Mixed Ownership Model Bill

When the House rose last evening I was asking the Government and, indeed, the Minister who was in the chair, the Minister of Police, to explain the intention of this new section 45Q, “Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”, inserted by clause 16. We have just heard, interestingly enough, from the previous speaker in the previous debate, Tony Ryall, that this Government prides itself on transparency, integrity, and other desirable attributes. I ask the Minister for State Owned Enterprises to please explain what the intention is of new section 45Q, because it is entirely unclear to me. It proposes that the majority shareholder—the 51 percent owner, the Government, 51 percent of a mixed-ownership model company—will be bound to not act inconsistently with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but, for the avoidance of doubt, this does not apply to persons other than the Crown. This sounds to me like a nonsense, where 51 percent of the time the company will be obliged to act in a way that is consistent with the principles of the Treaty and 49 percent of the time it will not.

Let us have a little bit of clarity and transparency on this. I would urge the Government to accept Supplementary Order Paper 71 in the name of our co-leader Dr Norman, which will make it crystal clear that the new companies, the new entities, 100 percent of the time will be obliged, absolutely, to operate in a way that is consistent with the principles of the Treaty. The clause, otherwise, is a meaningless nonsense. It is a sop to those Māori interests that have objected very strongly to having the Treaty clause that is within the State-Owned Enterprises Act removed from this Mixed Ownership Model Bill. Of course, it was not present in the original drafting of the bill. This is a little bit of trying to have a dollar each way, to have a clause without really having a clause. I would ask the Minister to either explain to us exactly how this clause will work in practice or simply adopt the Supplementary Order Paper.

The other point I would like to raise, briefly, is the question of new section 45S.

I want to address new section 45S in clause 16 and my amendment to that, but before I do, I just want to address the repeated comments that have been made by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises throughout this debate as he casts his selective mind back in history in respect of the sale of State assets. I am not going to labour this point. I am just going to ask whether the Minister recalls—he might want to give us a dissertation when he gets up and actually answers a question—his being in a Bolger Cabinet or a Shipley Cabinet that sold off asset after asset after asset—

💬 Grant Robertson: New Zealand Rail.

—New Zealand Rail, BNZ, and others, without any public consultation, at all.

💬 Phil Twyford: Going to sell TVNZ.

And they were going to flog off Television New Zealand. Who was the National Cabinet Minister who said, before the election, when we were in Government: “It’s so last year.”? Well, this was 20 years ago. In fact, I was attacked by the Minister for being a 14-year-old whippersnapper in short pants, wandering around, apparently responsible for all the ills, some of which there were in the fourth Labour Government.

That is how desperate this Minister is. He never talks about the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. We asked him a number of questions the other night, and I put those questions to him again. In respect of the 10 percent ownership cap, we had testimony after testimony at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that it was riddled full of holes and that there is no penalty. Of course, there is no penalty in this bill. You have to remedy within 60 days and that is it.

I put a question to the Minister, who, I note—because I have checked the Hansard—has made a couple of speeches in this debate and not answered one question. Mr Clendon put questions to him about the Treaty clause. I put questions to the Minister last night about that provision and specifically raised the concerns of Tūwharetoa, but all this Minister has done throughout the debate is stand up and walk back in time, selectively, to the 1980s, jump over and forget that he was intricately involved in the Bolger Government and its asset sales, and talk about history, and that provides him, he believes, with an alibi so that he does not have to answer any questions or make a case.

So I am going to ask the Minister now: is he planning to answer any questions put to him by this Parliament on this legislation? Silence. Silence. We will take that as a no. I will just ask him again in case he got distracted. Is the Minister, Mr Ryall, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, who is in charge of this bill, planning to answer any questions put to him by members of this Committee? I take it that that is a no. Silence. That proves the contempt that he has for this Chamber, the contempt that he has for members of the House, and the contempt that he has for the nearly 1,500 submitters who submitted on many of these issues.

His officials will have given him advice, or maybe they have been told by the Minister not to advise him on the 10 percent ownership cap and not to provide him with any answers, because he does not want to know—just like he told his officials not to go and investigate the issues of State-owned enterprise power retailers being cheaper than their private sector counterparts. He did not want to know. So I am going to put it on record, so that we have the Hansard, so that people know the contempt with which this Minister is treating Parliament and treating those submitters.

