Mixed Ownership Model Bill

In this, again, swift process that we are embarking on, we move to the title and the commencement. In this debate colleagues of mine will propose a number of amendments.

💬 Grant Robertson: Excellent amendments.

Excellent amendments. I know that Mr Clark has proposed Supplementary Order Paper 45 to rename the Mixed Ownership Model Bill the “State Asset Privatisation Act 2012”. In respect of the commencement, we know, of course, that the Government has tried to expedite or, in plain language, ram through—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: With the support of the Māori Party.

—with the support of the Māori Party, of course, as my colleague Parekura Horomia says—this whole process. We know that the Governor-General’s pen will have hardly touched the parchment before the Government tries to move this bill through in the vain hope that the people of New Zealand might sort of say “Right, that’s it.”, hoist the white flag of surrender, and forget about it, which they will not.

To that end we have a number of amendments in my colleagues’ names. Mr Parker has lodged Supplementary Order Paper 47 to change the enactment date to 2016, which will be a period, as colleagues will realise, after the next general election. Chris Hipkins has Supplementary Order Paper 53, which is a very good amendment that prevents enactment unless there is a 75 percent majority of this House, effectively providing for an entrenchment provision to ensure that this legislation does not come into existence unless it has the overwhelming support of the House. Grant Robertson has Supplementary Order Paper 58, which prevents enactment until the Finance and Expenditure Committee reviews and approves the legislation. This is a very important amendment, and one that is close to the hearts of a number of us, including Mr Parker and Mr Clark, who had to sit through one of the most disgraceful select committee processes that in my 13 years in Parliament I have ever been a part of.

💬 Andrew Little: What was Maggie Barry’s role?

Well, Maggie Barry’s role, to answer Mr Little’s question, was simply to attempt to subdue any submitter who came along in respect of being anti the privatisation of assets. It was a disgraceful moment in the committee, one that I would not have thought we would see from any side of the House. I know that Mr Brownlee is Leader of the House—oh no, this is not, mate. Have a read of the amendments, I say to the senior Government whip. He is doing his sort of callisthenics over there, flapping his arms in the breeze. I suggest he might want to read Supplementary Order Paper 58 in Mr Robertson’s name. While he is trying to, sort of, levitate or whatever, through flapping his arms, he might actually want to read what is on the Table. As I was saying, I am sure that Mr Brownlee, a learned member and Leader of the House in this Parliament, would agree that intimidating voters by asking in a select committee them how they vote, or demanding to know how they vote, would be a disgrace. Even though Mr Brownlee is a political opponent, I know he is a bit of a traditionalist in the parliamentary and the culinary sense, and I am sure he would agree with me. It was a disgraceful process, a process where submitters were treated, in many respects, like dirt. They were abused, in some respects, ignored, and basically laughed at by Government members, especially by—I know that he is here somewhere—Dr Nick Smith.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Come back to relevance.

Mr Brownlee says “Come back to relevance.” Well, had Mr Brownlee actually been on the committee, he would know. He has been on the odd select committee; I think he was on, what is the one, the Government Administration Committee, which deals with the catering or something, perhaps, in Parliament. He has been on select committees, and he knows that an important part of select committees is to actually listen to submissions. Whether or not you agree with them, the process is to listen. If you are really cynical as a politician, you sort of act out the part that you are going to listen to submitters.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Come on—clause 1.

No, no, clause 2. Read the Supplementary Order Paper. I know, Mr Brownlee, that it is not published by Golden Books or Dr Seuss, but try reading Supplementary Order Paper 58 in the name of Mr Robertson, because that amendment prevents this legislation from coming into enactment until it goes back to the select committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, for a full review of the legislation.

If that was to happen, we would actually have submitters being given more than 5 minutes, and we would not have the chairman of the committee turn to the committee and say that the committee as a whole—this is the select committee—can have one question. One question, right? That is all we were allowed for many of those submitters, and many of those submitters were rubbished. So I think this amendment is particularly good, because, putting all politics aside, part of the job of select committees is to at least get the legislation into an appropriate form so that at least it can be dealt with in the House. That is what people expect of us. But when you have 1,400, nearly 1,500, submitters rock up to a select committee—

💬 Grant Robertson: Queuing up.

—they were queuing up, indeed—to put their point of view forward, and you get what borders on intimidation from some members, that is not on.

Then we have, of course, the absurd case—and one that I think has made history in this place—where on instruction from the Minister, on instruction from the chair of the select committee, Todd McClay, Treasury officials were told to write their report on the submissions and to submit it to the select committee prior to the submitters actually completing the hearing of evidence. That is—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Give us a new one.

Give us a what?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: A new one. Not the same old rubbish.

No, no. You see, Gerry Brownlee does not like it. He does not like it when we repeat these points, because they happen to be true—that is why—and because the people of New Zealand and the 1,400, nearly 1,500, organisations and individuals who came to that select committee will remember the conduct that was visited upon them by the National members. They will remember that—the dismissive nature of the National Party. I know that Mr Brownlee hates it when we remind him of these things, but, sadly, it is the truth. That is what happened. I will be seeking support for that amendment because that actually treats submitters with respect.

If we look at the title of the bill and the naming of it—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, finally.

I was not going to call it the “Big Fella Bill”, I will tell you that. The title of the bill could well go down in reference to Mr Dunne, of course. This could be “The Day Peter Dunne Gave the Government the One Vote It Needed to Sell Out Kiwis Bill”. We could call it that, perhaps. We could name it that. I invite Mr Dunne to break new ground in this debate and actually get up and take a call. That would be helpful. We know he has had several positions on things like water, and other things that we will not go into. But I would have thought that, given that it is the “Dunne deal” and he will go down in history as New Zealand’s biggest auctioneer, if it turns on his vote, he will want to get on the record as to why he sold New Zealanders out. So this could be the “Dunne Deal Bill”—the day Peter Dunne gave the Government the one vote it needed to sell New Zealanders out. We wait and we hope that Peter Dunne will do so. He would not turn up on radio today. He would not turn up at any forum. Submitters told us before the select committee that he refused to meet with them. He refused to meet with his own constituents, to even discuss this bill. It is OK for an MP to say: “Look, I disagree with you.”

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Come on. Say something serious.

“Plonker”—there is a title for that member. Mr Dunne would not meet with his constituents—he would not meet with them. It is OK for members of Parliament to say: “I disagree with you.”, but they should have the decency to invite them to their offices and actually sit down and listen to them. That is what I say to the big fella over there. That is what I say to him. I know that that member does not meet with his constituents, because he does not give a damn about them. He does not meet with them, of course. But I think Peter Dunne has the one vote that could turn this, the one vote that could stop this bill. There is a redeeming feature. There is redemption for Mr Dunne, if he was to vote against this.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Come on. Talk to the title. Try hard.

