Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Finance: Has he been advised whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement on asset sales that “mixed ownership will free up $5 billion to $7 billion”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes I just checked with the Prime Minister and he does stand by his statement. He also advises me that he stands by the statement that if the Greens are really opposed to the asset sales policy then after the referendum they will promise to borrow billions of dollars and buy back the shares. So far they have refused which the Prime Minister advises me means the Greens do not really mean what they say.Dr Russel Norman: Does he believe that the asset sales programme has legitimacy given that it was passed in this House by a single vote that of John Banks a man who received a $15000 donation from Skycity of which Justice Heath yesterday said that “Those donations were not expressly disclosed in [John Banks’] Return. Rather they appear to have been classified as having been made anonymously.”?Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have now got into the difficulty again of where we were where the member is now starting to refer to details of the case. I will invite the member to ask the question again in line with Standing Order 112.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a case that is from yesterday. I am reading the judgment. I am not doing anything other than reading the judgment from Justice Heath yesterday. It is a settled case. John Banks is going to trial.Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to repeat the question. If I am dissatisfied with it this time I will rule it out of order.Dr Russel Norman: Does he believe that the asset sales programme has legitimacy given that the deciding vote in this House was that of John Banks and that Mr John Banks has been found by the courts yesterday to have received two donations from a company associated with Kim Dotcom and one from Skycity Entertainment Group and “Those donations were not expressly disclosed in the Return. Rather they appear to have been classified as having been made anonymously.” as referred to in the judgment by Justice Heath yesterday?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. Parliament passed the legislation. The Supreme Court examined the whole process. The Financial Markets Authority examined the whole process. A whole lot of interested investors bid on the shares and legally received their share certificates and we now have $4 billion in the bank—$4 billion we do not have to borrow off foreign bankers in the way that that member will need to if he decides to buy back the assets.Dr Russel Norman: Why did Treasury advise the Government in the Budget Policy Statement that asset sales would increase the Government’s deficit as measured by the operating balance excluding gains and losses which is the standard measure of the deficit?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think as we have discussed in the House before there are a number of ways of measuring the impact of asset sales on the Government’s fiscal balance. The calculations that have been done under one version show it is mildly positive another version mildly negative and a third version roughly neutral. As I explained to the member this morning at the committee the impact directly on the Government’s balance was not the main driver of the sales. The Government set outsubjectives for this process some time ago. The real question now though is if the referendum votes show a majority are against the asset sales will the Greens and Labour take the referendum seriously and promise to buy the assets back?Dr Russel Norman: Has he actually read the Budget Policy Statement where Treasury says that the asset sales programme will increase the Government’s deficit and will that increase in the deficit not now be larger because he has raised less money than originally projected?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member’s question points to the problem with those calculations and that is they are all hypothetical. For instance if the Government still owned those assets the fact is we now know they would be worth considerably less today than what is on the Government’s books. Treasury actually has not done that calculation. It is actually pretty meaningless. The most important issue is that the Government’s debt is at least $4 billion lower than it otherwise would be but if the Greens can get around to promising to buy the assets back—which you would think they would judging from their criticism of the sales process—then they will have to go and raise at least $4 billion of debt to buy them back.