Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14613. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Will the results of the state-owned assets referendum in any way influence his Government’s policy to sell State assets; if so how?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No.Hon David Cunliffe: Why is he so arrogantly continuing the fire sale of State assets when Treasury advice is that it will barely break even and that he has already wasted $1 billion of taxpayers’ money by rushing it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I utterly reject the view that the Government has wasted any money. In fact the Government has sold the share of the companies so far into what has been actually quite a strong market. The fact that the shares are trading either approximately roughly or below actually where they are at in the market place shows you that the taxpayer has actually maximised value.Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the Prime Minister so arrogantly continuing his asset sales when the sales to date have transferred ownership of those assets from 100 percent of New Zealanders to just 2 percent; and does this not show that Kiwi mums and dads far from being at the front of the queue are not near the queue at all?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the member is wrong—51 percent of the companies is owned by all New Zealanders. Secondly my understanding is that the Superannuation Fund ACC and other major funds are shareholders of those companies and they hold those shares on behalf of all New Zealanders. There is a huge number of KiwiSaver accounts. The member may remember those. They were set up under a Labour Government. They are owned by a wide range of New Zealanders. But here is an interesting one: there have been a number of referendums in recent times. One of them for instance was in relation to smacking which was supported by 87.4 percent of New Zealanders. That was a policy pushed under a Labour Government and it “arrogantly” rejected it.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Hon David Cunliffe: I submit that the Prime Minister did not adequately address the question. The question was framed in terms of the number of New Zealanders who held shares in the assets which advice shows has reduced from 100 percent to 2 percent on average between Mighty River Power—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: That is different—if I may finish Mr Speaker—from what the Prime Minister referred to which is the total share of the assets owned by institutions that may include some New Zealanders rather than the number—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a quite sufficient point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First I reject any idea that that was a point of order. Second of course the question that was asked of the Prime Minister was prefaced in a way that may well typify the Leader of the Opposition but it was hardly a way in which to elicit a reasonable answer to a question.Mr SPEAKER: I thank both members for their points of view which were probably in both cases not strictly points of order. But in this case the question asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition certainly does not need to be repeated. It was quite political in its phrasing and the Prime Minister had every right to respond to it in the way he did. The member may have further supplementary questions.Hon David Cunliffe: Why does he think that seven out of 10 New Zealanders are opposed to the sale of Genesis? Does he think it is because New Zealanders are losing money or are they just resentful that shares are being snapped up by foreigners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start off the question actually posed by Reid Research Services on behalf of TV3 was wrong. I mean Genesis of course is not being sold; a share of Genesis is being sold.Hon Members: Ha ha!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Maybe the way to—[Interruption] Let me relive your past so that you can enjoy it because we are certainly going to enjoy it on this side. Let us put it another way. This is not the first time actually that New Zealanders have heard about the mixed-ownership programme—no. During the 2011 election campaign Phil Goff described the election as a referendum on asset sales. Russel Norman described the ownership and use of State assets as having become “the defining issue of the election”. The Mana Party said that a vote for National was a vote for asset sales. Well guess what? We campaigned on it the whole way through and we won with the largest result in National’s history under MMP and the largest result of any political party under MMP and Labour got the worst result—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Prime Minister see the United Future party’s television campaign at the last election paid for by the taxpayer—Hon Member: Where’s the responsibility?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who the leader is? Oh it is Mr Dunne.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Member: Ministerial responsibility?Rt Hon Winston Peters: You are the whip so keep quiet for goodness’ sake.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us hear the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Righto. Did the Prime Minister see Mr Dunne and the United Future party’s television advertising on water and water rights at the last election paid for the taxpayer and was it not a clear signal to the country that he was opposed to that privatisation programme—so where is the Prime Minister’s mandate?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I did see theNew Zealand Herald today which was running yet again a picture of Winston Peters holding up a sign saying “No”.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that more people in the last election voted for parties opposed to the assets sales programme than for parties supporting it and given that over 327000 New Zealanders have signed the anti - asset sales petition does he agree that there is unease amongst New Zealanders about his asset sales programme?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know that the member spent a lot of the 2011 campaign undermining the then leader. I mean I think that that is the reason—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister should answer. The question was political but the Prime Minister can answer the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was answering the question. It was very germane to the answer.Mr SPEAKER: Keep it within the Standing Orders.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me put it another way then. The member while he was going about doing whatever he was doing while Phil Goff was getting lined up becausethe then finance spokesman was not doing his work might have missed the commercials run by the Labour Party—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that you have already once recommended to the Prime Minister that he might actually address the question rather than whatever his personal fears might be on the day I would ask for the opportunity to repeat the question.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I am going to allow the member to repeat the question but if he makes the question as political as he did on the first attempt he can expect a reasonably political response.