Seymour David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: General Debate[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6937. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would like to just commend the earlier speaker Maggie Barry. She had to be quite adaptive in her response to the Green Party co-leader’s contribution. One never quite knows these days if one will get a speech about child poverty or the environment and I think that may be because they are not so sure themselves. But we have a very adept and adroit Minister who just responded and she could have handled either scenario had she been called upon to do so.It is sometimes difficult to tell but this House is ultimately about making sound public policy. It gives me great pride to stand here today as a New Zealander in a country that leads the world when people try to measure how good our public policy is. And what do they mean by sound public policy? They mean flexible labour markets. They mean openness to foreign trade and investment. They mean robust monetary policy. They mean a low and tolerable tax regime that is simple and easy to comply with. If they were to go a little bit further they might also talk about intergenerational fairness and they might ask whether New Zealand superannuation is sustainable.I have to say that the Minister for ACC this week has been shepherding through the House an excellent bill that will make ACC fair between generations by funding ACC liability out of the activities generating those liabilities this year and every year. Would you believe that the party that was opposed to this initiative was the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand? Those members say that they believe in intergenerational fairness but as soon as the details get a little bit complex it all just passes them by.I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition was right to raise the question of the pandas. I do not believe a single cent should go into bringing pandas to New Zealand. I believe that taxpayers are sick and tired of pandering to these bears. The cost of feeding them is bamboozling and we should not have to accept that cost as taxpayers in New Zealand. None the less the way that the Leader of the Opposition brought up the issue was the opposite of the fine contribution that we just had from the Minister of Conservation.It has been a terrible year for the Opposition because not so long ago they were having people sign petitions to keep our assets and I bet they no longer want us to take that course of action. In fact the evidence when it comes to good public policy is overwhelming. Over the last 30 years we have had over $2 trillion of privatisation in over 100 countries. There have been studies on privatisation. There have been studies on the studies and for the benefit of the Opposition I point out that we call those metastudies. The jury is absolutely in—private and privatised entities are more productive more efficient have higher-paying jobs and make better use of capital than State-owned entities. Is that not a germane point in New Zealand today when technology is gradually making many State-owned enterprises less and less competitive? We see Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand facing a cut-throat media revolution powered by the internet. We see a very similar thing happening to New Zealand Post and let us not even talk about the way that the fracking revolution has devalued coal across the world with terrible effects on Solid Energy.I put it to this House that if we want to be true custodians and promote true intergenerational fairness one of the policies we should have is to begin divesting ourselves of the equity in these fraught commercial enterprises that are already beginning to lose money hand-over-fist. Notwithstanding that I am very proud to stand here for the ACT Party in the country that has adopted free markets and free minds better than almost any other society in history. Does that not make you feel great?