We were told, on the 10 percent ownership cap, that you would be able to drive a bus through it—that it would be very easy to get around, especially through the nominee entities, because the nominee entities, of course, can police what is within their own nominee entity but there is no policing across those nominee entities. As one submitter—I cannot recall her name, but I will find it as this debate goes on—from an eminent thinktank, who is a specialist in this area, said, you would need a sort of active securities police force, which was the term I think she used, to actually police every transaction. Then I ask the Minister why, if he believes that this 10 percent cap will work, there are no penalties in the legislation. Not one—no monetary penalty, not any.

So it will be interesting to see, after 2 days of questioning, whether the Minister gets off his backside and actually answers a number of these questions. They are important. We have put them to him for 48 hours. We put them to him before the select committee. We put them to the officials. Each time we have tried to have these questions answered and our fears allayed, there has been silence. So I put it again to the Minister. Will the Minister be prepared to answer any questions?

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: If you sit down now.

Oh, he is alive! There was a noise. There was a gurgle or a cough or some sort of squeak that came out of the bellows over there. We have made history. He is actually going to answer some questions. Will I sit down? No problem, but I am going to finish my speech first, because we have got a few others. Now that he has got a bit of momentum—he has had a couple of sandwiches for lunch or a Milo or something and he has got a bit of energy up—he is actually going to do his job and earn his pay.

In respect of Tūwharetoa and the questions around that, we heard from Tūwharetoa that they did not believe the Māori Party’s commitment that the Māori Party’s clause, which it takes great credit for, would protect their Treaty, customary, legal, and property rights. They came with Georgina te Heuheu and told us—armed to the teeth, they were, with highly specialist, qualified legal advice—that the Treaty clause, in their view, would not protect them. I am advised that they are in some sort of discussions with the Crown. We do not know what those discussions are, we do not know whether they are happening, and we do not know whether the Crown is prepared to listen, but we were advised very squarely by Tūwharetoa, in answer to a question that I raised asking whether they would look at legal action and advance their arguments in a court if necessary, that they would pursue any legal avenue, through the courts or otherwise, that they could to secure their position.

They are in quite a unique position, in some ways. They gifted back water resources to the Crown on the premise that the revenue derived from those water resources would be used in the interests of our community; they would be retained by the State and then utilised through the Crown by our community. Then these geniuses come along and say that they are flogging off at least 49 percent of the energy State-owned enterprises, and that means that there will be private sector people utilising those resources, which Tūwharetoa gifted back to the Crown for the public good, in order to get private gain. This Minister woke up one day and thought “Hang on, this might be a problem.”, and then did absolutely nothing about it. So if there are discussions, we would like to know whether Tūwharetoa are wrong. If they are wrong, and all their legal advice is wrong, and the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, former National Minister in that Government, and colleague of the Hon Tony Ryall, is wrong, then let us hear it.

And let us not stop there, Minister. Tell us, exactly, the rationale as to why this provision will protect those interests. Yet again, we could not get an answer out of the officials, because they were not allowed to tell us. They were not allowed to tell us, in the end. We had to prepare our report, and then they sort of followed up. They were muzzled by the Minister. They were muzzled by the chair of the committee. He did not want to know, yet again.

Any Minister worth his or her salt, even if they do not like the advice, will listen to it, and then they are charged, under our system, with making a judgment based upon it. But not this one; he does not want to know—hear no evil, see no evil. “Do not give me a memo. Do not tell me that this policy could be wrong. I do not want to know.”, say the National Party members and their ilk. We have the 10 percent cap; we say we are moving an amendment to take it down to 1 percent. That is our concern, and where we are in regard to it. But it would be really good if this Minister actually dealt with those issues.

The final point I want to make is that there has been some talk, and it relates directly to the 10 percent cap, about loyalty schemes. Well, that is a scam. That is a complete scam, and we know what the National Party tactic is: we are going to have a loyalty scheme, and in that scheme you will get your free shares in 2½ years’ time, just after the 2014 election, which will enable the Prime Minister to go around with the fiction that there are all these Kiwis staying with the company—“See, we told you so, they’re staying in the company”—but they get their share after the 2014 election.

