Cosgrove Clayton: Urgent Debates — Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Urgent Debates — Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4328. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 That was an outstanding contribution from Mr Coleman. Who is Minister Coleman? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Dr Coleman buddy to you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh Dr Coleman sorry. A witch doctor perhaps; we are not sure. He was part of that great duo—you know sort of Laurel and Hardy—Maurice Williamson and Dr Coleman who were such geniuses in their National Government that they could not make a basic process decision that was not reviewable by a court. It took a court in this land to come down on them like a ton of the proverbial and require them to readdress this decision and to use a proper process. But if you look at Dr Coleman’s contribution round here and his political track record they do not call him “The Maestro” for nothing—both inside and outside this place. I say to the prospective next Speaker of the House the next knight of the realm Sir Maurice Williamson that he could have picked a better partner in crime I think as it were to deal with this decision. 
But let me say this: one of the things Dr Coleman said as he concluded his speech was “this is yesterday’s issue.” That is what he said. He also said: “No one cares about this.” Well I say this to Dr Coleman. I do not know what planet he is on I do not know what stratosphere he is orbiting and I do not know whether he reads the newspaper every day but when it comes to assets being sold whether they be land-based or whether they be State-owned assets I have to tell him something. I am sure Maurice Williamson who I think is still Minister of Statistics—he will correct me if I am wrong—and who can count using all his fingers and toes will tell Dr Coleman that if he reads a poll for 80 percent of New Zealanders these issues of asset sales are paramount in their minds and paramount to their lives. Eighty percent for instance are opposed to the Government’s fire sale of State-owned assets. That proves how out of touch “The Maestro” is. According to the great “Maestro” no one cares about these issues—no one cares about them—and they are yesterday’s issues. 
Scott Simpson 
: What are the polls telling you? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: What do the polls say? Well I just said to the member that 80 percent of New Zealanders consistently—I say to that member whose name I cannot recall but somebody will help me out. Mr McClay will— 
Andrew Little 
: Simpson. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Simpson. Eighty percent of New Zealanders consistently across the board—[ 
Interruption 
] You see if you are going to ask the question Mr Simpson—you are a new member—you have got to have the facts up the old sleeve. Eighty percent of New Zealanders consistently in the polls Mr Simpson have said they are opposed to the sale of State-owned assets which they already own. When you ask New Zealanders about whether they wish to sell out land holus-bolus then I suspect a similar number would line up in a similar queue. 
The National members have made a case and they have read out all sorts of figures about what we did. It is the usual sort of time trap that Governments get into nearly 4 years in when they do not want to address their own mistakes their own myopic behaviour and their own stuff-ups. It is “What did the other side do?” because they do not want to talk about their own conduct. But let us say this: yes—and Maurice Williamson I think addressed it in his speech—there is something called policy evolution called learning. Governments do things—of all shades—with the best of intention normally. Sometimes they get it right; sometimes they believe it is right until they actually look back in history and say that perhaps there was a different or a better way. And yes the Government of which I was a part did sell land but I say to this Government that we have learnt. There is a member’s bill in David Shearer’s name which does not prevent— 
Louise Upston 
: How much did you sell? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: You see there they go again. 
Louise Upston 
: How much did you sell? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: There they go again. A party that does not evolve does not listen to the communities and does not learn from history is doomed. It is doomed and these people are doomed. The bill that is in David Shearer’s name— 
David Bennett 
: Shearer can’t be evolution—you’ve gone backwards. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —as they sort of squawk; “Cue Ball” down in the corner there—is actually enlightened. At its very essence what it says is it does not prevent foreign investment. It is not anti foreign investment. It is not anti the purchase of in a limited way certain land stocks. But what it says is if you are going to do a Crafar farms deal and you are a foreign investor then you have to come to the table with something called value-add. 
Andrew Little 
: Do it for the good of New Zealand. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: You have to have something that you offer New Zealand—my colleague is right; it is for the good of New Zealand—not just have a grandiose auction and flog it off just for the sake of it. At its very core the National Party has a fundamental belief and a fundamental God-given right it believes to flog everything off normally to foreign investors as we saw with Contact Energy. That is National’s absolute fundamental bedrock belief. That is what it thinks—sell it off. 
What we are finding now as we unpack the so-called Mighty River Power sale for instance is that this I believe will go down in history as one of the biggest wealth transfers. Those who cannot scrape up the $1000 or $2000 to get in on the deal will pay for all those who can of course. And they will pay in the bonus shares—the loyalty bonus—that the National Government said we would not need because New Zealand would own these shares into the future infinitum. But we now know that is rubbish—that is bunkum—because it wants to have a loyalty share scheme. So this is about wealth transfer and this is about the National Party not evolving the National Party not learning from its own history— 
Andrew Little 
: The salamanders. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The salamanders as my colleague says. He has some degree of expertise—looking across to the other side—on reptiles. Mr Little has given me a brief. They are a pack of salamanders these people. I say this: they would do well to have a look at that member’s bill because what it basically requires is foreign investment to deliver benefits that would be over and above what a New Zealand investor could produce. So you look at your Kiwis and you say that if it is going to go then the foreign investor has to come in and say they can provide something that our domestic arrangements and domestic investors cannot provide. That may be for instance international and overseas trade linkages; that may be expertise that we do not have. It may be for instance that they will offer to transfer technology or expertise into the New Zealand market place. What it means at its very essence is that this has got to be about something bigger and better for our country. It could be for instance real job creation not just picking off a few people around the edges to make it look like you have created a few jobs. It could be doing something innovative that perhaps is not possible in New Zealand. But all those things are about adding value and substantial value like increasing exports job creation and other important factors. It is about adding value to this country. 
But the National Party’s view is to flog if off at whatever cost. The evidence of that if you go back to State-owned enterprises is you have Mighty River Power with a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry hanging over the sale with likely and potential court action possibly delaying the sale and the National Government simply in the worst economic conditions of our time to sell an asset hell-bent on just going for it—putting pressure on the Waitangi Tribunal and saying it just wants to flog this thing off. This for National is about a flag in the ground on its political philosophy. It is not about New Zealand; it is about the Prime Minister’s pride now. The Prime Minister and National have wrapped their arms around and have pop-riveted themselves and welded themselves to this policy in the face of massive opposition up and down the country and in the face of economists and experts criticising the legislation the Government put through. So now it is simply about John Key’s old-fashioned pride that he wants to get this through because he refuses to see sense and back down. 
It is also about National’s ideology—you know flogging revenue-generating assets that create millions and millions and millions of dollars for our communities millions of dollars over and above the debt-servicing costs of National’s $300 million-a-week borrowings for a reckless tax cut. Who in their right mind looking at that proposition where we know you are going to lose $100 million in dividends a year—a loss for the taxpayer—would agree to that? This is about the old-fashioned pride—and prejudice to some extent—of John Key and the National Government. The Lord above could come down and say: “This is not a good deal. I can see into the future. We are going to lose. The taxpayers are going to lose.” And John Key and National would say: “No we don’t care. We are going to do it.” And they will if they are not stopped in their tracks. 
How do we know that this sort of behaviour does not work? It is because those geniuses tried it last time in the Bolger Government and are we any better off? No. And this is part of it. If you are going to sell something and flog it off overseas the deal is that there has to be a value-add for New Zealand. It is not about fixing John Key’s political predicament and his pride.