Cosgrove Clayton: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7273. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I thank members for their contributions tonight. I have got to say that even those who oppose the bill by and large have made pretty good contributions and have made some valid points.To the point that was made repeatedly—I think Mr Bishop was the first person to make it—he is right. It is very rare that we would seek to use entrenchment provisions in a wide-ranging way apart from many of the Acts—the Electoral Act and others—that he mentioned. It is rare. It is unusual. And the point about it is: it has come to this. That is why. It has absolutely come to this. Those guys over there would sell their grandmother for sixpence if they could—they could. They have revealed tonight that all bets are off. And I agree with Mr Bishop: in an ordinary time with a conventional Government that listens to the people and that does not fire money away or sell assets in a fire sale as these guys—saying they would get $10 billion they ended up getting $4.7 billion. We would not be here. We would not have this provision and we would not be trying to promote it in the Parliament.I would say to Mr Scott the same thing “But it has come to this” because Mr Scott and his ilk just fundamentally believe that they have a right to flog everything off. Mr Shaw made some very pertinent comments from his professional background in terms of the impact and value of Kiwibank during the global financial crisis. But Mr Scott comes from a place where he says that anything goes. But I do agree with him on this point and I have always maintained this point: that it is not appropriate for politicians to be stuck in and hands-on with State-owned enterprises.But this bill does not do that. This bill of course does not prevent Kiwibank and New Zealand Post from taking a whole host of any commercial decisions that it deems appropriate under the State-Owned Enterprises Act or the statement of corporate intent. So all this sort of scaremongering and bunkum from Mr Scott whom I think is better than that—perhaps Mr Bennett we expect it from; Mr Bennett may have written his speech for him—but I actually think Mr Scott is better than the speech he gave. He knows damn well and other members do that under the State-Owned Enterprises Act nothing is precluded apart from if that entity wanted to sell Kiwibank. That is the only decision.So all this sort of scaremongering and the bunkum about the Superannuation Fund and nanny State and the Labour Party wanting to get its hands on State-owned assets and interfere—well the problem Mr Scott has got is the history of that. The history of Labour Ministers of State-owned enterprises is exactly the opposite actually. It is exactly the opposite.So all this does—as is self-evident—is that it puts a safeguard another check and balance another blockage in the way and another check for some parliamentary scrutiny—75 percent majority of Parliament or a referendum—if it was trying to dispose of this asset. We know there is motivation to do it—we have heard a bit of it tonight—the capital recycling and the attempt to source $1 billion to $2 billion for other projects given that it has run out of money from the Future Investment Fund. We know that these guys if they could get away with it—if public opinion would tolerate it—would sell it. So I just simply say it has come to this. It is unusual; we should not have to propose measures like this to protect strategic assets but there it is we are.The other point that has been made is why Kiwibank and not others? I simply say to members of Parliament I am happy to take an amendment as we go through to cover all State-owned assets if they think that is a good idea. Mr Scott thinks we should cover Landcorp—I am with him. Other assets—I am with him; very happy to do that.Alastair Scott: KiwiRail.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: KiwiRail—I am with him on that. The same with Mr Bishop—if they want to propose amendments I am very happy to cooperate to expand the scope of this bill so that the remaining assets that New Zealanders have are protected. This is not inconsistent. This is basically a very precise and surgical bill to ensure that a vital strategic asset for New Zealand is secured and maintained and that this Parliament as representatives of New Zealanders will decide what happens not a few National Party cronies working against public opinion with their own interests in play and not those of the citizenry. I commend the bill to the House.