because one less company will be sold. It also takes account of the results of the share offers to date and of course these provide the only real market valuations that the energy companies have ever had. Those values reflect the fact that all electricity companies in New Zealand have lost value partly because of uncertainty around the future price track for electricity and partly because of political uncertainty generated by alternative regulatory proposals.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why has he taken so long to revise the estimated proceeds from asset sales given that he told the public as far back as August last year that Solid Energy was not fit for sale and he has already come in more than $1 billion short on the sales so far?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said it is Treasury’s role to make the estimates and it has statutory requirements that have to be met for the degree of certainty about any estimates it makes.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How does he reconcile his statement to the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that “The Government never said it was going to maximise the value for taxpayers from the sales.” with his statement at the media stand-up directly after his presentation at the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that “We have an obligation to protect the value of taxpayers’ investments.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Very easily. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee I was asked about the conditions under which the Government made the sales and I made it clear for instance that the Government decided it would retain 51 percent of the companies when if it sold 100 percent of the companies it would get more for them. In the stand-up I was asked about KiwiRail in quite some detail. I made it clear that the Government’s role in respect of KiwiRail is to protect the taxpayers’ value bearing in mind that the reason we own these assets is that hard-working New Zealanders get to the end of the week and very generously hand us 25 percent of their pay packet. They could make good use of it. When we get it just because it adds up to billions it does not mean we should be irresponsible. It means we should be very very careful with the $200 and $300 weekly payments that New Zealanders make to us.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How can he claim the asset sales programme is a success when he will not achieve the minimum $5 billion he promised after the forecasting by his own Prime Minister in 2011 that $10 billion could be raised from this plus he failed to achieve widespread ownership and the power companies are today trading at record lows?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If it says that the shares trading below their sale price is a failure it certainly would say that if the shares were trading above the sale value then that was a failure. The Opposition cannot have it both that we ripped off the investors and that we gave away the taxpayers’ assets. Both of those things cannot be true. The sales were a success. We gave out share certificates to New Zealanders and in return for that we have $4 billion in the bank. I know it worries the Opposition that we are going to be spending that on public assets when it cannot—because it would have to borrow that money from foreign bankers whom it seems much more interested in—and when we want to provide investment opportunities for New Zealanders.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Government still proceed with the partial asset sale of Genesis Energy on the current timetable; if so why?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes that is our intention. If the member means that the referendum should determine that decision I would put this proposition to him: if the Opposition believes the referendum will show overwhelming opposition to the sales then it should take it seriously and promise to buy the assets back. Everyone knows what the Government will say. The question is whether the Opposition takes the referendum seriously. If Opposition members will not promise to buy the assets back then they are defying the will of the New Zealand public.