Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. It will be well worth it. That was the member for Hamilton West—the member whom time has passed by quite frankly.Tim Macindoe: No Hamilton East.GRANT ROBERTSON: East—sorry. I truly should withdraw and apologise for that should I not? Far be it from me to implicate Tim Macindoe in that abomination of a speech by David Bennett. Time has passed Mr Bennett by. Actually there are two explanations for that speech. Either time has passed him by or his listening comprehension skills are up there with his reading comprehension skills because he clearly did not hear David Parker describe what has occurred. So let us fill in the gaps for Mr Bennett.In between times from when this bill was introduced to now there has been quite a big change in the future for Kiwibank as a part of the New Zealand Post Group. As David Parker said there has been a change in terms of capital structure. The Government—with Michael Cullen as the chair of the New Zealand Post board working with Bill English—has come up with what is quite an elegant solution actually for keeping Kiwibank in public ownership and for supporting New Zealand Post through the transition from being largely a postal services company to now working in the modern technological age. That means it stays in public ownership with strong capital investment from the Superannuation Fund ACC and the Government as well. So the Labour Party did what a good Opposition would do: it decided to update its member's bill to keep up with the times. I congratulate my colleague David Parker on putting forward this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185 on a bill that he inherited. He inherited this bill and being the agile member of Parliament that he is he said I'm going to put forward an SOP that recognises where we've got to." and that is what he has done. I will return to the detail of that in a moment but I think it is important to look into the history of how we came to be here—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Can I ask the Government members just to quieten it down please. There are so many discussions going on that I am having difficulty hearing the member.GRANT ROBERTSON: And that will be the only time you will ever say that in this House Mr Assistant Speaker. For the history of this situation we do have to go back to the beginning of Kiwibank. It is right for members on this side of the House to be sceptical about the commitment of the National members to Kiwibank. They hated it from the beginning. They hated the idea that there might be a player in the banking industry that was going to be a bit disruptive and get a better deal for New Zealand consumers and customers of banks. That is what Kiwibank has fundamentally done. It has come into the market and it has played an important role in giving New Zealanders a fairer go when it comes to their banking services. But National members did not like that when it was introduced. They hated Kiwibank—all those great achievements of the fifth Labour Government with Kiwibank KiwiSaver Working for Families and paid parental leave. Of all the things that they voted against Kiwibank was right in there but it has sustained itself.Let us not forget that Bill English gave the game away on this when he was recorded I understand at a party conference function. He said: "We can't get rid of it this term but don't worry we're going to have another crack at it later." Chris Bishop: Who recorded it?GRANT ROBERTSON: I do not know who recorded it Mr Bishop. Do you know who recorded it? I do not know who recorded it. But that happened and Bill English was indeed caught out telling the truth on this matter. So New Zealanders and the Labour Party are right to be sceptical about the National Government's commitment to the ownership of Kiwibank and that is what lay behind this bill originally. It was that and the fact that it was drafted—and I think it was my former colleague Charles Chauvel who was responsible for the drafting of this bill; I think it was in his name originally—at a time when the National Government had launched into its asset sales programme. It was hocking off the family silver like no one's business and right around New Zealand people were saying "We know what's going to happen—Kiwibank is next." and of course it had form. Bill English said he wanted to do it—maybe in the second term not the first term. So this bill was drafted to ensure that Kiwibank was kept in public ownership and that is the history of how it got here. That is the goal of the bill. It is to make sure that Kiwibank stays in public ownership and does not lose what is important to its many thousands of customers around New Zealand—that it is a New Zealand bank and that it does represent something of their money being part of our country. I think that is an incredibly important goal and that is what this bill tries to do.In the context of the National Government's asset sales programme the idea came up of a 75 percent majority—a supermajority—it is true. We got excellent advice at the Finance and Expenditure Committee including from the Clerk's Office about the significance of using a provision like that for a bill like this. I do not think there is any harm in having raised that for debate because it is such an important issue that we retain control of our public assets. But as Mr Parker has already said Labour Party members were prepared to recognise that the supermajority was not an appropriate vehicle to take this forward and we were looking at the idea of a simple 50 percent parliamentary vote. But then as I say there was a major and fundamental change in the capital structure of Kiwibank. The goal of the bill then had to be altered in order to meet the new arrangements and the new circumstances and that is what is covered in Mr Parker's SOP.Essentially proposed clause 6 in the SOP does two things: in the first clause it makes sure that the only way any sale or disposal of New Zealand Post's interest in Kiwibank can proceed is if it is a disposal to the Crown or an organisation that is wholly owned by the Crown. So that is the principal level of the original bill which says public ownership is the default setting. I want members opposite to stand up tonight—Chris Bishop will do this. I know he will because he is a huge fan of public ownership of assets is he not? He is a huge fan of public ownership of assets. So what I want National Party members to do is stand up tonight and commit to Kiwibank remaining in public ownership—commit to it. He is not very vocal right now Chris Bishop—he is thinking through the consequences of betraying his principles of mass privatisation versus getting into trouble for committing to the public ownership of Kiwibank. We await with interest. Mr Seymour you do not need to speak. We already know what you think so you can stay quiet. But other National Party members we do want to hear from you. Are you committed? Because that is what the new clause 6(1) that David Parker has put into this bill is all about—the commitment to public ownership.Then we want to deal with the precise situation that we now face which is that the Government has inserted the possibility of a first right of refusal for the Crown should any of the subsidiaries decide that they want to onsell their shares. The first right of refusal is a good thing but at the moment it is not automatically triggered. What David Parker is trying to do in this bill is say that the Crown must exercise that first right of refusal. That to us is actually essential because our commitment and support to the elegant solution that I mentioned before—of giving Kiwibank or New Zealand Post a bit more capital a bit more chance to survive because they are not going to get it out of the Government in the new world—is predicated on those shares and that capital remaining in public ownership. That is why we have to make sure that we put the Government on notice that the first right of refusal has to come back to the Crown. Clause 6(2) and (3) on the SOP say that if the first right of refusal is triggered the Crown must exercise that right unless it obtains the support of Parliament to do otherwise. This puts it back into this House. It puts it back into this House's hands that unless the Government does what we believe is right then Parliament will have the final say.I think Mr Parker has come up with an excellent SOP that keeps the essence of the original bill—the concept of public ownership and the concept of a parliamentary final decision-making point—but also it acknowledges the new situation around the first right of refusal and around an injection of capital via the Superannuation Fund and ACC. It is a very good approach and one that I hope other members of the House will look at and see that it achieves the goals that certainly on this side of the House we want which is the public ownership of Kiwibank. I look forward to Chris Bishop's commitment to ongoing public ownership of our important assets."