Mallard Trevor: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:17070] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will make a very quick response to the last point made by the member who preceded me Louise Upston. I make it absolutely clear that not one extra job for Maori will be created by transferring a taxpayer asset to Maori in the way she promoted. Not one extra job for anyone will be created by transferring a State-owned enterprise or part of one to Maori. There will not be one extra job in Mighty River Power from the transfer of ownership to Maori as she has just advocated in the House. 
I say to that member that the assets that have been built up in my grandparents’ generation in my parents’ generation and in my generation and have been paid for by taxpayers and by the people who have paid for the power should not be hocked off whether it is to Maori or to John Key’s rich friends offshore. I think that is wrong. It does not matter whether the member is prioritising Maori for the sale or prioritising John Key’s mates at what used to be Merrill Lynch and is now the Bank of America. Those assets should stay in the hands of the Government because it is the custodian of those assets for the people of the future. 
What is more on average the group of assets that is being proposed for sale is returning 15 percent a year. The Minister of Finance told us at a select committee meeting—and this might have changed slightly since then—that he was borrowing on a short-term basis at about 3.5 percent per annum and on a 10-year basis at about 6 percent. I ask what sort of business person would sell an asset that is returning 2½ times the amount it is costing for that capital. Retiring debt at a loss seems to be one of the maddest approaches. 
The other interesting thing we heard from Bill English was that he was worried about the risk. He was worried about the risk profile of the electricity companies in New Zealand. I just ask him what the risk is in the current ownership model. I cannot think of a much better spread of portfolios and I cannot think of a much better utility than those assets. 
Labour will protect those assets. They have been built up by past generations and we want Kiwis to own the future. We do not want just wealthy Kiwis to buy the shares then sell them offshore as happened with Contact Energy. We do not want only the wealthy to buy them and flick them off—sometimes at a profit and to be fair to them sometimes at a loss—to overseas owners. 
I will make another point. There has been a lot of talk about New Zealand going forward under the National Government. But actually New Zealand has been going backwards. I will ask a question; I give credit again to Cameron Slater because he has put it there. I ask members to just name me people who are better off under National. 
Grant Robertson 
: John Key. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: John Key is better off under National. He is better off by $1000 a week as a result of the tax cuts and by $100000 a week as a result of the changes in his net worth. I am not surprised that he is a tad out of touch—a tad out of touch! Not many families in New Zealand after they have paid all their bills for the week are $100000 better off. Therefore I can understand how people feel that the Prime Minister is slightly out of touch. 
I should have started with Canterbury and I will now make a comment about it. I have not made a speech of this sort a more general speech in the time since the earthquake. Like all of us we are dismayed with the situation. Many of us are scared for the future of Christchurch both in the social and economic sense and also physically. I am one of those people who believe—and it might be an old-fashioned belief and a myth—that bad things often come in threes. I am very very anxious about that. As recently as last night there was a major earthquake which I understand was only 2 kilometres down under the centre of Christchurch. It was only 2.2 on the Richter scale but when it is only 2 kilometres down it must cause enormous anxiety for the people of Christchurch. 
Although I give a lot of credit to many of the people who have been involved—and people have been involved on a voluntary basis—I think there are some questions around the organisation. I think the head of civil defence has made it clear that they have missed some things as far as Christchurch east is concerned. It is not sorted. I say also that some people who live on the other side of town are still waiting to be properly treated from September and some of those people have been hit again. The Government needs to keep on looking to its own organisation post this earthquake to make sure the step goes quite a long way further than on the previous occasion. 
I reiterate as I did today by way of a question to the Prime Minister that the Government will have to decide pretty soon whether it will put resources into reconnecting the sewer system and the water in the areas that as the Prime Minister has indicated are in effect going to be bulldozed and turned into parks. There are people in those areas. Some people know they are in those areas and unfortunately a lot of people think they are in those areas of Christchurch. When there are scarce resources and there are priorities to be set there needs to be some certainty as soon as possible. Clearly it would be foolish for those people to work on repairing their houses if in fact they will not get water back and the sewers will not work again. 
This Parliament is however back to some normal action. I think probably the decision of the Government to proceed with the seabed and foreshore legislation has taken us out of the happy families approach that had occurred before. 
I emphasise the importance that Labour puts on having a fair go and on young people having a fair go. I think all of us know of families that have invested their money have taken student loans have done everything right and have done what people have recommended to them. The kids have got their training and their degrees and if they are lucky they have got jobs at McDonald’s. 
I am concerned that well before this earthquake we were getting to the point where the skills of the country were not being used. Also very importantly a lot of the skills that were in demand had been run down by the current Government. Again I give the example of the building area where the trades training and the number of apprenticeships had been run down. The intake into those courses and the number of apprenticeships had been deliberately run down by the previous Government and the numbers going into pre-apprenticeship courses had dropped as well. We know that if we are not careful we will have to bring people from overseas to do the work that is necessary in Christchurch. 
My priority is for Kiwis to have a fair go to get the skills to get the jobs and to get ahead. The National Government has no plan. It has no long-term plan and it does not have even a decent short-term plan. It does not seem to have a plan beyond the plan for the next photo opportunity. We want New Zealand to get ahead. The National Government shows no sign of wanting that.