O'Connor Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14893. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to theMinister of Finance: What recent announcements has the Government made on the next steps in its share offer programme which is freeing up money to invest in new public assets without having to borrow from overseas lenders?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last night we announced the Government had successfully issued 20 percent of the shares in Air New Zealand. The shares were placed at $1.65 each—Hon Trevor Mallard: And they’ve dived this morning.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —yes was it not a good deal—and raised $365 million for taxpayers. The Government has retained 53 percent of the airline and when Air New Zealand resumed trading today 88 percent of the company was owned by New Zealanders. This is the latest step in the Government’s share offer programme which has now raised almost $4 billion which has been placed in the Future Investment Fund for investing in priority public assets.Simon O’Connor: How did the Government ensure that New Zealanders were at the front of the queue for shares in Air New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Shares were offered to New Zealand sharebrokers for on-selling to New Zealanders. A condition of New Zealand brokers participating was thatshares were allocated only to clients who met the New Zealand client test: having an IRD number a New Zealand bank account and a New Zealand address. The Government achieved its target of at least 85 percent New Zealand ownership. The Opposition cannot make up its mind whether that New Zealand ownership is rich mates of the National Party or poor mums and dads who have been ripped off—we have heard both from the interjections today.Hon David Cunliffe: Why were the shares available only to a handful of select brokers at incredibly short notice while other Kiwi mum and dad investors were shut out?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The nature of the offer was determined by the fact that the company is already listed on the stock exchange and that means that mums and dads whether they have a sharebroker or not could buy shares any day of the week at the market price more cheaply than the price for which they were sold yesterday and today they can buy shares at the market price. We are satisfied that we have achieved 85 percent—in fact 88 percent—New Zealand ownership.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table an email I received this morning that states: “As a current Air New Zealand shareholder I was looking to buy more shares in the Government sell-down. I rang my bank which I have shares”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The email has been adequately described. I will put the leave. [Interruption] The question has been asked whether anything has been redacted. [Interruption] Order! The name has been—Hon David Cunliffe: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Allow me to put the leave first and then if there is a point of order I will take it. Leave has been sought to table an email. The name has been removed. There are no further redactions. Is there any objection? Yes there is.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in this matter. The Leader of the House has seen fit to impugn the integrity of the member who has said that he has received an email. To prove it I have sought to table the email but the Government has refused leave to have that tabled.Mr SPEAKER: I put leave. Leave was refused by the House. Any member has the right to deny leave. Is the member now raising a point of order that he has been offended?Hon David Cunliffe: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: If offence is taken I am unsure of the remark that could have possibly offended the member. I presume you are referring to an interjection from the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Can I ask Mr Brownlee if he offended the member would he stand and withdraw that remark.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I do not think I offended him. Of course I do not.Mr SPEAKER: The member will stand—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I found him out.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand and withdraw the comment that offended the House and Mr Cunliffe.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might reflect on exactly what has been asked for here and give the House a ruling as to where offence intersects with being found out.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No I do not need any assistance. As I said I did not hear an offence that came from this side of the House that I would have thought offended the member. The member said that he was offended. That is the end of the matter. If a member takes offence he has a right to ask that that member withdraw and apologise for the comment. There is the difficulty that I have to judge every time as towhether it is reasonable that a member was offended. On this occasion because I did not hear the remark I accepted the comments from the Hon David Cunliffe.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Accepting that ruling I wonder what reflection you might have for the House on when a senior member of the House directly challenges your ruling through a point of order. I have noticed you being very hard on members of this side of the House when they have done that and threatened them with ejection. I wonder whether the same thing applies to the Leader of the House.Mr SPEAKER: I do not think the point made by Mr Brownlee was like that. He was asking as to whether when some remarks are thrown in a political chamber they can be considered as offensive or not. That is a line-ball call on many occasions. I have made the call that on this occasion I will accept that the member was offended and we move from there. I cannot give a categoric assurance where a ruling might go next time; it depends on the remark.