We know this happened with Contact Energy, in terms of shareholders pulling out. It went from 225,000 individual shareholders on float in 1999 to 78,225-odd, give or take. That is a 65 percent reduction. Two-thirds were sold off, and you did not even have a loyalty share there. So what Kiwis will do is, quite rightly, what is best for them, and I respect them for it. They will keep those shares until they get their bonus, just after the next election, and then they will sell, because that is the history of it. They will sell because they have had a windfall gain and they are struggling to make ends meet. But by the next election, by God, they will be struggling under this regime even more.

So I would like to know whether that loyalty scheme may be advanced to institutions, and what effect the 10 percent cap will have on them. Will those institutions be availed of that scheme, even though they are capped at 10 percent, or will this be confined to mum and dad Kiwis—although mum and dad Kiwis are now defined as ACC, KiwiSaver, and other superannuation funds and institutions domiciled here, not mum and dad Kiwis.

I call the honourable member Denise Roche.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member. The Minister in the chair, and you would have heard him, in response to me said that he would answer questions once I had sat down—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is not a point of order. The member is a very experienced member. Stop trifling with the Chair. I call the honourable member Denise Roche.

I rise to oppose this part—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again, I do apologise for interrupting the member. The Minister in the chair did, indeed, make a statement. Is he now misleading the Committee and backing off from that statement?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. I have warned the member. He has got his first yellow card. I call the honourable member Denise Roche.

Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou ki te Whare. I join with many colleagues on this side of the Chamber to oppose this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. Part 1, just to recap, removed a whole bunch of requirements around social responsibility, good-employer provisions, and provisions of the Ombudsmen Act to be able to check what would happen with these companies once they are partially privatised, and also removed them from the provisions of the Official Information Act.

Then in Part 2 we see the whittling down and the watering down of the Treaty of Waitangi. It begs the question as to why you would remove the Treaty of Waitangi provisions from this part of the bill when, in fact, the Government says that these shares will be sold to New Zealanders. New Zealanders are a partner of the Treaty of Waitangi. It does not make sense that we need to put in special provisions to exclude 49 percent of our people.

I am going to talk briefly about my colleague and co-leader Russel Norman’s Supplementary Order Paper 39, which calls for this bill to be deferred until the petition for the citizens initiated referendum on the sale of the State-owned assets has been completed, because we are confident that we will be able to get 310,000 signatures. In the last 3 days I have spent hours and hours alongside Green Party volunteers collecting signatures. I can tell you very clearly that even National Party supporters are opposed to the sale of our State-owned assets. They are signing this petition in droves. As of today, the Green Party in 6 weeks has collected in excess of 45,000 signatures. It is incredibly easy to collect them. I spent 2 hours on Queen Street yesterday, and during that time I personally collected 90 signatures. That is about one signature every 1½ minutes.

The conversations were the same over and over: this is theft. Selling the assets that were bought and built for us by previous generations steals from our generation and generations to come. This was coming very clearly from National Party supporters. In fact, I got into an argument about other parts of our policy with one National Party supporter, but he was very happy to sign the petition and to take it to his friends. A referendum would not be binding, but it is a very clear signal, and the rate of people signing the petition, as it is at the moment, clearly shows that this is an election issue, and this Government does not have a mandate to sell these assets. I am sure my colleagues from the Labour Party, from Mana, and from New Zealand First, and our allies in Grey Power, Greenpeace, and the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations are hearing these stories over and over and over again. These assets belong to us all. They are not for the Government to sell.

My colleague Russel Norman yesterday pointed out that the votes around the parts of this bill in Committee are very, very close. And the vote will be extremely close when it comes to the third reading. Yesterday Part 1 was passed with a 61 to 60 result. That is not democracy. That is not a mandate. That is not fair to New Zealand citizens, it is not fair or honourable to those who built up those assets for us, and it is certainly not fair to the generations to come, who will be paying higher and higher and higher electricity prices.

Selling these assets is short-sighted. It does not in the long term resolve any of the deficit issues. In fact, as we have heard time and time again across the Chamber, it increases our lack of resilience. It increases our situation where we are basically reliant on debt, because we lose our income-generating assets. A short-term fix, a rush of sugar, is how one person who signed the petition on Saturday explained it to me. Selling these assets—

It is very interesting that the previous speaker, Denise Roche, talked about the burden that this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, will have for future generations. The fact is that increased debt is a burden for future generations. If you are worried about stealing from your grandchildren, burdening them with debt that they do not need is the biggest part of it.

