Prosser Richard; Mallard TrevorKEEP KIWIBANK BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the second reading of the Keep Kiwibank Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. I note that the member in charge of this bill has changed. Mr Cosgrove was the member who brought the bill to the House but now I see that it appears that Mr Parker has taken the reins. It is a good thing that the bill remains a Keep Kiwibank Bill because it is obvious that it is no longer a Keep Clayton Bill". I have no issue with that. Mr Parker is a fine upstanding member and I am sure he will make a splendid job of shepherding this bill through all its remaining stages. That is not to say that Mr Cosgrove is not also a fine member. He has made a lengthy and—I am sure many people believe—valuable contribution to this House. He has valiantly held off the challenge from me in the Waimakariri seat for the last two elections succumbing obviously to Mr Doocey and Ms Wilkinson before him but he has obviously managed to keep just ahead of me and I do not blame him for not wanting to take that challenge on a third time. We wish him well in whatever endeavours await him beyond these halls.The Finance and Expenditure Committee has recommended by majority that the bill not be passed. This is hardly surprising. It is not a surprise that the National-dominated Finance and Expenditure Committee should want to keep the door open as far as a sale of Kiwibank is concerned. The select committee's report states that the bill raises a fundamental issue. It says: "The means by which this bill seeks to ensure that Kiwibank continues to be owned by the New Zealand people raises an important constitutional issue. What it proposes would legislatively entrench New Zealand Post Limited's ownership of Kiwibank Limited. Entrenchment restricts the future ability of the legislature to decide matters by simple majority and the majority of us consider that it should therefore be used only for provisions of a constitutional nature. Currently entrenched or 'reserved' provisions are found only in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Constitution Act 1986."The truth of course is that the Nats simply want to give themselves some wiggle room in case they decide or actually for when they decide that they are going to flog off Kiwibank no matter how many times they insist that they are not. The majority National committee's report—well National and their little friend from the Epsom tea party—says that: "The means by which this bill seeks to ensure that Kiwibank continues to be owned by the New Zealand people raises an important constitutional issue. What it proposes would legislatively entrench New Zealand Post Limited's ownership of Kiwibank Limited." Well yes it does. It does seek to ensure that Kiwibank continues to be owned by the New Zealand people but I do not know that the issue raised is of particular constitutional significance. The report does say "Entrenchment restricts the future ability of the legislature to decide matters by simple majority and the majority of us consider that it should therefore be used only for provisions of a constitutional nature." which it could be argued was significant. But as we all know no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. An entrenched provision which requires a three-quarter majority of the House in order to be overturned can itself be overturned by a simple majority. So any future Parliament or indeed this one could use a simple majority to simply remove the entrenchment provision and then use another simple majority to make whatever other changes it felt like. So actually entrenchment in itself does not restrict the legislature now or in the future. It is merely one more procedural matter to be overcome as necessary and not a particularly onerous one at that. So that is a cop-out.Of course now it has sold off or it is going to sell off nearly half of Kiwibank 45 percent of it to itself. The Government is selling 45 percent of Kiwibank to ACC and the Superannuation Fund which means that it is still in New Zealand ownership—Government ownership as Ms Lee pointed out. But there is nothing stopping either of those two entities from onselling their stakes at some stage in the future—which is obviously the matter that Supplementary Order Paper 185 seeks to address against obviously protestations again from the Government that it would do no such thing. Then of course the Government can turn round and say: "Well we didn't sell it off it was ACC the board of the super fund or whatever and we can't tell them what to do." So that is a cop out too. At best it is very cynical. It would be an elegant deception if indeed it was elegant but it is not. It is transparent cynical and actually rather clumsy I have to say.In fact the report also says: "Some of us believe that the danger that Kiwibank will be partially or wholly privatised by the current Government remains a risk." Well that is an eminently valid concern for those members to hold and one that is reinforced by this Government's decision not to support this bill. If it was genuine with its stated intention of not selling off Kiwibank it would have no problem supporting the bill. But as always with this Government when it comes to putting its money where its mouth is it suddenly has commitment issues. Then it says "There could be other ways of achieving the bill's policy objectives without raising an issue which is so fundamental to our constitutional democracy."—like what? Perhaps some members opposite might like to suggest a few. Committee members have not explored those options the report says but anyone who cares to do so might like to do that for themselves. Well that is reassuring—or not.This is a short simple bill that does deal with reassurance—a reassurance from the Government that it does not in fact intend to sell off Kiwibank. It is apparent that this is a reassurance that it is not prepared to give precisely because it is not actually an intention they hold. It does want to flog it off. It is philosophically opposed to New Zealand and New Zealanders owning anything. Everything must be privatised everything must be sold off to its financial backers in China and the State must most certainly not own anything on behalf of the people when some private foreign corporation could be owning it and making a profit out of it off the backs of ordinary hard-working New Zealanders. That is why the Government will not support this bill.Well New Zealand First does support it. We are proud to support it. Mr Parker and the Labour Opposition can take some comfort from the fact that in a year and a half the next Government which will be a New Zealand First - dominated Government in some shape form or another will take the steps necessary to ensure that this bill's aims are met. If this Government has flicked it off in the meantime we will be taking it back. The speculators and the carpetbaggers who come grasping for a share of it will not be getting a cent more than what they paid and they will be getting less than that if its value has diminished under private ownership. So any potential investors—or perhaps it should be co-conspirators—might like to bear that in mind if and when the Nats do in fact bring Kiwibank to the auctioneer's block. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the member I just want to ask Mr Scott—Alastair Scott: I wasn't on the phone Mr Assistant Speaker. I was just playing with it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): You are giving a very good impression by putting it by your ear.Alastair Scott: No I wasn't.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK."