Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I rise to speak into this debate and the point that I do want to make at the outset is that Minister Robertson has set out a very clear letter with very clear expectations to Air New Zealand and the point that he made in his contribution which I would underline is that those expectations have been discussed with the airline for at least a year. What Mr Robertson has done in putting these down in writing is make sure that they are crystal clear for everyone. If anybody here believes in markets and the value of markets and the value of information to markets they will be celebrating—they will be celebrating—the value of having these things laid out clearly for all other shareholders and all other stakeholders to understand. It seems very unfortunate that that is not the view that came across with the person who called for this debate.I want to say a few things in relation to Mr Bayly's comments reported in the media and engaged with in this House. But before I do that I do want to reiterate the fact that it's a 52 percent shareholding that Mr Robertson holds on behalf of the people of New Zealand. As the Minister of the Crown responsible for the interests of the people of New Zealand it is incumbent upon him to make sure that our national carrier is doing well through a very difficult time—a COVID time. The Government stepped in with that $900 million loan facility to make sure the airline could continue to operate to support our economy to support New Zealand's interests. We are all proud of Air New Zealand for the way it continues to operate and I think New Zealanders would expect that the Minister responsible for the majority of the airline would be clear with them what his expectations on them were on behalf of all New Zealanders and their interests in that airline. So we've got that clear ideological opposition opposite. We heard the challenge from Minister Robertson to the Opposition to outline which airports they would see cut in a situation where they weren't having an eye to the wider economic benefits in New Zealand and there was no response. There was no engagement on that question. They simply ducked and dived and had no response on that issue. The other thing I really want to dig into early on in my contribution is Mr Bayly's comments reported in the media that there may be occasions where the board has to operate in an absolutely commercial focus and that might differ from the Minister's letter of expectations he says. However he lays out no compelling case for that and I think if we go through the letter it's very difficult to imagine how that might be the case. It simply is not something he's addressed. It's not something he's chosen to address in his comments here. I think he is wanting to outline an ideological view for which he can find no practical outlet. The expectations outlined by Minister Robertson include that which has always been traditionally outlined for every State-owned enterprise (SOE): it must be a commercially sustainable and capital efficient business". I think everyone in this House will support that. It is what SOEs are required to do. It has "To be a 'national airline' continuing in operation to support economic development including access to international markets for our exporters and international tourism linkages once international borders re-open". Who in this House wants to call that into question and how would they think that that stood against the objectives that we would want to have for Air New Zealand? The expectations include that they "maintain a comprehensive domestic route network that allows people and goods to move across New Zealand in a timely fashion at a reasonable cost"—and again Mr Robertson has there outlined the expectation at a level; it is up to Air New Zealand to operationalise that. So there is the classic division between the directorship and the operation and that is preserved. Now Mr Bayly may wish for that not to be true. Certainly the ACT Party have been champions of letting things fall over. If Hokitika loses their airport well boo hoo—that's the ACT Party view of the world. Kerikeri Gisborne—whoever loses their airport that's the end of it and it should be a commercial decision pure and simple. Well I think the population of New Zealand would beg to differ and the exporters in those regions the people engaged in tourism the international economy would beg to differ as to whether that was really in the interests either of Air New Zealand or of our international situation. They include committing to environmental sustainability—"demonstrate its commitment to environmental sustainability including engaging with the development of new aviation fuels for New Zealand". Now I think that that as Mr Robertson outlined—and I won't go into this too much because I think he did a pretty clear explanation of why that is so important in the current world. Any airline that wishes to sustain itself into the future is engaged in making sure it lowers its carbon footprint. That is a fundamental point for airlines in terms of their future sustainability their financial viability. Good on Air New Zealand for being involved with that.They include having the best workplace relations given it's one of New Zealand's largest employers—again that has stood Air New Zealand in good stead over the years. It has meant that they have retained high-quality employees. It has meant that they have attracted talent.Expectations also include "To continue acting as a responsible corporate citizen"—for goodness' sake none of these things are going to likely bring commercial sustainability and capital-efficient business matters into any type of difficulty. That is where Mr Bayly fails to make his point because he has simply not outlined any case for those things coming into conflict. So even the premise of his criticism does not stack up. It is simple ideological claptrap.Dr Duncan Webb: Bunkum.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Bunkum as my colleague says. Air New Zealand of course knows these expectations were coming. They have been the matter of conversation as we have heard. Now their share price has been up. I think that is reflective of the fact that Air New Zealand are doing very well in these trying times—of the fact that the Government has stepped in on behalf of the interests of the majority shareholder and of all New Zealanders to ensure that it is supported with that $900 million loan facility. The share price is up 74 percent. I think that in itself is something that gives us pause for thought. So they have been talking about it for a long time. It makes crystal clear what the expectations are. That is good information for other stakeholders. It is good information for management. The divide between management and directorship is preserved. I think Mr Robertson's letter is an exemplar of what a good letter should look like to an SOE and as the Minister of SOEs I have studied this letter previously because of course I am in the process of sending out similar ones to SOEs as has been done for decades. The SOEs have been required to have letters of expectation. That has been done by Ministers of all stripes. There is nothing new here other than laying out a slightly clearer agenda as Minister Robertson has done to make sure that the majority shareholders' interests are clearly presented and represented on behalf of all New Zealanders.So I want to challenge the Opposition once again to try and come up with any kind of practical conflict to really come up with any kind of justification for the ideological view that they have laid out because it simply doesn't stand scrutiny. Minister Robertson is right to lay those things out and the Opposition needs to put up or be quiet."