Auchinvole Chris: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Auchinvole Chris: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:16573] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I remember in 2005 being at a meeting in Blackball with the member who has just spoken Damien O’Connor prior to the election. I said I had written to the then National spokesperson on finance Mr John Key and proposed that Solid Energy shares be made available for West Coasters to buy. The member opposite will probably remember the meeting. It was the one in which the Blackball people told him they were going to vote him out—indeed they did. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Not that time. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well it did not take long. The member is quite right: he lost only 5500 votes at that time; he lost 3800 the next time. 
West Coasters have an affinity with mining. I know that members on the Opposition side of the House do not like mining. I know they do not like success. The problem of course for Solid Energy as far as a Labour Government goes is that not only does Solid Energy do mining but it does it successfully: $600 million I think comes from the Stockton Plateau—$600 million. Indeed Solid Energy is a community sponsor to a great extent. 
I was delighted when I heard the Prime Minister say he was looking at a proposal for a partial sell-down in Solid Energy Meridian Energy Genesis and Mighty River Power. Mixed ownership a partial sell-down and a guaranteed 51 percent Government investment—it is a win-win-win. It wins for the families who can invest in proven companies. What a wonderful opportunity that is. Why should New Zealanders be denied that opportunity? Why should West Coasters be denied that opportunity? The companies get fresh capital. Jobs security and everything else gets better. The Government reinvests in new assets: schools and hospitals—and health will determine the outcome of the election on the West Coast. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with those things? 
What does Labour have a problem with? Why are there the panicked headlines? It was even in the paper today I think. The list member opposite said the Government was going to sell Landcorp. When will he learn that people do not like to be panicked? Indeed the very people whom he is trying to impress will bite him where it hurts for constantly crying wolf. Labour does not like mining and it does not like success. Mr Goff says he wants the Government to keep the profits. Mr Goff would probably like the Government to keep everything. Those members have not changed. What was it that they used to say—the old socialist cry? It was about controlling the systems of production distribution and communication. The Labour members have not changed at all. They certainly would love to keep controlling all of that. 
We on this side of the House ask why we should not let hard-working Kiwis reap the benefit from Kiwi companies: more capital and more assets. I am glad to report that from the work we have done we find that that message has gone down well on the West Coast in spite of a Labour list member saying we would sell Landcorp and other things. Again that member needs to learn that constantly striving to cause panic—and there have been a number of instances of that in the last few months—will only bring criticism from those whom he tries to alarm. There is no risk of overseas ownership which is the other bogey that Labour puts up. A 51 percent Government shareholding is guaranteed. Kiwi investors will have a preference be they individuals or investors through KiwiSaver. Air New Zealand has done well with mixed ownership—it has done well—and will continue to do so. 
Another factor has to be taken into account and it will be the clear difference between the Government side of the House and the Opposition side of the House. It has been mentioned by a number of speakers tonight and I make no apology for repeating it: debt. Debt debt debt—there are clear differences between National and Labour on it. Goff is rushing to cause panic yet he promises to spend $5 billion—$5 billion—on Labour’s promises. That would be a disastrous policy. Those practices are not reflected by business in New Zealand and they are not reflected by families in New Zealand. Labour wants us to become like Portugal Ireland Spain and Greece. We need to get the books in order and it is policies from the Government side of the House that will do that. 
Labour’s policy of promising that there would be more spending is irresponsible. It is not designed for economic good; it is not designed for the country’s good. What then is it designed for? It is the same stuff that I have heard from successive Labour leaders from Rowling onwards. It is what they trot out when they face electoral disaster. That is what they will be facing this time if they persist with this programme. If members do not believe me they should look at Sir Wallace Rowling’s pre-election speech in 1975. Goodness me! It was full of promises that could not be paid up. Some of them are highly amusing. And here we go again with Labour pursuing a political strategy that takes away our economic future and prosperity for our children for the sake of a desperate grab for power by a leader with an old team whose members know that this is their last chance as individuals. It is a strategy that takes a risk with our future simply to secure an electorate respite for Labour. 
What is the risk? A major risk of not bringing our debt under control is the risk of a credit downgrade from the international credit rating agencies. Standard and Poor’s has New Zealand on a negative outlook as we speak. The only countries with worse foreign debt than New Zealand are Spain Portugal Ireland and Greece. Those are not the economies that we should be comparing ourselves with. Foreign debt a negative outlook and lower international credit ratings may not be a concept that most people will be familiar with. That is what Labour frankly is depending on. Labour knows the very real risk that poses in relation to personal financial situations. With a credit downgrade interest rates rise increasing the cost of mortgages. That will hit everybody. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Everyone. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Everyone. Starting a business becomes harder. We should not forget that business creates jobs. 
I think of a young couple in Westport who have scrimped and saved for a deposit for their first house. A Labour-inspired credit downgrade might be what puts it out of reach. I think of a solo mum in Motueka with a great business idea. A Labour-inspired credit downgrade could be what makes it too hard for her to get a business loan. I think of an employer in a small business in Greymouth who would face rising interest costs. A Labour-inspired credit downgrade could mean downgrading his business and redundancy for some of his staff. 
These are not complex economic issues; they are basic real situations for real people around the country. There are people who need economic leadership which they will get from this side of the House not from the prospect of a Labour Government taking risks with everybody else’s future in order to try to secure its own. Those are the risks that would be taken by a Government that embarks on a programme of increasing debt at this crucial stage. It is no wonder that the members over there are ashamed. Those are the risks that Phil Goff wants to take. Those are the risks that the National Government will not take. New Zealand needs to have sound financial leadership and management. That is what it is getting from John Key and Bill English. They are charting the path. For the last 2 years they have provided the economic leadership that this country has benefited from and they will continue to do so.