Some of the more informed members of the Committee have asked a couple of questions about the Treaty clause. I will be very clear with the member: the current Treaty clause in the State-Owned Enterprises Act does not apply to the State-owned enterprises; it applies to the Crown in right of New Zealand. The obligations rest with the Crown. That exact obligation is being transferred in the new legislation, and those obligations remain the same. That is the advice that the Finance and Expenditure Committee got from the officials during the select committee consideration. The legislation also recognises—and it was the advice that the committee got—that the memorial regime that currently exists, which gives Māori specific rights on land that may or may not be transferred, remains as well.

It is very important to know that there is a penalties regime around those who breach this legislation. Those who breach the 10 percent cap risk losing the voting rights. A Supplementary Order Paper means that they will also lose their dividends from those shares in excess, and there is a criminal offence in breaching those securities rules. Right now—and members opposite may not be aware of this, but many New Zealanders will be—a company or a holder of investments or shares in a publicly listed company must declare their holding once it is at 5 percent, and then they must declare every 1 percent increase in their holding thereafter. If they fail to do that then they are subject to quite significant penalties in legislation, which include not only a criminal breach but also a significant sanction. The significant sanction is that they will stand to have shares confiscated. In fact, in the last decade there was a high-profile private company that lost, I think, 6 million shares in an investment company as a result, apparently, of failing to disclose step increases in its shareholdings. So there are quite significant penalties: losing voting rights; losing the dividends of the excess shares, which is part of the Supplementary Order Paper that we tabled on Monday; the criminal sanctions that apply to this; and the very severe sanction that shares could be confiscated if people fail to honour their obligations under those securities expectations. Those are very, very significant penalties, and I think any investor of any size in the New Zealand stock market is well aware of those and acts to make sure they respect that in order to avoid confiscation.

This is, I think, a very good approach to a State-owned enterprise sales programme. I think it replicates what we saw in the Shipley Government where we sold shares in the Auckland International Airport to ordinary New Zealanders. It was called a great example of popular capitalism by the Treasurer at the time. We also had a public float for the sale of shares in Government Property Services, and significant thousands of New Zealands took shares in that. When it came to the Contact Energy share float, the Government helped to create, I think, 120,000 first-time shareholders.

The big issue here is that Labour members opposite do not think everyday people are good enough to own shares or that they can be trusted. They do not think that the electrician from west Auckland who has worked hard and is trying to save for his or her retirement should own shares. They think those people are a bit uppity that they might want to own shares and that they cannot be trusted. They have called those people a part of a “small elite”. The nurse who has a bit of money saved from her wages that she wants to put into an infrastructural investment in these times is part of a small elite, and she cannot be trusted, either. She cannot be trusted, because the minute she gets an offer of 10c more than she paid for each share, apparently she is going to sell them.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Just like that.

Just like that. Ten cents. The fact is that a lot of everyday people want the opportunity to own these shares and the opportunity to participate, because this gives them a good savings opportunity. Many members will remember what it was like when the finance companies collapsed under the Labour Government’s mismanagement. Many, many people came along and put their money into Blue Chip New Zealand, Five Star Consumer Finance, Capital + Merchant Finance, and Hanover Finance, and they lost it. The previous Government did very little about those situations. It let the securities legislation and prudential management fall into disrepair, and that is what happened. The Hon Simon Power had to, basically, run the process for the previous Labour Government to tidy it up.

A lot of people know they need to be cautious about investment. But as people add to KiwiSaver and superannuation funds and as iwi accumulate financial resources—and there is over $100 billion on term deposit in New Zealand today—they are looking for opportunities to invest in infrastructure and to invest in yield. That is what part of the Government’s mixed-ownership model programme is about. It is about creating investment opportunities for New Zealanders not only as individuals but also as families, iwi, and people with KiwiSaver and superannuation funds. Right now people’s KiwiSaver funds have probably got more invested in energy companies in overseas jurisdictions than they have in New Zealand. [Interruption] “The Super Fund sure has.”, says Mr Foss. We want to create those opportunities for New Zealanders to have a wider range of investments. We are backing that with the mixed-ownership model programme.

