Cosgrove Clayton: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:3000. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 That speech by Steven Joyce was the “offensive” being put into the “charm offensive”. That is what it was. I sum up New Zealand’s feelings by reading from the editorial of the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 10 June. The editorial reads: “There is no good argument for asset sales. They make no difference to the Government’s net debt. It is flogging off assets for ideological reasons not economic ones.”  
Let us just deal with the debt argument for a moment. What New Zealanders were not told before the last election was that the deficit would worsen. It was hidden by Treasury of course which allowed the Government to book the proceeds of the asset sales in the pre-election fiscal update without disclosing the loss in profits. So here is the real story as we know around debt and deficit. The Budget Policy Statement shows that Treasury estimated that the Government saves $266 million in borrowing costs per year yet loses $360 million a year in profits. That is the deal. So all the smoke and mirrors in respect of debt and deficit are the reverse of what that member says.  
This is a dark day for New Zealand and it is a dark day for a number of reasons. Some of us in this Parliament—in fact on both sides of this Parliament—on the asset sales debate have some regrets in respect of our political history. But some of us in this Parliament went down that track and when we were elected to Government some years later we learnt from our experience and we actually bought assets back. We knew that the experiment did not work. That crowd over there of course—the lineage of the Bolger Government—got back into office under Mr Key and did not learn. Here is the deal. This is another example of rushed ad hoc legislation that has not been thought through. I say it is rushed because they insulted submitters. I say it was rushed because the select committee process was pre-ordained. We had the absurd illogical act whereby Treasury was instructed by the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee under the stewardship of the Minister to write a report analysing the public submissions—all 1489 of them only 9 of which out of 1489 supported the bill—before the submissions were actually completed. That is shameful. The report was pre-ordained in the face of 80 percent of New Zealanders opposing the bill: 80 percent before it was written 80 percent when it came out of the select committee and 80 percent as we sit and stand in this Parliament today.  
I say this: selling assets is not a plan for New Zealand. It is not a plan. It will not put food on the table of the lost and lonely of our society it will not get the 87000 young people languishing on the dole back to work and it will not help those who languish outside our health system or outside our ACC system. No it will meet the ideological requirements that that Government has because its only sort of strategy is to flog off assets that New Zealanders already own. It justifies this policy by saying what were originally the words of Mr Key: “We want these assets to grow. In order for these assets to grow they must have capital.” “We have no money” said the Government “ and we can’t afford to put any money into it.” That is why it said it had to flog them off.  
Then the Government was faced with the dilution argument. Bill English woke up read his form 5 “BusCom” textbook and realised what the definition of “dilution” was. Then Tony Ryall got up in this House and said that in order to avoid dilution below 51 percent we will borrow we will tax and we will do whatever it takes to adhere to that position and solidify that position. But did not those members tell us that the reason for the sale was they had no money to spend on the growth and the capital of these companies?  
This is wrong. This is rushed shonky legislation that will sell out. It will sell out assets sell them back to New Zealanders back to generations of New Zealanders who built them and back to generations of New Zealanders who already actually own them. I put this question to the Minister and his ilk: show me the thousands of mum and dad Kiwis in our society who have bucketloads of cash—maybe in Epsom possibly but apart from that—who can afford to go down to the stock exchange spend money with or without a loyalty bonus and buy back what they already own. These are New Zealanders who are struggling to make ends meet today. Show me the New Zealanders who have money—the mum and dad Kiwis.  
Look at this bill. There was talk about an ownership cap. There is nothing in this bill in respect of penalties for breaches in that ownership cap and we were told by submitter after submitter—not just Joe Public but technically professionally academically qualified submitters—that you could drive a bus through the 10 percent ownership cap rules. In fact I recall the officials saying to me that if you had foreign owners perhaps mum dad and son and if the son was under 18 then he would fall under the influence of his parents and that is a sort of related party transaction. But if he turns 18—or 21 depending on the jurisdiction—he is his own man and he can go away and buy 10 percent if he wants to as well as well as mum and dad. You could drive a bus through this—you could absolutely drive a bus through it.  
Eighty percent of New Zealanders are opposed to this bill. There was talk about power prices. We had an Oxford PhD economist come before the select committee—and other technical experts—who told us that consumers purchasing electricity and energy from State-owned enterprises were paying on average $265 less per annum than if they acquired those energy resources from the private sector. We asked the officials in the select committee hearing whether they had done any work on this and could they provide us with any advice on this. That was refused by Todd McClay and his ilk and Maggie Barry whose only contribution to the process was to demand unbelievably and insultingly that a submitter tell her how he had voted because he was anti - asset sales.  
We asked Bill English in the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday whether he would provide us with advice—if he had not asked for it which he had not. We asked whether he would instruct Treasury to provide us with advice on the electricity price issue and whether he would make it public to either prove us wrong or reassure New Zealanders. He said no. He would not do it. We asked Phil Heatley the Minister of Energy and Resources whether he would instruct his officials to do it. Oh no—hear no evil see no evil. That is what National does not want to tell New Zealanders because prices will go up.  
We are going to propose a number of amendments. Outside this place mum and dad Kiwis all over the country are signing a petition to trigger a referendum. This is not a group of people or a coalition that is made up of just New Zealand political parties like Labour New Zealand First the Greens and others. Oh no. This is Grey Power this is the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and this is a large number of community organisations that are galvanised by giving people a formal say. I say this to the National Party members: they are a bunch of poll-driven fruit cakes. That was demonstrated of course by the Hekia Parata reversal. It seems the criterion for reversing policy is getting one of Steven Joyce’s polls and over a large whisky or bourbon one night saying: “Hey the people don’t like it.” That is the reason they gave for the Parata reversal: the people will not wear it the people will not tolerate it; it was not because National members thought it was wrong of course. No they read a poll. If the criterion is that the people do not like it and will not wear it and they did it with education then I say to colleagues that they should do it with State-owned enterprises.  
Once these assets are gone they are gone. National members try to bluff people by saying that they are going to buy other assets. They are going to buy schools and the odd bridge. Here is the problem with that of course: you sell a revenue-generating asset you buy a non - revenue-generating asset and at some point the money runs out. Then the question is this: what do you do? We are borrowing $300 million per week and they have disposed of all the surpluses that Labour created over 9 years. National is borrowing $300 million per week so the people at the top get a massive tax break. So what is left? Flog off the family silver. The Government has no plan and it has no strategy but flogging off the family silver. What do you do after you have flogged off the energy State-owned enterprises and Air New Zealand? You still have no plan—it has no plan. It is still borrowing. It is still not generating exports. There is no growth plan. So what will the people be faced with? Selling more assets—selling more assets.  
Future generations—sold out. Past generations—sold out over these asset sales. Those members can do their usual and sort of grin and grip as it were but I say in this House that we are going to fight right through this process. We are going to take it outside of Parliament after this process and even if they get one away the people of New Zealand will have an opportunity to stop the rest—the second the third and any more. I say that we should boot them out in 2014.