Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8151. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to asset sales “I spent my life starting in investment banking. I know how these things work”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Will he confirm that he had concerns about the effect of Solid Energy’s business plans on its financial position as far back as 2009? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No that is not what I have said. What I have said is in 2009-10 there was a proposal brought to the Government for a natural resources company which the Government rejected. Our first major concerns about the company were after the scoping study was completed in I think—it was presented to us in 2012 but undertaken in 2011 from memory. 
David Shearer 
: Given those concerns in 2011 what was he doing making a statement that “companies like Solid Energy are growth companies and we want them to expand in areas like lignite conversion”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Quite correct I did make that statement. I also made that statement some months before the scoping study was undertaken. And I happen to think actually there is the potential for lignite development in New Zealand. 
David Shearer 
: Given that he said that he had “robust discussions” around Solid Energy’s direction why did his Ministers not object to $23 million being paid out to senior executives of that company during those robust discussions? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I understand it—and the member may be better to put the question to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises—the payment was actually made to a wide range of participants not just the way it has been characterised by the Opposition. But I think it is worth reflecting on this point: when it comes to—[ 
Interruption 
] No we are not questioning the number; we are questioning who got the number. As I said my understanding is it was paid to a wide range of employees at Solid Energy. 
Grant Robertson 
: Oh that’s OK then. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Actually they are called the workers and the last time I looked I thought Labour liked those people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! That was quite sufficient an answer. 
David Shearer 
: What does he believe his asset programme will now raise with the collapse of Solid Energy given that he has previously claimed it will raise $5 billion to $7 billion and his finance Minister today said that it would have to be revised downwards? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly the Minister of Finance tells me he did not make the last comment that the members have come to the House and said which is so often the case with what we get from Opposition members. They just make this stuff up as they go along but that is OK. If they want to be absolutely word perfect that is cool; we can run that on both sides. The second thing is that it has not actually collapsed although we will need to wait and see the Supreme Court ruling. The third point is this: in fact a Cabinet paper from April 2011 said— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Read the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No wonder you have got a lot to say when you do not rank even in the top 20. No one else wants to listen to you. 
David Shearer 
: What does he believe his asset sales programme will now raise from the sale of those assets; what can he tell the people of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I think it is worth remembering that they are partial sales. The Government is retaining 51 percent. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Just answer it. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: You just answer how many of you did not vote for David Shearer and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Would the Prime Minister please answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: OK is it 10 12? I do not know the answer whatever you guys— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Would the Prime Minister please answer the question. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Of course I will. If they would give me just a moment to get the answer out I am more than happy to answer the question. A Cabinet paper from April 2011 said that Solid Energy had a commercial value of $1.7 billion. That was for 100 percent of the company. Based on this sell-down where the Crown kept the majority ownership it would raise somewhere between $0.68 billion and $0.85 billion. In other words that is the amount that theoretically could have come from Solid Energy. But for a start-off there is a 3 to 5-year period that the Government set so that is one issue. Secondly we do not actually know what we will actually get for the other shares that we sell so it could easily be $5 billion to $7 billion. We will let you know after we have completed the programme. 
David Shearer 
: Given that he said yesterday that Solid Energy was now effectively worthless is he unable to tell New Zealanders approximately what they are likely to get for assets that they themselves own? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member was not listening so let us run right through it again so that he can get the answer. A Cabinet paper from April 2011 said Solid Energy— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Show us the money! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —had a commercial value of $1.7 billion. Yeah that worked real well for you in the last election campaign! If you want to have that debate again feel free sunshine. OK going back to what may not come out is $0.68— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It must become obvious to you that the Prime Minister cannot go on like a giggly schoolboy in this House when he is answering questions. It is outrageous the way he is behaving and you should stop him and tell him to get back to his job—if he can do it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It would certainly be helpful to the order of the House if the Prime Minister would give a concise answer to the question but it would be equally helpful if there were not loud objections coming from the Labour Opposition benches. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: So the $1.7 billion that was in the Cabinet paper from 2011 would indicate that if that company was not part of the mixed-ownership model then somewhere around $0.68 to $0.85 billion would not be released but because we do not know the time period under which Solid Energy may potentially be back in the programme and secondly because we do not know what we will actually get for the other companies it is quite possible it would be between $5 billion and $7 billion. In other words nothing has changed.