The “Redemption Bill” indeed—there is a good title. Mr Brownlee would remember that from his Catholic Sunday school classes at St Bede’s College, between other activities. But, yes, it could be the “Peter Dunne Redemption Bill”. It could be the one time that Peter Dunne could come into this House and say: “Actually, I got it wrong, the people have got it right, and I am going to vote against the Government.” If I were a betting man I do not know what the TAB odds on that would be, but I believe that Peter Dunne does owe a duty of care. He does have a moral responsibility to stand up, take a call, and explain to the people of Ōhāriu, the people of New Zealand, why it could be his vote—although we do not know where the Māori Party members sit on this, of course; they are all over the place, like the proverbial—that either sells New Zealanders out or redeems this Parliament and holds our assets in Kiwi hands.

As to the Māori Party, well, I cannot refer to that, but, you know, I would love those members to take a call on anything in respect of this—on anything in respect of this. We could call this the “Where is the Māori Party on State-owned Assets Bill”. I would love them to actually take a call and give us a position. They went around the marae, of course, and said: “We’ve done a deal with New Zealand. We’ve sewn up land rights, property rights, and Treaty rights for Māori.” Then Tūwharetoa came to us and said “Nah, it hasn’t happened.”—and they were armed with legal advice. Those members have voted, I think, with the Government on everything—

I have waited a long time and I am very, very pleased to finally have my say, although I remain disappointed that many of the issues that I feel are germane to this debate have not been discussed because Government members have been so keen to rush the Mixed Ownership Model Bill through without full scrutiny by Parliament, without a full debate, because they do not like it, and they know that people out there, in the street, are marching against this. Mr Brownlee knows that they are marching against this in the street.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: When?

They were marching in Dunedin, Mr Brownlee. They were marching in Dunedin. They were marching elsewhere around the country. [Interruption] Mr Woodhouse was not there. He was invited but he did not turn up. People hate this. They do not like this legislation, and that is why I particularly want to support Mr Robertson’s amendment that calls for this bill to go back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, because the process was rushed there too. The process in the select committee was rushed. The people who spoke were limited to 5 minutes. The people around the table asking questions on behalf of Parliament were frequently limited to one question—

💬 Andrew Little: You’re joking!

No, I am not joking at all. This is a very serious matter. This is not proper democracy. Mr Little is right. This feels wrong. This is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to go through this House, and I fear it has not had a proper select committee process. That is why Mr Robertson’s amendment makes a lot of sense. This bill should go back to the select committee, to make sure that it has a full and thorough process. I know that there were submitters who were not heard because they could not make teleconference calls arranged at short notice. We know, those of us who sat around the table and heard 150-odd submissions, that there were more who wanted to speak against this. Some of them may have wanted to speak in favour—we do not know. There were 0.6 percent of the written submissions in favour of the bill. There may have been some germane ideas amongst those. Goodness knows, the National Government could do with one or two arguments in support of its bill, but we did not hear them; nor did we hear from those many people who submitted but could not make the teleconference calls that were arranged at short notice. Mr Robertson’s amendment is one well worth supporting.

In Treasury, on the top floor, there used to hang a cartoon. It was a cartoon by Tom Scott. I am not sure whether it is still there, but it is germane to the amendment I wish to move about privatisation—renaming the bill. In this Tom Scott cartoon stand two Treasury officials, obviously furious with one another. It sits, I am sure, up on the top floor of Treasury as a reminder not to be stuck in ideological blinkers but to take pragmatic solutions as the way forward through to the future. The Treasury officials in this cartoon are arguing. They are arguing about the ECNZ split-up—this goes a long way back. One Treasury official says to the other: “I know it works in practice, but it does not work in theory.”

Treasury, I think, has learnt from that. Treasury now provides advice that says we should take the wider picture into account. We should not have our ideological blinkers on, our privatisation blinkers. We need to take the facts into account. That is why Treasury has provided advice that shows that there are lost dividends that are greater than the proceeds from these sales. These privatisation sales will take the country backwards. The Government will be out of pocket as a result of these sales. I am with Brian Fallow, who sees this legislation as a solution in search of a problem. I think this bill should be renamed the “State Asset Privatisation Bill”, and that is why I have moved the amendment in my name, to be very clear about what this bill is doing.

We heard from a submitter at the select committee—one of the ones who was allowed to speak, although he was kept pretty brief and within the constraints, the unreasonable constraints, placed by the chair of the select committee—who gave an explanation of what had happened in one of the regions in India where a partial privatisation had proceeded. At a given point, when the region was cash-strapped, the private investors came forward and said: “We will invest further in this company if, and only if, the whole thing is privatised.”

It is a slippery slope. That is the position that this bill puts us in. It puts us in a position where the people who are in charge of these companies, we are told, will still be the Government, at 51 percent, but it is suddenly in a very vulnerable position for any future capitalising. It is also tied in to raising any debt that is required to fund future capital developments. This legislation puts the Government on the back foot. Why would we do that? These companies currently provide dividends that fund our schools and hospitals. We are talking about privatising them so we can fund schools and hospitals overseas. We already own these assets. Why on earth would we want to sell them to other people—those who have got the money, and who have only benefited from National’s tax cuts—and then allow them to sell them offshore so that those dividends flow offshore, and so that they undermine our balance of payments yet further and get us into more of a hole than we are already in?

💬 Andrew Little: It doesn’t make sense.

It does not make sense. Private interests will control these assets in a way that they should not. Energy infrastructure is essential to this country. It is essential to our industries that rely on electricity for manufacturing. It is essential to our people down in the south, certainly, who are at risk of freezing in their homes if there are blackouts. We need to control these assets, because that is the role of the State. The role of the State is to look after its people. We in the Labour Party are afraid that the appropriate measures are not contained in this bill to make sure that the appropriate Crown control is retained, so that these assets can be properly managed in the interests of the whole of New Zealand, not in the interests of the bottom line of a minority—at this stage—of private shareholders.

I am arguing vehemently that the name of this bill should be changed to the “State Asset Privatisation Bill”, because that is what it is. Anything else is a mealy-mouthed attempt to divert away from the real issues here. The mixed-ownership model, as it has been called, is not a popular vernacular term. It is not a term that everyday mum and dad New Zealanders understand—if there is such a mythical beast.

