McClay Todd: State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McClay Todd: State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The last speaker in the debate was in fact the author of the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill Mr Cosgrove and he asked Government members to stand up and say whether we would support this legislation. I can categorically say to Mr Cosgrove that the answer is that no we will not be supporting this. You see this is an opportunist piece of legislation that continues a discussion with the public of New Zealand that was held for the whole of last year and that the New Zealand public had an opportunity to vote on. This legislation also is unworkable and I will address that in a moment. 
You see this Labour member’s bill seeks to entrench schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act and schedule 2 of the Crown Entities Act so that removal of any entity from the schedules would require the agreement of 75 percent of the House or a majority of votes in a public referendum. So is that not wonderful? Mr Cosgrove is saying that it would take 75 percent of the members of this House to do anything else around any partial sale or full sale of these assets in the schedules of these two Acts. But what he has not realised is that to amend this legislation or to throw this legislation out if it became law would take a simple majority of the House. So one vote more in favour than against would destroy this piece of legislation which he has thought long and hard about and would get rid of it. 
What I would also say is that in so far as asset sales are concerned Kate Wilkinson last year campaigned on the mixed-ownership model. She campaigned on reducing debt. She campaigned on making sure that the Government was accountable in so far as the economy is concerned. She campaigned on investing in new assets for New Zealanders. And she won that election and went from being a list MP to a constituent MP. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Which seat was that? Which electorate? 
TODD McCLAY 
: From a list MP to a constituent MP in the seat of Waimakariri. We also had the incumbent MP Mr Cosgrove who has brought this bill before the House. He did not campaign on this piece of legislation. He did not campaign on it. What he did was campaign against the mixed-ownership model the partial sale of assets. He campaigned against the Government getting debt under control investing more in the New Zealand economy and growing our asset base for New Zealanders. What happened in that election? He went from being the constituent MP to a list MP. The people of New Zealand all over New Zealand but in particular people in the Waimakariri electorate had a chance to consider supporting a list MP who was campaigning on a mixed-ownership model of the partial sale of assets or for an incumbent MP who was saying “Don’t sell these assets. Let’s not have the mixed-ownership model.” I can tell you that the people’s voice was clear. 
I also note that one of my colleagues said that during that campaign when Mr Cosgrove realised that it was not going as well as he wanted he de-branded from the Labour Party. The Labour slogans were taken down all over the place. He took them off his hoardings. He got rid of them and he became Clayton Cosgrove man of the people. Well the people did not want him as their man; they wanted a great woman Kate Wilkinson and good on them. 
I want to say that in this bill there are a couple of issues that are of particular concern. One of those is around what has happened in the past and what could happen in the future. The only piece of legislation we have enacted in New Zealand with the same provision currently entrenched in law in this manner is the Electoral Act. That is important because we do not want parties playing around with electoral law just because there may be a bit of political gain in that. Indeed all that Mr Cosgrove is trying to do with this piece of legislation is mislead New Zealanders drag them back to the debate that happened over the whole of last year when John Key as Prime Minister made a case to them. More New Zealanders voted for John Key and the National Party than any other party ever under MMP and actually that was the second election in a row where that was the case. Mr Cosgrove is trying to divert New Zealanders from that and the job at hand. 
Let us have a look at the record of the Labour Party on issues like this which must have motivated Mr Cosgrove to draft this bill to go out and consult with New Zealanders and then to put it in the ballot and bring it to the House. So what has Labour done under the mixed-ownership model previously? Well we know that it never enshrined in law a mixed-ownership model that would guarantee under the law 51 percent ownership of any State asset by the Crown. We know that it did not do that. When it had an opportunity it sold things wholesale left right and in the centre as fast as it could. 
Labour has said that it is opposed to the partial sale of State-owned enterprises. Well with Mr Cosgrove’s member’s bill Labour wants to entrench the ownership of Government shares in State-owned enterprises into law. Yet when those members were last in Government they established a mixed-ownership model for Air New Zealand and they did not do it then. It was all right for them back then with Air New Zealand. But today after not campaigning on this issue after not raising it with the public after going out and saying they were against the mixed-ownership model but being rejected resoundingly by the public and sent back to Opposition—not just sent back to Opposition but with fewer members of Parliament fewer constituent MPs and more list MPs like Mr Cosgrove—now they are in favour of it. Then they sold Government-owned shares in the airline. They sold those shares. They would not entrench them. 
In 2007 they sold 49 percent of the State-owned Spring Creek Mine for millions of dollars to an American multinational. That sale was approved by Trevor Mallard. They did not entrench anything then; they sold it wholesale. And when Labour was in Government the time before that it sold 15 State assets for almost $10 billion in 3 years supported by Phil Goff Annette King and again Trevor Mallard. There was no legislation to entrench anything then; it is just today that they want to do that after having not campaigned on this legislation or gone out to the people of New Zealand to make a case against the mixed-ownership model. New Zealanders voted in a Government that is focused on what is right for this country. 
Labour members also do not include any electricity generation on the list of infrastructure assets that they think must be owned by the Crown and they refuse to commit to buying back a single share sold under the mixed-ownership model. As Mr Cosgrove has challenged us I ask him to stand up and make a commitment that under a Labour Government they would buy back those shares. I recognise that one party has a position on that but the party making the most noise on this issue certainly has not. 
The reason National will not be supporting this legislation is that it does nothing about what is important to New Zealanders. It does nothing about law and order and making people safer in their communities. It does nothing about getting rid of intimidation from gang members. Labour had an opportunity; it did not support that earlier here today. It does nothing about what is important to New Zealanders and why we were elected—re-elected—with an increased vote. This Government is focused on responsible management of the Government’s finances returning us back to surplus and reducing debt building a more competitive and productive economy by investing more in assets for New Zealanders delivering better public services for New Zealanders—something New Zealanders wanted; they voted for it in the past and they will vote for it again—and of course rebuilding Christchurch. If Mr—who is the member who lost his seat to Kate Wilkinson? If Mr Cosgrove had his way then he would get rid of all of that. There would be more debt there would be less responsibility in Government there would be fewer public services delivered for New Zealanders who need them and Christchurch—on the edge of the electorate that he used to be the member of Parliament for and now is no longer—would not be rebuilt. We will not be voting for this legislation and I am appalled that Mr Cosgrove has taken up this House’s time with such an un-useful piece of legislation. Thank you.