Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:19939] 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did his Minister of Finance refer to him a Treasury report dated 4 March 2011 and entitled  
Extending the Mixed Ownership Model  
which says with respect to privatising shares in publicly-owned assets that “significant participation by foreign investors will be essential to achieve the Government’s overall objectives”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I did receive that report. However the Government has a slightly different balance of objectives than Treasury might have presumed in that report. Treasury placed a bit more emphasis on the proceeds to be gained from the sale but the Government actually places more emphasis on widespread and substantial New Zealand share ownership. We think it is achievable given the likely strong demand for shares from the likes of KiwiSaver funds Crown financial institutions and Kiwi mums and dads. By holding a stake of more than 50 percent the Government will ensure there is always majority New Zealand ownership. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What explanation has Mr English given to the Prime Minister for Mr English telling the House last Thursday that he Mr English had never received that advice from Treasury that significant investment by foreign investors was essential to the Government’s overall objectives? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: He told me the same thing that I am sure he would have told that member if he had asked. The question was phrased by Mr Mallard in relation to Mr English’s plans. His plans are to ensure that there is widespread New Zealand ownership not to maximise the share price by flogging shares off to foreigners as Phil Goff did when he was running the show. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When Mr English was heading into talks with the China Investment Corporation did the Prime Minister advise Mr English that he should not promote the sale of State asset shares to sovereign wealth funds notwithstanding Treasury advice that this would push up the value and price of those shares? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I did not. The reason I did not is that we would not want to disappoint the China Investment Corporation. It would know like we know that New Zealanders will be snapping up those shares not Chinese people. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will he be ignoring Treasury advice that selling privatised shares to foreign investors will increase their value and therefore prevent the sale or onsale to foreign investors including sovereign wealth funds of New Zealand shares in those assets? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I will be ignoring its advice in just the same way as the leader of the Labour Party obviously followed advice when it came to election publications and what was the appropriate use of parliamentary funds. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister insists on making extraneous comments you will get disorder. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raises a perfectly fair point that the information given in an answer should relate to the question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If he sells shares in State assets to local investors at a lower price what action will he take to stop those local investors flicking on those shares at a higher price to foreign investors which is exactly what happened when Contact Energy shares were sold? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member raises an interesting question which we have also raised with Treasury. A number of options might be available to the Government to ensure that that is not the case. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister explain what those options are? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Not today. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister really saying to the House that he has no idea at all and that actually he intends those shares to end up in the hands of foreign investors? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No it means that the Government is considering advice from Treasury. If we want to start talking about things why does Phil Goff not talk about his capital gains tax today? 
Rahui Katene 
: To the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I go to the question I will deal with the interjection on my left. The member should go to the transcript and look at the question. If he thinks the answer was outrageous he should look at the question. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does he agree with Ngai Tahu leader Mark Solomon that anyone who wants our assets to stay under New Zealand control should be encouraging the Government to set up partnerships with Maori as the perfect partner; if so why is it necessary to look offshore when we have multigenerational and credible investment options right here at home? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I agree with Mark Solomon that Maori have proven as they have gained assets through the Treaty settlements process that they are very keen investors in New Zealand and are actually very long-term investors in New Zealand. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister gave Contact Energy as an example in this House of how to sell shares to local investors was he aware that nearly two-thirds of the shares sold to those small investors are now in the hands of foreign and corporate investors; if so how will he stop that happening if he is given the chance to privatise further shares in State power companies? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Let me deal with the first part of the question. I am not sure whether the member has ever heard this before but there is a very interesting article by Pattrick Smellie called “A Loyal Bunch” and if members will allow me to read it for just a few moments: “One of the less defensible criticisms of the Key Gov’s partial privatisation”— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is all very interesting to hear what Pattrick Smellie might have to say but there is a specific question: was he aware that two-thirds of those shares ended up in the hands of foreign and corporate investors; if so how would he stop that happening? Mr Smellie’s quote has nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s intentions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered. The question is a reasonable question. It asked whether the Prime Minister was aware of that. The Prime Minister can certainly dispute the assertion that two-thirds are in the hands of foreign owners but that should be done reasonably succinctly. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do dispute that and I do that on the basis of a report by Pattrick Smellie which goes on to say: “One of the less defensible criticisms of the Key Gov’s partial privatisation plans has been regular reference to Contact Energy as an example of a privatised company which lost control to foreigners. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. … The reality of Contact’s share register is it remains possibly the most widely held share by domestic NZ investors 11 years on from the float. In fact Contact’s shareholders have shown a high degree of loyalty to the Company to the extent that EME’s attempts to take 100% were roundly rebuffed”— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —“in the … 2000s. … What it shows is many small scale investors”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: It has been a longstanding decision of yours that we are not allowed to table in this House journalistic reports and all the rest of it let alone listen to them being read out by the Prime Minister in answer to a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are perfectly entitled to quote documents. They quote them in questions and they can quote them in answers. But I am concerned that the answer has gone on more than long enough. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Are most of the shares in Contact Energy that were sold to local investors now in the hands of foreign and corporate investors? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot confirm that fact but I can confirm that that is not the belief of Pattrick Smellie. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That will be sufficient. The Prime Minister answered the question and that was sufficient. He could not confirm that fact. That was the answer to the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well that’s a breach of privilege— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the shadow Leader of the House expects me to keep Ministers including the Prime Minister to answers like that the shadow Leader of the House will show some respect to the House and not bellow out unnecessarily after a question has been dealt with. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I might have a slightly louder voice than the Prime Minister. I was responding to his interjection. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. It may have escaped the member’s attention but I was assisting the honourable Leader of the Opposition who happened to ask this question. I stopped the Prime Minister from going any further than just answering the question. He was asked whether he could confirm something he said he could not and I sat him down. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister saying that he is unaware of the fact that most of the shares sold to small local investors are now corporate and foreign owned? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot confirm that fact and I do not actually think Phil Goff can either. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This House is as you know about accountability. There is an answer to the question of whether he is aware of that fact and the answer is yes or no. Either he is aware or he is not aware. I am not asking whether he can confirm it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Clearly his answer indicated that he was not aware of that fact. But if that is the way— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to challenge that. He very clearly dodged that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will not challenge that by way of a point of order at all. The honourable Leader of the Opposition asked whether the Prime Minister was aware that a majority of shares were held by foreign owners if I recollect correctly; I might not have that exactly right. The Prime Minister in his answer indicated that he was not aware of that. He could not confirm whether that was the case. He added a bit at the end of that answer that in my view was totally unnecessary. My problem was that there was no way I could get to my feet in time to stop it. 
The primary question today was very carefully worded. It was a fair question and questions like that should be treated with respect. It is very difficult at times to stop Ministers. When they start to flick the odd punch around it is sometimes difficult to respond quickly enough because I cannot predict what is in their minds; I cannot predict what they will say. But I point out to Ministers that that question was an absolutely fair question. There was no political statement in that question at all and I expect such questions to be treated with respect. At one stage I felt that the supplementary questions were not being treated with sufficient respect—mind you one supplementary question was not as carefully worded as the primary question but others were. That is why I stopped the right honourable Prime Minister at one stage during those answers because I believe that respect was not being shown to the question. [ 
Interruption 
] I have dealt with that matter.