Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15288. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Has the asset sales programme met all five tests he set in Budget 2011; if not does he accept responsibility for any of its failures?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: Yes.Hon David Parker: How can he say that he met the test for widespread and substantial New Zealand ownership when his rushed sale of Air New Zealand shares rammed through in advance of the referendum had only 6500 retail investors—just 0.1 percent of the New Zealand population?Hon TONY RYALL: I think that the Air New Zealand sell-down was a remarkable success for the New Zealand taxpayers. It certainly provided us with I think well over $360 million of cash and New Zealanders still retain 53 percent of the company in terms of the Government’s shareholding.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My primary question was about the five tests my supplementary question was about the test for widespread and substantial New Zealand ownership and the answer did not address that.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer did address that in my opinion.Hon David Parker: How can he say that the capital will be used to fund “schools and hospitals” when he and his colleagues have promised the asset sales money manytimes over to projects including subsidising irrigation Minister Guy; rebuilding Christchurch Minister Brownlee; capitalising Kiwibank Minister English; KiwiRail recapitalisation Mr Joyce; paying down debt Mr Ryall; paying for the war memorial Mr Finlayson; paying for the City Rail Link Mr Key; and of course the bailout of Solid Energy?Hon TONY RYALL: Well when you have $4 billion of proceeds in the Future Investment Fund the Government has a number of options. That is why we have always said that the benefit of the mixed-ownership model programme as part of our wider economic plan is to help us to control debt and use those proceeds for important infrastructure. There is no need therefore to borrow those funds from overseas bankers as the party opposite would do.Hon David Parker: How can he say that the asset sales programme is a success when he is now $2 billion short on the proceeds he promised?Hon TONY RYALL: I can say that the mixed-ownership model programme is a success because the Government has achieved the five objectives that it set. The main one of course is the fact that we have money—$4 billion—that we can use as part of the Future Investment Fund for important social investments. If that party is so confident in its own position we are awaiting its pledge to buy back those assets.Hon David Parker: Does the Minister take any responsibility for the collapse of Solid Energy given that he has been the shareholding Minister since 2008 and it was him who told Solid Energy to expand take on more debt and pay higher dividends thereby turning a billion-dollar company into something that is insolvent and had to reach a compromise with its creditors?Hon TONY RYALL: The Minister of Finance is not responsible for the 40 percent collapse in world coal prices nor is he responsible for the business path that that company was put on by the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon David Parker: How can he claim that the asset sales programme is a success when he is billions of dollars short of the minimum $5 billion he promised he has failed to achieve widespread ownership and those who have invested have suffered losses and now have less confidence in capital markets rather than more as shown by the decreasing number of retail investors who have invested in each of these companies as they have been flogged off?Hon TONY RYALL: I think it is very straightforward why the Minister of Finance would have confidence in the success of the programme. However I have got to say that the people who will not have confidence or success in their own programme is the party opposite because if it did believe what it is saying it would commit to buy back these assets. Mr Cunliffe was sort of: “Oh we might do or we might not”. It is all over the show.