So the bill should have this name, and then it should be sent back to the select committee. As I began at the beginning of my speech to say, Mr Robertson’s amendment is one that I will be thoroughly and fully supporting because it would see these issues debated fully and properly, not in a rushed process that reports back to the House 5 weeks ahead of schedule—5 weeks, 5 full weeks ahead of schedule—for one of the most controversial pieces of legislation likely to go through. This was a rushed process; teleconference submitters missed out, we had 5-minute limits on the submitters, and the select committee reported back 5 weeks early. There was no need for that rush.

There were plenty of questions that were not answered in the select committee. These are the kinds of questions that we could ask for further advice on. We could ask for further advice on the risks in the Tūwharetoa case. We could ask for further advice from Treasury on what would happen in the management of the Manapōuri dam, where, we understand, there may be an increased cost to the Crown of doing business as a result of these changes. But we did not get the opportunity to ask advice from the officials, because the chair of the committee, Mr Todd McClay, was in such a hurry to bring these issues back to the House.

I would be interested if Mr Todd McClay wished to take a call on these title and commencement clauses, but we have not heard anything from him. He has been keeping his head down since doing his part of this dirty deal and bringing this bill back to the House in short order, because he does not want the debate to flourish. He does not want the debate to be held fully in this House, and nor does the Minister in the chair, Tony Ryall. I challenge the Minister also to take a call on this part of the bill, to argue as to why it should not be called the “Privatisation Bill”, and to argue also why it should not go back to the select committee for a proper and full hearing, Mr Ryall. Mr Ryall, I think you understand the processes of this House. You have been around long enough. I would like to see it go back to the select committee, as Mr Robertson recommends in his amendment.

Other issues that could be debated in the select committee and upon which we could seek advice are the discount rate choice done in the modelling, and the replacement costs of these assets—could they actually be replaced? These were questions we did not have advice on. We know that those are difficult questions. We know that the Government does not want to face those questions, but it can, and it should. It has advisers for a reason. We have a select committee process so that we can argue fully these issues and understand them fully, so the public can fully understand them, and so this House can reach proper and good decisions. When the process is rushed, the House is at risk of not making the best decisions on behalf of the country. And that is what we are here for—we are charged, as parliamentarians, to have this debate fully and properly. As the Opposition, Labour members know we are not always going to win the debate, but we actually want to make sure—

I rise to speak in the title and commencement clauses debate on this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. I think the title of this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, is actually an interesting concept that is worth discussing. For that reason, in the election campaign where this was being discussed, we took the view that we were not at all opposed to the State-owned enterprises forming partnerships with private sector partners. I think the previous Government took the same view. There is not a problem with the State-owned enterprises partnering with private sector corporations in order to make progress for whatever the particular field is that they are involved in in the energy sector.

So we, particularly looking at the electricity companies, saw the electricity companies as part of New Zealand’s economic future. These companies have the ability to use the expertise that they have in renewable energy generation in order to export that technology and that expertise around the world. By partnering with private sector companies, they could actually facilitate that process. We were not at all opposed to maintaining the State-owned enterprises as State-owned enterprises, in full public ownership, but getting them to partner with some other entrepreneurs who may have some great ideas in the renewable energy sector and energy efficiency sector, which then could be exported to the rest of the world, so New Zealand could get its part of the dramatic growth in the renewable energy sector internationally.

Those of you who read The Economist—and I am sure there are none in the Government benches—will see that the front cover of The Economist this week is all about what is going on in the Arctic. Of course, linked to that is the rise of the renewable energy sector. This is New Zealand’s great economic opportunity. These companies—these State-owned enterprises—provide an opportunity for us to actually get an in to that market, as has been referred to elsewhere in this debate.

The problem is that the path that the Government is going down, which is to privatise these companies, means that instead of maintaining the headquarters, the research and development, and the core of the companies in New Zealand, we will see a slow drift of these companies, as more and more control falls into overseas ownership and the companies lose a strategy that is attached to advancing the best interests of New Zealand. That is the danger with the strategy that this Government is pursuing. If we see these companies simply as “another company” that the Government can partially privatise or privatise in order to fill a hole in their Budget this year or next year as a result of their tax cuts for upper-income earners—if we take that view, we misunderstand the significance of the renewable energy sector to New Zealand.

New Zealand is a world leader in renewable energy technology, particularly in geothermal, and hopefully, in the future, in tidal technology. That gives us a strategic opportunity to place ourselves in the global energy market. What we need in energy is what Fonterra has done in the dairy sector. We need a global-scale New Zealand company or set of companies that are working together that can actually become major global leaders in the renewable energy sector. That is why, rather than partial privatisation through this Mixed Ownership Model Bill, we saw the advantage in a partnership with these companies with private sector entrepreneurs. They could get the best the private sector has to offer New Zealand in terms of its ideas and in terms of its capital, but without losing control of the companies and without the companies falling under overseas control as the headquarters moves overseas, the research and development moves overseas, and so forth.

We have seen what happens in other sectors of our economy when they fall under foreign ownership. You have to look only at Contact Energy—another energy company that has now fallen under Australian ownership. It does not see New Zealand as a major platform. It is not an export base to the rest of the world. The banking sector has exactly the same approach, and telecommunications is the same. When we lose control of major parts of our economy into overseas ownership, they no longer become platforms for advancing New Zealand interests to the world; they simply become profit centres for a multinational corporation.

The danger with the Mixed Ownership Model Bill is that we will see the same thing happening to the electricity sector that has happened to the other infrastructure sectors in our country. Then the electricity sector simply becomes a drain on the New Zealand economy in the same way that the banking sector is simply a drain on the New Zealand economy. Instead of being a platform from which we export to the world—[Bell rung] So it is for that reason that we think that this is a missed opportunity. You could call it the “Missed Opportunity Bill”.

For New Zealand, we have only so many missed opportunities that we can actually have. There is not an unlimited ability for us to make a mess of our economy and for successive Governments to make a mess of the economy. So if the Government takes us down this path, we miss the opportunity to actually take advantage of the global green economic revolution, which is happening right in front of us at the moment, for anyone who happens to read The Economist or any other mainstream economic paper. You will see that this is a “Missed Opportunity Bill” rather than a Mixed Ownership Model Bill, because it is a missed opportunity for New Zealand to take its place in the world and develop another global-scale company like Fonterra, which is what we need to do.

The Government’s approach is: “Well, we just turn them into mixed-ownership model companies, regular kinds of companies, and they just do whatever companies do. They just make profits or they do not, and they provide us with electricity or they do not, but it is none of the Government’s business.” That is the Government’s approach. It is just another market. But if you take that approach, then you systematically and slowly start to lose control of your economy.