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that more New Zealanders at the last election voted for parties that were opposed to the Government’s assets sales programme and given that over 327000 New Zealanders signed the anti - asset sales petition does he agree that there is unease amongst New Zealanders over his policy?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The election campaign in 2011 was dominated by this issue of the mixed-ownership model. National won that election with a comprehensive majority in any terms. This Parliament has faced on numerous occasions referendums for which there has been significant public opposition and we do not even know by the way what the result of this referendum will be. But the most recent one was when 87.4 percent of New Zealanders opposed the smacking legislation. That was a policy pushed by Helen Clark the Greens and a Labour Government and all that we can say is that Labour arrogantly ignored it. So when Labour members are in Government they just ignore things and when they are in Opposition they roar like little tigers or lions or whatever else it is over there that they do.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister’s wafer-thin majority looks like it is going to be hanging from the coat-tails of “Crazy Colin Craig” who believes in binding referendums does he propose to ignore the results of the next referendum just like he has ignored and arrogantly refused all the others?Mr SPEAKER: Again in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility the right honourable Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am prepared to accept that I have got a narrow majority in Parliament relatively speaking—it is 64 votes. But that is way better than David Cunliffe who does not even have a majority in his own caucus.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister looking forward to receiving his ballot papers in the mail next week so that he can voice his view albeit the view of a small minority in favour of asset sales in the referendum?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the member is prejudging the outcome but what I will be saying when I receive my ballot papers through the mailbox is: “What a waste of $9 million of taxpayers’ money which the Green Party could have seen spent on vulnerable kids or for a million other good reasons in the Parliament.” Secondly I will say to myself: “Man it was amazing the way that they tried to con the New Zealand public that they had signatures they did not have.” and I will say to myself: “It is just another stunt from the Greens that will not work.”Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that it is important that all New Zealanders even those like himself who are part of the small minority that supports asset sales participate in our democracy under this legislation and exercise their right to vote in the referendum?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is up to people whether they wish to participate in an electoral stunt but I will just say this to the member. This is what I want the member to do. When he is going on the radio and he is on TV and all the various things he does over the next 3 or 4 weeks I want him to say this. I want him to say: “I am voting against the asset sales referendum that has been put up.”—fair enough—“I will bevoting no.” or whatever he will be voting and I want him to say to the New Zealand public: “I deeply apologise for being so arrogant as to ignore you on smacking.” because that is what that member did. He was part of the party that drove that. When it was about smacking he said to the public—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no way that that answer could possibly come within any Speakers’ rulings or Standing Orders because it did not address the facts of the matter. The facts were to do with the referendum. It was rather difficult to follow particularly since it was that very man himself who got his party to actually vote totally against the result of the referendum itself and vote for the smacking legislation.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. [Interruption] Order! I have heard enough from the member and on this occasion I do not agree with him. It was a very political question that was asked. It got an answer from the Prime Minister that could be justified.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification on that ruling as to why the Prime Minister’s response around the child discipline law was within his responsibility and relevant to the question. Was it the fact that he co-drafted—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The reason that I consider the answer was satisfactory is that the member who asked the question talked about a citizens initiated referendum. The Prime Minister was referring to an earlier one.Hon David Cunliffe: What does he think is better value for money: the cost of running the anti-asset sales referendum which is $9 million or thereabouts; the $147 million that he spent on ticket clippers for the fire sale of State assets; or the $1 billion that Treasury says he and Bill English have wasted by the fire-sale rushing this sale of energy companies when the market could not absorb the shares?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well firstly the member is just plain wrong actually—Hon Members: No he’s not.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —as he was yesterday in question time even though he does not actually want anyone to go and have a look at what he said—which is about the third or fourth time that he has been wrong but do not worry we will keep an eye on that. The Government has actually maximised the return that it got from these assets. It has actually sold them into a strong market. If the member is so in favour of referendums and thinks they should be binding then he will adhere to the one that saw 81.5 percent of New Zealanders wanting the number of MPs to reduce to 99 and he will support the 87.4 percent of New Zealanders who did not want the smacking legislation. That member like the Green member cannot have it both ways. They cannot say: “I’ll ignore the public on the ones I don’t agree with them on but I want to follow them on the ones I do.”Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I do not believe the Prime Minister addressed the right supplementary question there. It sounded like he was addressing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. If he wishes to raise points of order I am happy to entertain them. But when it is an attempt to say he is dissatisfied with the answer the way to do that is not by points of order; the way to do that is to ask further supplementary questions.Dr Russel Norman: Has the Prime Minister seen Treasury’s Budget Policy Statement which showed that the operating balance of the Government would be worse off by about $100 million every year going forward as a result of his asset sales programme?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is based on a number of assumptions. What is also true is that the Government will not have the $5 billion worth of debt that it would otherwise have. I know that the Green Party does not care about racking up debts on New Zealanders but most New Zealanders actually do. And if the member thinks that having the Government owning assets that he believes can return above the cost of capital is such a great idea he should just go out and buy every other asset in New Zealand and fund them off the Government balance sheet. Oh hold on that is what he is proposing to do actually.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I apologise; I am sorry.Mr SPEAKER: That answer is now satisfactory.