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: 03 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13141. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding the estimated proceeds of asset sales that “I just want to emphasise that it is not our best guess; it’s just a guess”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. I think the member is referring to a discussion over Treasury estimates required by law of the proceeds of the Government’s share offer programme where it picked the mid-point in a range of $5 billion to $7 billion and it picked that mid-point simply because it was the mid-point. That is what I was referring to. It was not possible then to be more precise because there were so many variables—for instance how much of the companies would be sold how much people would be willing to pay for them and potentially variable market conditions several years ahead of when that estimate was made.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why is he still using his “guess” of $5 billion to $7 billion to be raised from asset sales as noted in Budget 2013 given that since the estimate for his “guess” was made his Government has driven Solid Energy into the ground rendering it unfit for sale and many analysts say that the value of Meridian Energycould be up to $2 billion less than it was a couple of years ago when he made his “guess”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: A couple of years ago there was an estimate made of $5 billion to $7 billion and as I pointed out before the reason for that range was the unpredictability of the market interest in the shares and commercial risks to the companies because since that time for instance there is now a clear understanding that electricity demand in New Zealand has stopped rising and may well be falling at a time when supply generation is growing. That is why we have stuck with that estimate. If and when there is better information then Treasury will be required by statute to take that information into account in the half-year update due in December.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that by his own admission he is guessing how much money will be raised from asset sales and given that 2 weeks ago he said he did not know how much it would cost to sell Meridian Energy assets through the buy now pay later scheme does he understand why 86 percent of the public has absolutely no interest in purchasing Meridian Energy shares?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply disagree with the member’s assertions. One thing we do know is that when we sold Mighty River Power the proceeds to the Crown were $1.7 billion. That money is now safely in the Crown bank account and the Government is pursuing its plan to invest that cash in other public assets. The Government does not apologise for banking significant proceeds from the sale of these companies. If the member disagrees with the policy he should promise to buy them back. The money is in the bank; he can promise to buy the shares back.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the assets sales petition of 327224 signatures that was certified by the Clerk of the House today is “dodgy” and was “signed by children and tourists”; if so why does he think attacking the democratic rights and integrity of 327000-plus New Zealanders is acceptable or appropriate for him and his Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the Prime Minister was attacking the reliability of the Greens’ signature-gathering process which was financed by taxpayers’ money. In terms of democratic rights this Government showed full respect for New Zealanders’ democratic rights by campaigning all election year in 2011 on this policy and we have followed that policy precisely. As the Leader of the Opposition at the time said the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales. This Government was elected and we proceeded with the policy.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will his Government accept the Labour Party’s offer to hold the asset sales referendum alongside the next general election thereby substantially reducing the cost with one condition: that he immediately halt the asset sales programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not untypical of the Labour Party to offer something that is not within its power; its potential leaders are doing that all over the country right now. I understand the Greens want the referendum petition acted on much more quickly than that and I suggest the Greens and Labour try to sort out just when they do want that referendum to happen.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why has his Government criticised the estimated $9 million cost of the referendum which amounts to roughly 6 percent of the $150 million he and his Government have spent on asset sales to date including on such items as brokerage fees advertising consultancy costs bonus shares legal aid court costs interest-free loans to investors and increased director fees and chief executive officer salaries or is it because once the referendum votes are counted he and his Government will have lost any moral authority they believed they had in respect of the sale of State-owned assets?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No we do not agree with that. The Government’s moral authority to move on with the asset sales hinged on the fact that even the Opposition said that the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales. We outlined our policies in detail and campaigned on them transparently. It was the dominant issue of that election campaign and we have proceeded with the sales. At the end of the sales process tens of thousands of New Zealanders will have had the opportunity to invest in quality assets the Government will have billions of dollars less debt and we will have better-performing companies as a result of it.