Ross Jami-Lee: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7269. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I stand along with my colleagues in rising to oppose this bill. I heard a comment from Mr Prosser who used the word “anathema”. I just think this is a bit of a constitutional anathema. We do not use the 75 percent provisions in this Parliament for partisan issues like this. We typically use the entrenchment provisions around entrenching and ensuring that there is a greater level of support around the House for ensuring something is not able to be played around with during a political process for things like the Electoral Act. We have entrenchment provisions in the Electoral Act so that a party cannot come in by a bare majority and completely change the electoral system in New Zealand. There is a good reason why you would have the 75 percent provision inserted into legislation.But when it comes to something like an asset owned by the Government—actually not directly owned by the Government; owned through a company through a company and then owned by the Government—that is not a good reason why we should be inserting a provision requiring 75 percent of this House to vote if that asset was ever to be sold. There are no plans by the Government to sell Kiwibank. There are no plans by the Government to look at floating shares through Kiwibank. But that is not a reason why this House should legislate to put in place such a high bar around that.I see that this issue is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction around the Future Investment Fund and the floating of energy companies that the Government did several years ago. Let us just remind ourselves that that took place after the Government went to the public and asked the public whether or not they supported that policy through an electoral system. The Government put that on the table and people voted for the Government through a general election knowing very well that that was going to happen. To then come into this House several years later and say that because the Government went and did that we should put in place such a high bar around one particular company that the Government has ownership in through several other companies—I cannot see why we would need to do that.I note that there are parties in this Parliament that are voting for this bill and for putting in place such a restriction around Kiwibank. I notice the New Zealand First Party is wanting to put in place this restriction around Kiwibank. I find that quite interesting because it was not that long ago in the political life of Winston Peters that he actually wanted to float shares in Kiwibank himself. In an interview with Guyon Espiner in June 2011 Winston Peters actually talked about his previous plans for floating Kiwibank. He was asked by Guyon Espiner: “In 2008 you proposed floating shares in Kiwibank. Is that still your policy?”. Well he bluffed and blustered around it as Winston did but what he said was: “If you want to expand Kiwibank”—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. The member has misled the House. I do not think you ever promoted that in any capacity you had.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Possibly unlike the member I did listen to the fact that the member was quoting.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Let me just start again. He was asked by Guyon Espiner about floating shares in Kiwibank a previous policy of Winston Peters. He said: “If you want to expand Kiwibank and didn’t have the money and so you were taking say from 1 billion to 1.5 billion floating the second 500 amount—”. Then he was interrupted by Guyon Espiner—Guyon does that from time to time. But the fact of the matter is Winston Peters previously had a policy of floating shares in Kiwibank a policy that Winston Peters and New Zealand First went to the public on because they felt that was an important option for Kiwibank to have. Having a provision like this put into legislation would stop Winston Peters from being able to float shares in Kiwibank should he ever want to do that again in the future. I think that New Zealand First Party should probably reconsider their position given the previous pedigree that Winston Peters has.Winston Peters also has some pedigree around selling airports. Airports are important assets just as banks are important assets. I say to New Zealand First and other parties in this Parliament when the New Zealand Government sold off Auckland Airport did 75 percent of this Parliament vote on that? No. Was there a majority of people through a referendum voting on that? No. I think we need some consistency on issues like this.The Government entered into a process of selling shares in some companies that we went to the public on in a general election and asked their permission to do that. There has been a great investment into areas like education ultra-fast broadband and Kiwibank because of that. There are no plans to get involved in doing that with Kiwibank but there should not be such a high bar—such a high threshold—put in place. We should use that only for important provisions important legislation like the Electoral Act where you should not have a small majority in Parliament overturning an electoral Act. It should be left for important issues like that.