That is the history of New Zealand. As we have headed down this privatisation path, and this Mixed Ownership Model Bill takes us further down that path, sector by sector we have lost control of key sectors of the New Zealand economy, whether it is telecommunications, whether it is banking, and now it is going to be electricity and energy. As we do that, we start to narrow our economic opportunities and the kinds of things we can do.

If you think about the comparison with Fonterra, Fonterra did not just come into being because someone decided we would just let the free market rip. Fonterra is the antithesis of the free market. When you think about it, it is a producer cooperative. It came into being through an Act of Parliament. It essentially operates as a monopoly in New Zealand. It has used that platform to export to the rest of the world, yet in every other sector, including, now, the electricity sector, as in this Mixed Ownership Model Bill, we are taking an attitude that says “Oh, just let the market sort it out. We will be fine.”

Actually, we will not be fine. If we keep going down these paths and losing control of key sectors of our economy, we will continue to go backwards, as indicated by the most recent current account deficit figures. Under this Government the current account deficit is getting worse and is projected to get worse. Each time we sell off some of our key assets, that means some of those profits go overseas. We add to our current account deficit. We add to the economic impoverishment of our country if we do not take our strategic opportunities. Other small countries that operate in the global market have taken a much more strategic approach to what economic opportunities are available to them. They have taken an approach that is more like a Fonterra and less like a Mixed Ownership Model Bill.

For that reason, in order to provide some kinds of opportunities, we have moved an amendment to this part of the bill, which is about having a referendum before the bill is given the Royal assent. Obviously, that is about the fact that we are very clearly aware that the people of New Zealand are resolutely opposed to the privatisation programme of this Government, because they have a vision of their country that is much more long term, they have a vision of their country that is about investing in their future, and they have a very different vision about the future of New Zealand than this current Government. That is why we have moved a Supplementary Order Paper to this part in order to give people the ability to have a referendum so that they can decide whether this bill should progress—whether the privatisation programme that National is so keen on should progress.

National has talked a lot about its mandate, but, of course, when people go to the vote in an election, they have might have voted for John Key but that does not mean that they supported privatisation. That is why we think there should be an amendment moved to this section—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Part 2 is finished.

—that would give people the ability to have a referendum before this bill receives the Royal assent. That is the amendment we are moving. We are moving an amendment to this part, to the commencement and title. The Supplementary Order Paper that we have in front of us, Supplementary Order Paper 70, is actually an amendment to the commencement and title clauses of this bill, and that is why I am talking about the right of people to have a referendum to have a say about whether these assets are privatised.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First concerning the title and commencement of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. First of all, I would have to say that the title proposed by the Government is most inappropriate—so, by the way, is the title for the Māori Party, which has taken no part in this debate whatsoever, yet has supported the Government on each and every, I think, amendment to each part of this bill. I think, actually, the Māori Party should be renamed. It should be renamed the “Ghost Party”—something that you never see and never hear of, yet it has an effect. The “Ghost Party”, I think, is what the Māori Party should call itself. It should rename itself, as well. This bill should be renamed, as well, because it does not reflect the real nature of the bill, and it does not reflect the deep unpopularity of this bill with the people of New Zealand, so well expressed in a number of ways—emails, letters, and the referendum petition currently being circulated.

I want to tell the Committee that on one very cold and windy day in Christchurch, in the city mall in Christchurch with demolition happening around me, I presented this petition to as many of the people of Christchurch as possible—and, by the way, to a number of tourists who walked through the mall on that day—and it was very, very easy to get signatures for that petition, because that petition is one that reflects the will of the people. People were queuing up to sign it. I could not find enough copies of the petition to get signatures on. That is how unpopular this bill and this proposal are.

This particular title is extremely inappropriate, and New Zealand First has many suggestions of much, much more appropriate and reflective titles for this bill. First of all, we think it could well be called the “Unpopular SOEs Amendment Bill”. We think that would really reflect the mood of the nation and would be a much more appropriate title for this bill. We also think that it could be called the “Inevitable Full Privatisation of New Zealand’s Most Valuable Assets Bill”, because that reflects the true nature of what this bill will really mean. Another suggestion we have is the “Higher Power Prices Bill”, because that is the fundamental meaning of this bill, and every New Zealander knows that that is going to be the inevitable outcome of it. We think another good title would be the “Alienation of Water Rights for Power Generation Bill”. That is a bit of a mouthful but actually it says very well what is happening with this particular piece of legislation.

I have another suggestion, and it is one that the leader of United Future should consider. It is the “Dunne Dishonestly Bill”, because that particular member of Parliament has fudged on his commitment not to alienate water rights. I listened with interest to the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard when he gave an interview on television recently.

But there are more suggestions. Any of these would be satisfactory to New Zealand First. Another one of these is the “Economic Lunacy Bill”, because that is exactly what it is—economic lunacy to sell valuable assets that are returning a very good rate of return, and instead to repay debt when that debt has a low interest rate. It is just economic lunacy. Another one that would appeal to many New Zealanders is the “Lights Out New Zealand Bill”, because for many people that is exactly what is going to happen when they find that their electricity bill becomes unaffordable in future years—another fundamental result from this legislation.

Yet another suggestion is the “Forget Economic Sovereignty Bill”, because you would have to forget it if this particular legislation is passed. The economic security and sovereignty of New Zealand is going to be seriously compromised by this legislation. I have a final suggestion for the title of this bill—

I appreciate this opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement of this piece of legislation, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. I want to talk about the title and the commencement, but I also want to talk about the amendment that I have lodged to these particular provisions, and I will come to those in a minute.

Firstly, is the Mixed Ownership Model Bill an appropriate title for this piece of legislation? Clearly, it is not. Mixed-ownership model—what a load of tosh! What this is is the assets sales bill. This is the bill that sells the assets that generations of New Zealanders have built up to pass on to future generations of New Zealanders, and this Government wants to sell them. It should be a lot more upfront than using these weasel words like “mixed-ownership model”. It is a bit like its plan for ACC, where it talks about increasing competition, when actually what it means is privatisation. It should be upfront. It should stop using these weasel words to describe its privatisation plans, and this bill is exactly that. It is a privatisation bill that will result in assets currently owned by all New Zealanders being sold off. Plain and simple, that is what this bill amounts to. The Government should be a lot more upfront than trying to use some tricky title in order to avoid being upfront with New Zealanders about what this bill actually means.

The Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled, Supplementary Order Paper 53, prevents the enactment of this bill unless there is a 75 percent majority in this House, because this Government does not have a mandate to sell these assets. This Government has no mandate. And if it thinks it has a mandate, it will vote in favour of this amendment that will require it to get a 75 percent majority to pass this legislation. It would not be afraid of that, if it thought New Zealanders really supported it. But they do not. The Government knows New Zealanders do not, because this Government—the Government we have here, which is forcing this legislation through—was voted for by only less than a third of the voting-age population in this country. Only a third of the country actually voted for this Government. That is not a mandate to do this.

People overwhelmingly oppose this legislation. Opinion poll after opinion poll has proved it. If the Government really thought that New Zealanders supported this, it would not be ramming it through Parliament before the referendum gets off the ground. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind—there is no doubt in my mind—that there will be a referendum, because enough New Zealanders will sign the petition for there to be a referendum, and the result will overwhelmingly oppose these asset sales.

So if this Government really thinks that there is a mandate for it to do this, why is it trying to push it through? Why is it trying to push it through before New Zealanders have had a chance to have a say on it? And the Government is pushing it through.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Because they don’t care what the public have to say.

That is right. My colleague Lianne Dalziel has pointed out that the Government does not want to hear what the public has to say. Well, I say to the Government that it can listen to the public now, or it can listen to them in 2½ years’ time, because the New Zealand public do not support this legislation.

The amendment that I have put forward is a very reasonable one, where the Government is proposing a piece of legislation that, in effect, overrides the law of the land. There are provisions in this legislation that allow the Government to change primary legislation by regulation, without reference back to Parliament. That is a constitutional issue. Before it does that, it should have a 75 percent majority in Parliament. If this Government is going to pass laws that, in effect, give it the power to change other laws, then that requires more than a one-vote majority. It requires more than just getting Peter Dunne to vote for it. It requires getting more support from the Parliament.

The Parliament has shown that where there is a genuine need for those sorts of powers, we will come together and vote for them. We voted for them after the Christchurch earthquake, because we believed that the Government did need some extra power and some extra ability to respond. There is no justification—no justification at all—to give the Government the power to change the law by regulation when it relates to asset sales, none at all. The Government is going to give itself that power with a one-vote majority in Parliament—a one-vote majority in Parliament. That is wrong. To give itself that kind of unfettered power for that sort of change to our legislation, it should require more than a one-vote majority in Parliament. So the amendment that I have put forward that would require the Government to have a—

I move, That the question be now put.

No, I do not think so.

I have been looking forward to making my contribution on this important debate, because I have not had the opportunity to do so thus far, but I am pleased that I can on this part of the debate. I have an amendment to clause 1 of this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. The Government also has a Supplementary Order Paper to divide into two bills the bill that is being dealt with here. The first particular amendment on that Supplementary Order Paper, actually, is correct, and that is changing Part 1 of the bill to: “This Act is the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Act 2012”. That is correct, because what it does is it takes four State-owned enterprises out of the State-Owned Enterprises Act and moves them to the Public Finance Act, only the public finance Act that they are moving to is the Act that is now going to be called, under this particular provision, the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act 2012.

I think there is a very serious reason why that particular language is incorrect. I believe that it is covering up for what the public know, and that is that this is the privatisation of public property. That is what it is. It is nothing less than that. Those members use the language of the mixed-ownership model—the “MOM”. You know, they are talking about the ownership of these companies going to ma and pa investors, or mom and pop investors. Well, I am suggesting that we change the name from “MOM” to “POP”—privatisation of public property. That is exactly what is going on here.

My colleague Jacinda Ardern actually put forward on Supplementary Order Paper 44 this amendment to a number of other parts of this bill, but this part of the bill, clause 1, was not included, because she had become, I think, quite disquieted by the fact that the Government had used its—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Disillusioned.

In fact, Jacinda Ardern is right here and she is offering her contribution to the debate from her chair. She is saying that she was disillusioned by the Government’s response to her very sensible amendment. The reason that she is disillusioned is that she felt that it was not being completely upfront with the language of this mixed-ownership model, which really hid the essence of what was going on. So she gave up when it came to clause 1, the title, but I have decided that it is actually worthy of debate here because the public have a right to know that their wishes are not being respected by this Government. It is trying to hide the reality of what it is doing behind the language of the mixed-ownership model when, in fact, the very act of this legislation removing four State-owned enterprises from the coverage of the State-Owned Enterprises Act shows that this is the privatisation of public property. It is the “POP” of the mom and pop legislation that we have been considering in this Chamber over the last few days.

There are other amendments that colleagues have moved, and I notice that Dr David Clark, my colleague, has also moved an alternative title, which is the “State Asset Privatisation Act”, or “SAP”. I think that is what the Government thinks the general public are—a bunch of saps. It is not taking them seriously. It knows that there is a citizens initiated referendum petition out there with Grey Power and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions joining hand in hand, walking, marching up and down this country gathering signatures. Those signatures are gathering, and that is why this Committee is debating the bill a long time before the Finance and Expenditure Committee was even due to report back. That is the truth of it, and the reason that the Government does not want this bill sitting on the Order Paper any longer than it is is that it does not want the people to have spoken their mind. It does not want to be forced into a referendum situation and to be voting for this legislation in the face of public opinion. But I can tell this Committee that the people will not forget that the Government proceeded with this legislation before they had a chance to speak.

The other amendments that this side of the Committee is moving actually address that opportunity for the public to truly have a say. The one that I really like is the one in the name of my colleague the Hon David Parker. He says that we should change the date of the coming into force of this bill to 1 April 2016. What is relevant about that date? Apart from the fact that it is April Fool’s Day in 2016, the reason is that it would give an incoming Government the chance to actually listen to the people—

I move, That the question be now put.

I really want to just carry on, in many ways, from where my colleague Lianne Dalziel left off, because I think the debate about the title of this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, is important. I want to refer—in my first opportunity in this particular part of the debate—to Supplementary Order Paper 58, which is in my own name.

Just before I do that I want to go back to Chris Hipkins’ Supplementary Order Paper 53, which prevents enactment unless there is a 75 percent majority. I think this is a very important Supplementary Order Paper, because time and again over the last few weeks we have heard from the National Government about its mandate to pass this legislation. I want to make absolutely clear to that party opposite that, in fact, in the general election there were more people who voted for parties that oppose asset sales than there were for parties that favour them—40,000 more people, in fact, right across New Zealand. They actually voted for parties that oppose asset sales.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Tony Ryall is laughing.

Tony Ryall does not care about the mandate issue. He is laughing at the fact that there actually is no electoral mandate on this issue. In this Parliament, what we have is a situation where the majority—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Third in the party vote in Wellington Central.

