Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates — Toll Holdings—Rail and Ferry Purchase 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates — Toll Holdings—Rail and Ferry Purchase 
[Volume:647;Page:15853] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 What we learnt from that lazy Parnell wine bar ramble was a number of things. Firstly we learnt yet again the lack of any collective memory in the National Party. That speech was almost word for word what National members said when we bought Air New Zealand. They said that it was an effective private company; it did not need to be bought. We would not know how to run it. We should not have it. And now Mr Key says that it was a sensible thing to buy Air New Zealand. We learnt also yet again that when the chips are really down National members still hate New Zealand ownership of our infrastructure. They want foreign ownership of New Zealand’s infrastructure. Even more they hate Government ownership of key strategic assets. They believe: “private sector good; public sector bad” no matter what. But of course they lack the balls to promise to sell anything that is in Government ownership. They lack the balls to do it even though they believe that it is totally wrong to have these things owned by the Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw those balls Madam Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I think the point has been made. 
Hon Bill English 
: Actually this is a serious matter. I have never heard that expression being allowed in this House but you sat and listened to it being used three times. I have to say that that is disappointing. If that is the standard that is going to be exercised then the standards in Parliament will be lower than they used to be. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: As I understand it— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just listened to a speech where in sentence after sentence we were accused of misleading the public and of misleading Parliament. I sat there and took it. I note yet again that National members whinge and moan when anybody responds to their personal attacks. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I will address the issue. There is an issue of the tone of the argument. There is an issue of that word particularly being used. I understand that it is in the hands of the House to object to certain language being used as against the tone which is the same thing the member took exception to. So if he is objecting to that language being used—that particular word—then I suggest that it actually has to be taken up and added to the glossary of terms. 
Hon Bill English 
: I think that any decent person in a public place would object to it Madam Assistant Speaker and I do. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. Yet again we are not allowed to use New Zealand English in this House only some kind of poncy language that suits the National Party when its members are under any kind of attack. 
The important point is that although they say they will not sell any State assets they hate the State owning assets and there is a big “h” word we are not allowed to use in Parliament that describes that particular set of political principles. It shows where they are really coming from in election year. That man John Key has swallowed so many dead rats he looks like a walking rodent cemetery these days going around the country. 
Every fact he gave was wrong. We are not paying a billion dollars on 30 June. When did anyone add into the purchase price of an asset its long-term investment programme? When was that a standard accounting principle to be applied in this case? Is he not aware that Toll was looking to the Government for a subsidy for exactly that investment while the track remained in private ownership? National says and Mr Key said it quite clearly that the Government should subsidise a private foreign owner of a New Zealand strategic asset—and he is nodding his head—then have extracted a 13 or 14 percent rate of return effectively on the basis of that Government subsidy. That is National Party economics and it is why the public of New Zealand does support the return of rail into New Zealand ownership. Why should the taxpayer subsidise foreign owners to make a profit and take it out of New Zealand? That is madness— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I wonder whether Mr Auchinvole would please lower his voice. I can hardly hear the speaker on his feet. Thank you. That is one warning; otherwise I shall ask him to leave. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Leader of the Opposition said we were within $70 million of agreement. First of all let me tell him we have never been able to enforce the National Rail Access Agreement. We had an agreement; it provided for arbitration. We went to arbitration and we basically won. Toll refused to accept the arbitration and secondly it was looking for subsidies on top of that subsidy on the track itself. It was a bottomless pit of ongoing growing subsidies going to a foreign-owned asset to extract profits from New Zealand. 
