Foss Craig: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Foss Craig: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:3002. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I acknowledge the call Mr Assistant-Speaker Robertson and you have obviously been a very busy Speaker as the previous member told us you were very busy doing things with assets etc. I am sure he was not really intending to impinge upon you like that.  
The mixed-ownership model is empowering for our families for our capital markets and for keeping our debt under control across New Zealand. It will also help increase net savings within New Zealand now tomorrow and into the future. This Government continues to manage our economy and the balance sheet on behalf of all New Zealanders—those who are with us now and future generations—in the most prudent way possible particularly in the context of the financial crisis around the globe that we are in the midst of right now.  
The mixed-ownership model helps encourage the payment of dividends to Kiwis rather than interest to overseas lenders. It empowers New Zealand families. It can enrich New Zealand as a whole because dividends will be paid to New Zealanders rather than furthering debt as the other parties propose which would require interest rate payments overseas.  
New Zealand is vulnerable. New Zealand is incredibly vulnerable right now to the state of the global financial system. All eyes are on Europe southern Europe in particular. That is a good wake-up call. We should be thankful that all eyes are not on us because unless the Government keeps our balance sheet our finances and most particularly our debt and our ability to fund our debt under control we could sadly see what is playing in Europe happen here in New Zealand.  
We must remember that New Zealand owes the world $180 billion. We must maintain the most prudent management possible in terms of our accounts our balance sheet and our assets across New Zealand because the issues that are playing out in Europe are a result of not managing balance sheets appropriately ongoing increases in spending promises reprioritisations not happening and no accountability.  
New Zealanders can judge for themselves when they watch what is happening on their TV screens when they see yet another €100 billion given to the Spanish banking system and when they watch what plays out with the Greek elections this weekend. They can judge for themselves—and I back them to do that—whether they would like to see in New Zealand what they see there if we do not make some of the calls that are necessary. In fact that same public gave this National Government and its coalition partners permission to implement a well-flagged policy.  
I note still that this is about managing the balance sheet. I know Mr Parker is tired of hearing about the impact of the Christchurch earthquake which is about 10 percent of our GDP and Mr Parker was quoted as saying that. I know Mr Parker the Labour finance spokesman is tired of hearing about the excuse of the global financial crisis and its impact on New Zealand. Well because New Zealand must owe pay and fund $180 billion of debt to the rest of the world actually those who also funded the European situation are also keeping an eye on how things are going back here. 
So even though the Labour Party or Mr Parker is tired of hearing about it the fact is that we had a terrible tragic earthquake in Christchurch that affected us socially in humanitarian terms and also economically. The fact is that the global financial crisis has been with us for quite some time and this Government is still dealing with the remnants of the economy that we inherited which was not particularly flash.  
This proposal was flagged over 1 year ago. Over 1 year ago the previous National Government 2008 to 2011 flagged this as one of the options it would take to the electorate on 26 November and it did. We campaigned on it and of course the largest Opposition—they were somewhat larger at the time—campaigned on it last year. That was the basis of their campaign. Our vote the National Party’s vote went up from about 45 to 47 percent and the Labour Party’s vote went down to about 27 percent. So when people talk about referendum permission or mandates we must note that. That was a key issue. If it was not a key issue I do not know why Labour spent so much of its campaign money on those various ads it ran.  
Here is what is proposed and it is somewhat different from history particularly the Labour Party’s history. We told New Zealand what we were going to do. We asked for their judgment about 1 year ago—we asked them to make a judgment on our policy at the election. We have explained the model—how it will work—to New Zealand and they understand it. We told New Zealand what we intended to do with the proceeds if in fact they gave us permission to pursue this policy—the Future Investment Fund.  
We put caveats around the sale—if in fact it is to proceed—of the various mixed-ownership models being proposed here. We told them about the caveats around that. Mr Speaker we told them that no one would have a shareholding of more than 10 percent. We told them Mr Speaker that we targeted 85 to 90 percent of New Zealanders as being first in the queue. We told them we committed to 51 percent at least of Crown ownership remaining Mr Speaker. So Mr Speaker that is somewhat different from previous examples such as no asset sales from the Labour Party when I measure it against what they have done— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to raise this but unless you are thinking of leaving the Chair why are we having in this speech a barrage of references to a person called “Mr Speaker”? You are staying there. The sentence starts with your name and ends with your name. Frankly it is boring and the member should be asked to desist from his constant reference to you. You are not part of the debate for goodness’ sake. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well that is true but often members do refer to “Mr Speaker” as a way of helping with their speech. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker I suggest that member take a cup of Horlicks and put a rug over his knees and I look forward to his speech Mr Speaker. So in contrast to what we have proposed to New Zealand and what we have gained permission on in recent history there were wholesale trade sales of New Zealand assets initiated by the Labour Party—and many of the members of those Cabinets are still in that party right now—with no protection. The wholesale sales were mostly to offshore.  
In the 1980s there were many many assets sold. In recent history going back as recently as 2007 Spring Creek was sold offshore for multimillions without any of the caveats that we are putting in place and which are described in this mixed-ownership model right here. In recent history as recent as the 2005-08 Labour Government State-owned assets were pledged to debtors offshore and in proposed mergers—for example Air New Zealand and Qantas. That is what that previous Government when it was looking at the balance sheet decided to do. We note that it put its model before the public of New Zealand and was thrown out.  
The mixed-ownership model—I tell Mr Peters and all other members—allows the building of billions of dollars of assets for New Zealand. Therefore those who vote against this are voting against a billion dollars of 21st century schools. Those who vote against this are voting against modern learning environments. Those who vote against this are voting against water storage irrigation projects—you name it. Those who vote against this are voting against those things that have a direct impact on export growth and jobs for our families. That is what they are voting against. It is clear and it is as crisp as that.  
Keeping the New Zealand Crown balance sheet under control prudently as much as possible keeps interest rates down for our families and their mortgages and keeps inflation down. If members are wondering what the other side of that is they just need to look at where interest rates were and where inflation was in 2006-08 under the previous administration. There is some criticism from the other side which is very ill-informed. There is confusion of dividend yield versus total return. There is confusion of one-off payments versus ongoing cash flows. I am sure other speakers will play out those other issues.  
If the members opposite are saying you should not sell something because it is profitable they are therefore saying that you should sell everything that is not profitable. So I am interested to hear that members opposite want to put up KiwiRail schools and the police for sale. And given their history in this space it would not surprise me at all.