Chris Finlayson is chipping in. Has that member won a seat? Has Chris Finlayson won a seat? No. Chris Finlayson has never won a seat. He has never won a seat. He has never even got close to winning a seat—never even got close to winning a seat. The majority for this legislation in this House comes from Peter Dunne. He represents a party that got less than 1 percent of the party vote, and it is his vote that is pushing this bill across the line.

There is no mandate. Chris Hipkins’ amendment is, in fact, a very good amendment, because what it says is that this Government, for something as fundamental as the sale of assets, needs to actually have a greater mandate than being on the losing side of the issue in the last election—on the losing side of the issue. There is no mandate over that side. Those members like to crow and claim they do because they are the largest party in Parliament. Well, this is a democracy. This is MMP. More people voted against asset sales than did for them. This amendment from Chris Hipkins actually means that the Government would have to come up with the kind of majority that should be in place for a matter of this order.

The other Supplementary Order Paper I want to refer to is the one in my name. It makes sure that the Royal assent is not granted until the Finance and Expenditure Committee re-examines the bill in satisfactory detail and recommends to the House that it be passed. I sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for a brief time during this consideration, and I simply could not believe the attitude—

💬 Dr David Clark: The whole time.

Dr Clark, who has not had enough air time in this debate, sat on the committee many, many more times than I did. The committee meeting that I saw that I particularly could not believe was the one where the Government decided that it would not get officials to go away and find out whether power prices are, in fact, higher in private companies than they are in State-owned enterprises. That was put before the committee, officials were asked to look at it, and the Government would not give those officials the time they needed to go away and do that work. They gave such a limited time to be able to consider issues like that. They rushed through the debate. We have all heard the stories in this House of how select committee submitters were treated. They were given incredibly short periods of time, were patronised by Government members, and were asked by Government members like Maggie Barry whom they voted for and whom they supported. That is outrageous. It should not be part of our select committee process. This select committee, which had over 1,500 submissions, was not able to hear those submissions in any kind of detail. It was not able to hear proper arguments.

The Government, in this case, really, truly showed its colours, because it backed the 1 percent. It backed the 1 percent of submitters who came to the committee and said they support this bill. That is whom the Government backs, just like it does in every other walk of life; it backs the 1 percent. The 99 percent of submitters who came to the select committee and said that they want to make sure that this is stopped and that they want a proper say about this have been ignored by this Government. That is why my Supplementary Order Paper has been put up, to tell this Government to show some democracy and show some commitment to the process of having people come in front of a committee and have their say. Instead, people were attacked, people were not given enough time, and the process by the officials, who I am sure were working very hard through this process, was truncated by members opposite.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have not spoken in this debate before, because my colleagues have been doing such a very good job, but I had to take the opportunity to come down and speak in this Chamber for two reasons. Firstly, this is so important for my electorate. Solid Energy is one of our assets that that Government is going to sell to its mates, so it is important that I speak out on behalf of my electorate. Secondly, I have also taken the liberty of the democratic process to submit an amendment, a very minor one, which adds one word to the title of this bill. It adds the word “up” to the title of Mixed Ownership Model Bill, because this is, indeed, mixed-up ownership.

You can take two perspectives on that. If the Government is right in the fact that it is offering opportunities to a wide range of mums and dads in this country, then, I guess, mixed-up will be the ownership model that it is referring to. More accurate, though, is the mixed-up management approach that each and every one of these State-owned enterprises will take in the interim period to their final sale. As a fine example of that—and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises over there will know—Solid Energy, through the late 1990s and through the period when it was getting ready for sale under the previous National Government, in fact ran an outrageous regime of management that saw shortcuts taken and, in my view, contributed in no small way to what we saw at Pike River, unfortunately. That mixed-up ownership model, which would be a more accurate title for this bill, in my view, was a mixed-up management model for each and every one of these State-owned enterprises, which have a vital role to play in the infrastructure and development of this country. That mixed-up ownership and management will lead to, in my view, inferior outcomes for us as a country and superior outcomes for all those people who might want to invest in it.

This debate is about sovereignty in this country. The title and commencement of the bill are absolutely crucial, because in my view they do not accurately reflect what is going on here. This is the sell-out of New Zealand. This is the right to control our destiny through our ability to manage our infrastructure into the future. This National Government is going to hand over to a mixed bunch of owners, it says, or mixed-up bunch of owners, the rights to extract monopolistic dividends, in many cases, because, in my view, the problem with electricity, of course—and anyone who studies the market will know—is that the less investment that occurs in the electricity sector, the more the owners can extract from their existing investments. And so that will see the rundown of our infrastructure up and down this country and excessive profits put into the hands of Mr Brownlee and his wealthy mates, who can afford to come along and purchase the shares. Those mixed-up owners will not be there in the best interests of New Zealand, and that is why I have put forward my amendment that adds the word “up” to clause 1—not in a flippant way but in an accurate way that, in simple terms, more accurately reflects what will happen with these companies. The unfortunate outcome will be that this country will suffer in the long term.

This is about our ability to own and control our destiny into the future. That Government is prepared to put that destiny into the hands of people who will extract as much money as they can from the assets that my father, my grandfather, and the people before them contributed to, sometimes with their lives, and with their hearts and souls to build a better country. The National Government is now prepared to hand that to people who have the privilege of more money, when at this very point each and every New Zealander owns those assets. This is an outrageous act of treachery and in any other country it would be called treason.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is that acceptable, Mr Chair?

In any other country that is what it would be called. Although the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery over there is somewhat sensitive to it, that is the truth of what is happening in this Chamber this evening and he very well knows that.

I move, That the question be now put.

I must say I do appreciate receiving the call. It has been a considerable amount of time since I have had an opportunity to speak in the Committee stage on this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. I am very pleased to be able to talk about the title and commencement clauses of this bill. The title, as has been traversed, is an extremely misleading title—the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. I prefer Damien O’Connor’s submission that it should be the “Mixed Up Ownership Model Bill”. That would be a far more appropriate title for the bill.

But, actually, I want to talk to the amendment that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises wants to make to the title of the bill. Not only does the Minister want to split the bill into two bills but Supplementary Order Paper 41 in his name would see the title of one of the pieces of legislation amended to the “State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Act”. Well, that is an even more misleading title than the one we started with. This is not an amendment to our State-owned enterprises; this is the gutting of our State-owned enterprises. This is taking away State-owned enterprises from public ownership. This is taking from the many and giving to the 1 percent. That is what this bill is all about.

This is not some small, technical amendment to our State-owned enterprises; this is a fundamental change to our public assets and the public good that they can be used for. That is what—

💬 Dr Cam Calder: We’re keeping them. You sold them all off.

Sorry, what was that?