Thirdly he said we do not have a problem. Well I suggest he gets out of that Parnell wine bar and goes to ask the potential customers of rail in New Zealand whether they are satisfied with the performance of rail in New Zealand. They are not satisfied with the performance of rail in New Zealand. They want to see—[ 
Interruption 
] “Subsidise it.” he says! So again he says to subsidise a foreign-owned company to extract profits in terms of a 13 or 14 percent rate of return out of New Zealand. He regards that as some kind of patriotism. He regards it as some form of sensible use of taxpayers’ money. I will debate with that man on any public stage in the country on the proposition that it makes more sense to subsidise foreign owners than it does to subsidise a New Zealand Government - owned asset that will be run on a commercial basis as a State-owned enterprise with the current management taken over and with the current staff taken over. And we will make a better job of it than did the asset strippers who ran that company from 1993 onwards. 
Toll is the first operator to try to put some improvement into the rail system but the company made it clear that it needed ongoing subsidisation from the New Zealand Government to achieve that aim. And I suggest that the member reads John Roughan’s article in Saturday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 which explains that if we get to that point it does not make sense any longer for that to remain within private ownership. 
Mr Key mentioned Paul Little and said he was just a “rich prick”. No he is not; he is just rich. But Mr Key does not understand the difference between those two statements and I will leave him to try to work it out as he moves along. He says we do not know how to run these kinds of businesses. We have some of the most successful businesses in the country in State ownership. When National members are arguing that they are arguing that we are making too much profit out of those State-owned enterprises. Yet on the other hand they say we do not know how to run a successful business within State ownership. Well why then does the member opposite now believe that it is a good idea to buy back Air New Zealand? He now believes that it is a good idea to buy back the track but we have to commit far more investment to the track over the next 5 years than we do to the rolling stock in order to make an efficient railway system. We would never have been able to get back from Toll a return on that increased investment in the track. We had already promised the first $200 million on track investment with no return from Toll at all and we have been unable to extract a return on the subsequent investment over and above that and would never have been able to do so. Those are the numbers that have to be put against the purchase price of Toll to make a proper comparison. But if the member believes that it is so bad then let him promise that he will try to privatise it at the first opportunity. 
We know we can create in this country an efficient effective rail system. It will get large numbers of trucks off New Zealand’s roads. That will reduce the number of people killed on New Zealand’s roads. Every life saved on the roads is estimated now I think at something like $3 million. That is what it is worth—every life is worth $3 million. The rail system will reduce pollution. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and every tonne reduced of greenhouse gas emissions is a reduction of the liability on the Crown’s account because at the moment Kyoto Protocol liabilities rest with the Government. So the Government will save money in that regard while investing in a decent rail system. 
This Government is proud to reverse at last the failed experiment in a privatised rail system as we reversed the failed experiment in a privatised national airline with Air New Zealand. If the National Party wants to fight the election on this then I want to say that this is not about you John. It is not actually about you; it is about New Zealand and you have got to stop living in that kind of little bubble where the whole world is about you. There is not some kind of film being made about you in that regard. This is about New Zealand’s interests not the interests that you have been promoting for most of your working life. It is not the interests where you bet against the New Zealand dollar and short it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Again I think we have heard the term “you” used about a dozen or 15 times in the last 2 or 3 minutes. I would have thought you would bring some attention to it but just because the member is a senior member of the House it does not mean he can address you in that manner. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not about him; it is about New Zealand. It is not about the kind of person who believes that one makes a lot of money betting against New Zealand and can then come back here and believe that one is some kind of super patriot while secretly planning in the second term of Government to sell off State assets and saying: “We will not sell any State assets in the first term in Government.” That is an interesting sort of statement to make. We know that Bill English promised that rail would be sold if the Government bought it back. 
Hon Bill English 
: No I didn’t say that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yes the member did say that—very very clearly. We know that Bill English has been sat upon in this regard and told to shut up and that he disappeared for a week after the sale of rail was announced. We know that the public supports the reacquisition of rail in New Zealand. We know that it makes sense in terms of an integrated land and sea transport plan. We know that it makes sense environmentally. We know that it makes sense in terms of safety. We know it makes sense in terms of retaining value in New Zealand. And knowing all those things we are not in the slightest surprised that the National Party therefore opposes it.