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The published Speakers’ rulings make it very clear that when a member is asked to withdraw and apologise they are not then allowed to comment on that matter. That is the end of the matter. What Gerry Brownlee then did was raise another point of order where he commented directly on the matter.Mr SPEAKER: No. I certainly accept that members should not then further interject or refer once they have been asked to withdraw and apologise. That is accepted. But the member Mr Brownlee then raised a reasonable point. There are some remarks that are traded across this House that may to some person cause offence because some people are more sensitive than others. That is something I have to determine on the occasion.Simon O’Connor: How has Air New Zealand performed under the mixed-ownership structure introduced by the previous Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I want to acknowledge the foresight of the previous Labour Government in setting up the mixed-ownership model for Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand has performed very well under this structure and it would be regarded as probably the best-managed small airline in the world. I also note that the previous Government was flexible about the degree of ownership of Air New Zealand. The airline was initially 82 percent owned by the New Zealand Government. By the time we came to float 20 percent it had reduced to 73 percent ownership which means a Labour Government reduced Government ownership in Air New Zealand by stealth or without recognising that it was happening. We have no doubt that if the airline had been 100 percent Government-owned it would not have performed nearly as well as it has and on behalf of the taxpayer I thank the Labour Government for its foresight. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. [Interruption] Order! I have called the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How can he claim that the asset sales programme is a success when the three sales to date have raised $1 billion less than he promised the New Zealand people?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No that is not correct. The proceeds will be less for the reason that one of the companies Solid Energy is simply not appropriate for public sale. We are very pleased to have just a shade under $4 billion in the bank which we will be spending on rebuilding Christchurch building new hospitals and revamping modern learning environments all around New Zealand without having to kowtow to foreign bankers the way that the Greens and Labour want us to so that our children can have decent schools.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: In respect of that last answer how can he say that the asset sales programme is a success when the amount raised from the sell-down of Air NewZealand will pay for only 36 hours of Government operational expenditure at the same time as the Government continues to borrow $424 million per month and when net debt has increased by $5.087 billion in a year? Is that kowtowing to foreign bankers or what? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has a right to ask the question. Now we have all got a right to hear the answer.Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is successful because tens of thousands of New Zealanders now have direct ownership and probably a million have indirect ownership of these assets. The Government has $4 billion from New Zealanders who want to invest in large New Zealand companies which we will use to invest in decent public housing modern public schools and rebuilding Christchurch while Labour and the Greens will have to go crawling to foreign bankers to get that money. We do not have to; we got it off New Zealanders.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister believe that there is public support for the asset sales programme in light of polls showing two-thirds opposed and will he take the upcoming referendum on asset sales as a measure of public support?Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I think is a fact whether that member believes it or not is that there was public support for a Government that transparently campaigned on selling assets. I also happen to think that there is public support for the Government investing in public assets using money from New Zealanders who have the opportunity to invest in large New Zealand companies rather than doing what that member wants which is to borrow even more from foreign bankers. Quite why he prefers to deal with foreign bankers rather than New Zealand savers is beyond me.Simon O’Connor: What reports has he seen supporting the Government’s share offer in Air New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a range of comment in the last 24 hours indicating that the Government got a pretty good deal here. We have sold the shares for $1.65 which was the market price when normally this kind of sale would involve a discount. That means $365 million that is now in the Future Investment Fund which we will be able to use to invest in better classrooms for our children a modern hospital in Christchurch and we are able to do it without going and borrowing the money from foreign bankers like Labour and the Greens want to.Dr Russel Norman: Supplementary question Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I am just waiting for a bit of silence.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister stand by his reported comments that he plans to take non-voters in the upcoming referendum as supporters of the asset sale programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not recall those comments. What I did say I think is that we would expect a reasonably low turnout. I know that the Opposition parties are disappointed that there is no marching in the streets about the sale of Air New Zealand but then why would there be? The Labour Government invented the mixed-ownership model. It was proven to be successful and we built on that success. It is no wonder that New Zealanders are not quite as worried about this as the Greens and Labour which seem more concerned about doing better business with foreign bankers than giving New Zealanders the opportunity to save.Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister accept that if there is a majority No vote in the upcoming referendum—the best opportunity for the people of New Zealand to have their voice on this specific issue—the people of New Zealand do not accept his asset sale programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: What is surprising is that for a party that says that it believes in the voice of the people it seems to regard the 2011 election as some kind ofillegitimate intervention in the reign of the previous Government. The fact is that we campaigned transparently on this policy and I invite that member in the next campaign to campaign transparently on the impact of his climate change policy on household costs and we will hold him to the same standard as we met on asset sales.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a simple question which the Minister did not address which was whether he would take a majority No vote in the referendum as the people of New Zealand opposing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to relook atHansard and have a look at the question. The question then talked about “is it not the best opportunity for New Zealanders to have their say.” The Minister then responded and said that the best opportunity in his opinion was the election that was held in 2011. The question was adequately addressed.