💬 Dr Cam Calder: We’re keeping them.

Cam Calder says that the Government is keeping the assets. Well, I tell you what, if Cam Calder wanted the Government to keep the assets he would support some of the other Supplementary Order Papers on this part. He would support the 75 percent supermajority amendment in the name of Chris Hipkins if he really wanted the Government to actually hold on to these assets. But coming back to Mr Ryall’s—[Interruption] Say that again. Say that again, Mr Calder. No, he still does not want it on the record.

I come back to Mr Ryall’s Supplementary Order Paper 41 to split the bill into two and also to have the ability for the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to commence the Acts on different dates. This is actually something that could be supported by the Labour Opposition, because we want to see how big the public backlash is against the sale of assets when the first asset is sold. We want the Government to feel the burn of the public backlash against the sale of that first asset and for the Government to have the opportunity to see the error of its ways and to stop the process right there. It should stop the process right now. It does not have a majority. It does not have a mandate. It does not have support for this, but it will really see—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Who won the party vote in Palmerston North?

I am interested to hear what Chris Finlayson says about the party vote in Palmerston North. Chris Finlayson said: “What about the party vote in Palmerston North?”. Well, I am glad that that member has raised that issue, because I have run the numbers. I have run the numbers, and 55 percent of people in Palmerston North voted for parties that were opposed to selling off our State-owned assets—55 percent of people in Palmerston North opposed selling off our State assets at the election. So I know that my electorate, Mr Finlayson—who does not have an electorate; could never win an electorate—the people whom I represent are opposed to selling off State-owned assets. I am glad, I am pleased, I thank Mr Finlayson for raising that issue, because I am very pleased to tell the Committee about that.

I would also like to address the amendment in the name of Grant Robertson, and that is to take this bill back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, because this Government ran roughshod over the political process, the democratic process. It belittled members. Maggie Barry acted like she was on a talkback show, bullying people who submitted to the committee and asking people what party they voted for. That was the way this was handled. National members cut the process short. They brought the bill back to the House 5 weeks early. People are saying that this is because the Government does not want to see what the result of the referendum is.

I know why the Government brought the bill back early. It is because its majority in the House is so wafer-thin that it does not want to lose John Banks. It does not want to lose John Banks, because it knows it is in deep, deep trouble if it does not have even that one-vote majority. That is what the rush is about. This Government knows that if the police inquiry finds anything wrong with John Banks’ donations, its majority is gone—that is how thin its majority is in this House—and it has no mandate to sell off these assets. So I personally support part of Tony Ryall’s amendment, because it will give this Government the opportunity to see how deeply, deeply unpopular this policy is.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is getting close, but I am going to call Holly Walker.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to those honourable members for supporting me in taking a call on the title and commencement of this bill. I tried to take a call in Part 1, and I tried to take a call in Part 2, and I am very pleased that I finally get to take one on the title and commencement. And what is the title of this bill? The Mixed Ownership Model Bill—“MOM”. Is it not appropriate: motherhood and apple pie? What a lovely euphemistic title the Government has come up with for this bill. And is it not appropriate that that euphemistic title, that misleading title, which disguises the true purpose of this bill, which is the sale of public assets, should have the word “mom” in it, when we have heard so much about the mum and dad investors—those mythical mum and dad investors who are going to benefit from the sale of State assets that will result from this bill? Apparently, they are the ones who are going to benefit. But we know that this will not be the case. We know two things. We know that 95 percent of New Zealanders will not be purchasing shares in these assets when they are sold. And we also know that 100 percent of New Zealanders already own these assets. They are public assets and they are owned by every mum and dad, and also every mum and mum, every dad and dad, and every other kind of New Zealander. They already own these assets.

So I think a better title for the bill would be the “Privatisation of Public Assets Bill”, because that is what it does. It is nothing to do with mums and dads, or moms, or Americanisms, or euphemistic, misleading titles; it is simply the privatisation of public assets. But speaking of mums and dads, and speaking of families, I want to bring a young person’s perspective into this debate—something that has been somewhat lacking, I feel, so far. I want to talk about the intergenerational impacts of this bill, because it is not just about mums and dads, it is also about children, and it is about grandparents—it is about the intergenerational impacts of this bill. For that reason, I suggest another alternative title, which is the “Intergenerational Inequity Bill”.

I want to speak briefly to a Supplementary Order Paper that is on the Table in the name of my co-leader here Russel Norman. Supplementary Order Paper 70 talks about the commencement: delaying the commencement of this bill and making it ineligible to receive the Royal assent until such time as the country has held an indicative referendum on the question of whether the public supports the sale of State assets. I have been out collecting signatures for this petition for this citizens initiated referendum and I can tell you some very interesting intergenerational trends in the people who have been stopping to sign that petition. I have found in my experience out on the streets of Wellington collecting those signatures that there are two types of people who are very likely to stop and sign. Those are older people and they are young people. I think that that shows and demonstrates the intergenerational impacts of this bill and the fact that opposition to the sale of State assets bridges the gap of generations. Indeed, you can see that in the fact that both Grey Power and the New Zealand University Students Association are two of the core coalition members who are organising and campaigning for this petition.

When I talk to the older generation when they stop to sign this petition, they talk about having seen the mistakes of the 1980 and 1990s, having seen the damaging consequences of the sale of State assets for the whole country—economically, socially, for consumers at the household level, and for the nation at the Government level and at the country level. They say to me: “Don’t make the same mistake again. Don’t make the same mistake twice.” That is what the older New Zealanders are saying to us and to the parliamentarians in this House and to the Government: “Don’t make the same mistake again.” That is why the bill should be called the “Intergenerational Inequity Bill”.

Then I talk to younger New Zealanders, people like me. I was born in 1982. I grew up in a New Zealand that was fundamentally shaped and changed by the sale of State assets in the 1980s and 1990s and the neo-liberal economic policies of that time. My generation and the generations younger than me are daring to imagine that, in fact, we might not have to make the same mistakes again, that we might be able to do it differently, and that we might be able to put up an alternative vision.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the question be now put. As many are of that opinion will please say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to raise several points with you. The first is that I think it is almost unprecedented that when the Leader of the Opposition seeks a call in this sort of a debate, you accept a closure motion. That is highly unusual. The second point that I want to raise is that we have several members here who have been here for several hours, over several parts of the bill, and who have not had a single call on any part of the bill. It is therefore outrageous that you are accepting a closure motion in those circumstances.

