Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4715. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much has Mighty River Power spent to date on preparing itself for “transition to the Mixed Ownership Model”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 First I say to the member that this information will certainly be publicly available. However Mighty River Power is subject to a disclosure regime similar to that of a publicly listed company by Government policy which means that all this information will be made available. Because of the strict legal requirements in the run-up to the float about the provision of information in relation to the individual company the Government by policy choice is running a conservative policy that financial information will be released according to the disclosure regime not through ad hoc parliamentary processes. I can tell the member that the number will be available on Tuesday next week when the company discloses it as part of its annual results announcement. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In order to assist the House I seek leave to table four documents. The first is a letter from Genesis Energy disclosing that it has so far spent $670000 preparing for the mixed-ownership model process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The second letter is a letter dated 14 August this year from Meridian Energy disclosing that Meridian Energy has spent $562000 so far preparing for the mixed-ownership model. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The third letter is from Solid Energy dated 12 August stating that Solid Energy has spent $131000 so far preparing for mixed ownership. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Please I must hear this in silence so I can hear whether there is any objection. There is no objection on that one. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The final one is a letter from Mighty River Power refusing to release the information dated 16 August this year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 








Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that Mighty River Power according to the Minister’s answer is going to be releasing the information on Tuesday why on earth is the Minister not releasing the information today on Thursday? Is it because the Government is embarrassed by the cost of the asset sale programme which has now run aground like the  
Rena 
 and is leaking money left right and centre? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No that is not the case. The Government intends to be fully transparent about the costs but we are going about that in a disciplined manner in respect of Mighty River Power because of the strict legal requirements around information about particular companies. We do not intend to put ourselves at risk of breaking the law. I am not implying that giving the member the number now would break the law but we do not want to put ourselves at risk of it. We have consistently said that the costs will be around 2 percent of the $5 billion to $7 billion proceeds. We plan to release all the information the member is seeking every quarter. That will prevent him carrying on with his campaign that the Government is somehow hiding these costs. We are not. They will be available and it is unfortunate that that will be a bit less politically convenient for the member. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just seeking your advice. The Minister has stated very clearly that he does not believe there is a legal reason preventing him from releasing it. I assume his argument is that it not in the public interest to release this information. Is that your understanding of why that answer is acceptable? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Indeed the only reason why the Minister could get away with not providing the information the member is seeking which is pretty straightforward information is that the Minister if I heard him correctly is arguing that it is not in the public interest because the Government has decided to follow the standard—and forgive me for not remembering the correct terminology—programme for release of such information under the public companies Act is it? The Government has obviously made one assumes an assessment that that is the safest way when dealing with these commercial things to handle such a matter. So certainly it is the public interest that the Minister has invoked. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry but in listening to the Minister’s answer he specifically said it was a matter of Government policy rather than one of following the law in the Companies Act or any other—that it was a matter of Government policy. Is it OK for the Government to say: “We are not releasing information just because it is our policy not to release information.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is absolutely at the Minister’s discretion. Only the Minister can make the judgment about what is in the public interest. It would appear from his answer—I stress “appear” because I know no more than the member—that the Government from what the Minister has said has decided that the safest way to handle what is obviously a commercial transaction is to follow the standard procedures for release of such information as it is a commercial transaction that is being carried out. It is a fair point that the member is raising but the Speaker cannot second-guess the Minister. It is quite clear that the public interest is being invoked here. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Government come up with this new policy of not releasing information even though there is no legal objection to releasing that information purely for the reason that the Minister gave in his answer which is to block political opposition to the asset sale programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No we would not dignify that member’s opposition to it by going to so much trouble. The fact is the Government is not blocking the release of the information. It will be released on Tuesday. The general information about costs incurred in the process of the float will be released every quarter. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Are the millions being spent by the State-owned enterprises themselves in preparation for privatisation additional to the $106 million in Vote Finance that the Government has budgeted for the sales process which includes things like public relations consultants brokers’ fees and lawyers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As we have said we have made a general estimate of 2 percent of the proceeds of $5 billion to $7 billion. That is a reasonably wide range of costs because it is a bit hard to predict them out over a period of years. The fact is the total amounts will be available whether they are spent by the company or the Government. I would say to the member that the expenditure of money by the companies is pretty small in comparison with the much stronger focus they now have on cost control and careful capital investment which unchecked could have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the member I think the member’s question was very clear actually on that occasion. The member asked whether the figures he quoted were in addition to any money that might be spent by the companies. I think that was not an unreasonable question to ask. In answering the Minister said that the Government has made it clear that a certain amount of money will be spent—some percentage—but did not indicate whether that was in addition to the money that would be spent by the companies which was a fair question. I ask the Minister to please come back to that question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We simply have not classified the costs in that way. We have made a broad estimate of 2 percent. The member is free to ask about any costs and whether they are part of the cost of sales. Over future years we think the total of all those costs will be around about 2 percent of proceeds whether it is paid by the company or paid by the Government. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the costs of the asset sales programme that we know about include the $106 million in Vote Finance the millions spent by the State-owned enterprises themselves the money spent on the Waitangi Tribunal hearings the hundreds of thousands spent on pay rises to energy company managers potentially the hundreds of millions for the share giveaway and the $100 million a year in additional deficits are there any other hidden costs of the asset sales programme that are not in that list? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. I think we will be adding to the list the expenditure by the Parliamentary Service Commission on people that the Greens have been paying to approach 12-year-olds—12-year-olds—as I saw the other day to sign a petition opposing asset sales. We will add that to the list. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear Dr Russel Norman’s supplementary question. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I say to the National Party back corner there to please be reasonable. I must be able to hear the supplementary question. I see members looking around saying who me? But I can see you all from here and there was too much noise. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How would mum and dad shareholders be able to afford to buy shares in these companies when today’s household income report shows that middle New Zealand is getting poorer under this Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are also a lot of figures that show that middle New Zealand is increasing its savings rate for pretty much the first time in a generation. Mums and dads are quite capable of making their own decisions on that. They will not be listening to what the Government tells them and they certainly will not be listening to that member because they will be worried that their taxpayer dollars have been spent by him on paying people to gather signatures from schoolchildren. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister concerned that after 4 years of his Government middle New Zealanders’ after-tax incomes are in decline and how will those middle mum and dad New Zealanders be able to afford to buy shares in these companies he is flogging off when their real after-tax incomes are decreasing? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are a fair stretch from the primary question but I do not want to deprive the honourable Minister. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is of course being selective about his years because the years prior to the one he is referring to showed significant increases in real after-tax disposable incomes. Of course the year to which he is referring shows the impact of a sharp rise in unemployment particularly among lower-income workers. New Zealand mums and dads are quite capable of making their own decisions about whether they can put money aside for this purpose or whether to put it aside for reducing their credit card debt or their mortgage. We believe New Zealanders are responsible and capable. Clearly that member believes New Zealanders should be protected from themselves.