Robertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 19 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5932. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Did he approve the recommendations in the Treasury Report Capital Investment Recycling and the Fiscal Strategy and if so what priorities for capital recycling within the commercial portfolio did he indicate to officials?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I declined some recommendations and approved others. With regard to the second part of the question commercial priorities for capital recycling are just that: commercial. What I can say is that the Government has a clear policy of no further Government share offer - type sales or indeed no outright sales of State-owned enterprises. We will maintain our current ownership of State-owned enterprises. Of course all businesses owned by the Government need to actively manage their balance sheet; that is where they have assets that are no longer useful they should sell those assets and recycle the capital. So individual State-owned enterprises will be buying and selling assets all the time as part of their usual business.Grant Robertson: Does he still accept the Treasury assessment in the paper that at least $2 billion of savings are achievable through so-called capital recycling from State-owned enterprises and Crown entities?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over a period of—who knows—5 to 7 years that may be possible. I have to say that realising those kinds of savings would prove to be a considerable challenge so the savings would come from a combination of dispensing with assets that are no longer needed—for instance land held in Auckland by the Ministry of Education that it no longer thinks is right for the new schools that it wants to build—as well as demanding extensive discipline over Government agencies’ capital-planning intentions so that they do not just dream up projects that invest more money than is needed.Grant Robertson: Why was it appropriate that Treasury developed proposals for the partial sale of assets within State-owned enterprises without discussing them with the boards of the respective entities as noted in the paper?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government often discusses policy about assets it owns or businesses it owns without consulting directly with the board. Housing New Zealand for instance might have had a different view about our social housing policy than the Government has because it prefers to be the monopoly over all the State houses in the country and we prefer it not to be a monopoly. So at the appropriate time we discuss it with the board but in the end the Government makes the decisions that it makes and the boards are there to carry them out because they are 100 percent owned subsidiaries.Grant Robertson: Has he now informed the boards of all entities for which proposals are being developed for the partial sale of their capital?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I have not been part of informing the boards of all entities. What I have been part of is making it clear to these boards that if they have assets they are not using and are important to their business they should not just sit on them in the way that they might under a Labour Government when apparently wasting taxpayers’ money is compulsory.Grant Robertson: Did he approve work on the sale of Landcorp farms as part of his response to this paper?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No—well I am not exactly sure which paper he is referring to but it is unlikely that I specifically approved work on that. I would expect the board of Landcorp as with the board of any other State-owned enterprise to be focusing on the sustainability of its business. After all we own these businesses only because Kiwis work hard every day including out in the rain and the cold or run small businesses where they work 16 hours a day to try to make a living. It is their money we are talking about and we expect the boards to pay respect to that and make sure they are using that money efficiently.Grant Robertson: Apart from land owned by KiwiRail has he approved further work on the sale of other KiwiRail capital?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No but then the board of KiwiRail does not need the approval of the finance Minister to think hard about whether it does something with the excess land that it does not need. It would be much better if it proceeded as I understand it is to for instance talk to councils around the country about what the possibilities are for housing development on some of the land that KiwiRail owns and may sell to a developer or develop in partnership with a developer. But we do not believe that it is compulsory to waste taxpayers’ money the way New Zealand First and Labour do. If it is not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been answered.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a Treasury report entitled Capital Investment Recycling and the Fiscal Strategy dated 3 November 2014.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I put the leave is it available on the Treasury website?Grant Robertson: It was released under the Official Information Act—to us.Mr SPEAKER: That is not the question I asked. Is it available for members to—Grant Robertson: I do not know. It was released to us under the Official Information Act.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the member does not know then I will put the leave and the House can decide. Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act request. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have had a Business Committee discussion around this and it is pretty clear certainly from our side of the House that if something is released under the Official Information Act it is most likely to be on a website. Because the member does not know does not alter the fact. If you would like Government departments to provide you with a list on a daily basis of what is released so you can make a selection that would be one way through. But taking the time of the House day after day after day seeking to release information that is publicly available in an age when newspapers are not quite the way that most communicate these days is unreasonable.Grant Robertson: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I do not need assistance. There was a discussion at the Business Committee yesterday. Subsequent to that I asked the Clerk to do some work on whether documents are always then subsequently released under the Official Information Act and immediately put on to a website. We could not ascertain that they all were. There may be some that are so I think that the way forward is that in the future I will hope that members have done their homework and checked whether a document is available on a website. I will expect them to have done so. If they seek leave I will ask them whether it is available. If it is available do not expect me to continue with the leave. Sometimes members may not be able to ascertain whether it is available in which case the easiest way forward is that I do put the leave. It is then in the hands of the House as to whether leave is granted or denied.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To assist the House this material was requested under the Official Information Act and released to us on 13 August in a heavily redacted manner. I do not think necessarily—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the matter. I thank the member for his contribution.