Can I first of all say I never saw the Leader of the Opposition rise. Can I point out to the member Speaker’s ruling 10/4: Once the chairperson has accepted a closure motion and commenced to put the question, it does not matter how far the chairperson gets; under [Standing Order 51] the time to report progress is deferred until the closure and any consequential questions are determined.” So whenever a question is being put to the Committee, the interruption of business is deferred until the question is determined—Standing Order 51. I have to say I am sorry, I did not see the Leader of the Opposition stand. Had I done so, I would have called him. But the reality is that I have called that the question be now put, and the question is that the question be now put. As many are of that opinion will please say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is incumbent upon you to look at who is seeking the call before you choose—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There is a point of order on the floor. There is no sound.

—to accept a closure motion. To say that you did not see the Leader of the Opposition, who is sitting immediately in front of you, is simply unbelievable. The Leader of the Opposition was seeking the call. It is very unusual for you to reject that call and then claim that you did not see him when he was sitting right there.

The reality is that I had made the determination, because we have had 20 speeches on this part. Everybody who had a Supplementary Order Paper has spoken. I have made that decision to take the closure. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition because, as I said, had I seen him I would have acknowledged him—most certainly. But I did not. So the question is that the question be now put.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already put the question. I have called the vote and that has to be taken as under Speaker’s ruling 10/4.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In your first response to Chris Hipkins, you set out the rationale as to why you did not call the Leader of the Opposition. In your second response to him, you changed the goalposts and you used another rationale for that. We are in your hands. It is your responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition is not 3 feet high. He is a pretty tall bloke. He sits adjacent to you. He did seek the call. I would point this out to you: before you put the vote, there were at least two members, the chief whip on our side and me, attempting to gain points of order. We are not shrinking violets; we do have reasonable lungs. For some reason, you did not take those points of order; you proceeded directly to the vote. So I put it to you with respect that you have erred on three counts: first, that points of order were being raised by two members; second, that you did not call the Leader of the Opposition. As you have quite rightly said, and there is precedent for this—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, there’s not.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

There is precedent for not interjecting during a point of order. Third, you have given two differing explanations as to why you did not call a point of order. We are the minority. We rely on you to ensure that our rights are preserved, and we are in a very difficult position that is not through our making.

You have called on, I think quite rightly, Speaker’s ruling 10/4. I note here that it was actually a ruling from Mr Hunt in 2003, and if my memory serves me correctly, it was in response to similar types of points of order that I raised at the time when the new Leader of the Opposition, Dr Don Brash, was seeking a call, and if I think for a little bit longer, I will be able to recall the debate. The ruling came about because we went down the process of calling the Speaker back and having the Speaker make a ruling from the Chair. You have acted totally appropriately. Any suggestion that there is a precedent for the Leader of the Opposition getting a preference in a call would be valid only if it were in fact a precedent. The idea that it might have been a courtesy for the Leader of the Opposition taking the call would have been stronger from the Labour Party members had there been not so many others of them standing trying to seek the call ahead of their leader at the time. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There is a point of order on the floor and it is to be heard in silence. It is to be terse and to the point.

That is a very salient point. If you were unable to sight Mr Shearer at the time, it comes as no surprise to me because most of his own party were trying to take the call ahead of him. So any idea that you were supposed to say: “Oh no, on a precedent, although I have now determined that this debate should be concluded, I must go to the Leader of the Opposition.”, I think is an extremely unreasonable point, and I want to support fully the fact that you have not only decided to terminate the debate but in fact called the vote and held the vote.

The problem the Leader of the Opposition has is that, I recall, it was you, not me, who indicated that in the normal course of events it is, if not a precedent, a protocol that when the Leader of the Opposition calls, you would call him. In fact, it was not me, it was you who admitted that and said that had you seen him—you managed to see Mr Brownlee, I take it, when he rose for a point of order—had you seen the Leader of the Opposition, you would have called him out of tradition or precedent or whatever.

The second point I would raise with you is that it is the case now—and it is the case of every Committee stage, as you will be aware—that members en masse from various political parties seek the call. If I am correct, it is normally the Chairperson who determines who gets the call, and often that is done on seniority. I have seen you call members and indicate that you have called a member perhaps because they are close to the front or in the second row. But certainly that is a precedent in this Chamber, and if it is the case that we should sit down and not seek a call, that would indicate that the closure could be put. So Mr Brownlee fails there as well.

Can I just point out to members on both sides of the Chamber Speaker’s ruling 79/1, which means that members are not in order in reflecting on the actions of the Chair. I also want to point members to Speaker’s ruling 66/4, which I was referring to indirectly in Speaker’s ruling 10/4, which says: “Once a vote has commenced, it has to be completed.”

The question is that the motion be agreed to. [Interruption] No, I have ruled. The vote must be taken according to the Speaker’s ruling 66/4. [Interruption] New point of order?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point of order that I wish to raise is whether it is a requirement for the Chair to deal with a point of order before they begin a vote.

All I can say is to refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 10/4—that whenever a question has been put to the House the interruption of business is deferred until the question is determined. And that means it should be done now. Secondly, I come back to Speaker’s ruling 66/4: “Once a vote has commenced, it has to be completed.” As the Chair of the Committee I am guided by Speakers’ rulings, and the Speaker’s ruling is quite specific.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to draw your attention to the specific wording in Speaker’s ruling 10/3, to which you have referred, which says: “appointed for the interruption of business, any further motion”—it is talking about a motion, not a point of order—and in Speaker’s ruling 10/4 it talks about the closure motion: “the time to report progress is deferred”. Again, it is not about a point of order, and it is a standing convention in this House that the points of order take precedence over other matters of House business. In this case you had not, in fact, started to put the vote; you had merely started to call for a vote, ignoring two points of order that were before you, including from the senior Government whip. I would respectfully submit that it is within the ambit of Speaker’s rulings 10/3—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Opposition whip.

—sorry, I meant the Opposition whip—and 10/4 that you should legitimately have considered those points of order and given your ruling on the point of order before attempting to put the vote.

I have heard enough. I am going to refer the members again to the following: whenever a question has been put, the interruption of business is deferred until the question is determined. I have put the question, and the vote will be taken.

We have an amendment in the name of the honourable member Grant Robertson, which was an amendment requiring referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee prior to the commencement, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 58. That is out of order, for lack of certainty regarding the commencement date. The proposed amendment relies on an indeterminate event—Speaker’s ruling 117/2. The next amendment is in the name of the honourable member Hone Harawira. It is a typescript amendment to insert a new subclause (1AA), making the commencement contingent on the support of the Waitangi Tribunal. That also is out of order, for lack of certainty regarding the commencement date. The proposed amendment relies on an indeterminate event, and that is covered under Speaker’s ruling 117/2.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to.

I move, That the report be adopted.