We also trust New Zealanders to make these investment decisions. We do not think people are uppity because they want to own shares. I remember when we made tens of thousands of people first-time shareholders in the late 1990s. People took great pride in their share certificates. They took great pride in their share certificates—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: On the mantelpiece beside the picture of the Queen.

—and they put them on their mantelpieces. I am sure many of them did, because it was actually the first time they were able to buy shares. Only 10 percent of New Zealanders own shares directly, and that contrasts with, I think, about 30 percent in Australia. There is a need for New Zealanders to have this opportunity. But Labour members do not trust them. They say that the minute someone comes along and offers them 1c more they are going to sell them—they are going to sell them straight away. The fact is that Port of Tauranga proves the opposite—55 percent local government; 45 percent on the share market. What we are finding there is that New Zealanders are buying out—

💬 Andrew Little: What a shocking example.

“What a shocking example.”, says Mr Andrew Little.

💬 Andrew Little: Killing workers more than any other port in the country. What a terrible example the Minister’s come up with.

How pathetic! Sad, sad, sad little man! He is accusing the port of killing people. That is sad. It does not even warrant—[Interruption] So sad! This is about New Zealanders investing in infrastructure and having those opportunities. That stands in complete contrast to when Labour was last in office. Dr Nick Smith made the comment about the mine on the West Coast. Labour Ministers, apparently, approved the sale of 49 percent of Spring Creek Mine to foreign interests—foreign interests. They approved the sale, apparently, to foreign interests.

💬 Hon Member: What were the caveats?

What were the caveats? Well, I do not know the caveats. One Minister approved it from the perspective of the Overseas Investment Office. Labour was happy to sell a portion of an energy company to foreigners at that time, but now that it is in Opposition it has changed its mind. Labour members do not think energy companies should be sold to foreigners; they think there should be restrictions on foreigners. They have changed their minds. Labour sold $10 billion of public assets to the highest foreign bidders and to Fay Richwhite, which it did not tell anyone about. When it sold the public assets to the highest foreign bidders, Fay Richwhite, and the elite, Labour did not want to tell New Zealanders. But this Prime Minister has been upfront from January 2011. It was the centrepiece of the election campaign. Labour got the lowest result it has ever had since 1915, apparently, and National got the highest vote there has been under MMP. That is a mandate, but we take it very seriously, and that is the reason why we are working hard to secure a better future for New Zealanders.

It is a frightening thought to think of Mr Ryall’s mantelpiece. There will be the share certificates alongside the Whakatāne amateur dramatics society “most improved player” award. The truth is that the nurses around the country who Mr Ryall says are queuing up to buy the shares are the same nurses protesting against Mr Ryall because they actually do not have enough money to pay the power bill, let alone buy the power company.

Let us take just one of Mr Ryall’s words there. Who is really looking after the “small elite” here? Is it this side of the Chamber, who want to see these assets stay in the hands of all New Zealanders, or is it that side of the Chamber, who want to see them sold off, eventually into foreign hands? That side of the Chamber are the ones who are looking after the small elite; this side of the Chamber are the ones who are saying that we should continue to have these assets in public ownership for all New Zealanders.

Mr Ryall says that the Labour Party does not believe that New Zealanders can be trusted. We believe that New Zealanders can be trusted to retain these assets for future generations, unlike that side of the Chamber, who want to sell them off, hock them off, and make sure that New Zealanders will not have them in the future.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Are you going to buy them back?

Nick Smith is chirping in. I just think it is appropriate to mention what the 1990s National Government did, given that is what the Minister has just done. BNZ, New Zealand Rail, the Ministry of Works, Radio New Zealand Commercial, Contact Energy, half of Auckland Airport—they are not talking about them now, are they? That is what they sold in the 1990s. In the 2000s a Labour Government had to come in and buy back the rail, because it had been run down so badly. It bought back most of Air New Zealand, because it had been run down so badly. The record of this side of the Chamber is far stronger on growing New Zealand’s asset base than that Government over there, and the Minister in charge of this bill, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, was in a Cabinet that hocked off those assets.

I want to talk about my Supplementary Order Paper 59 on this part to amend clause 16—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Great SOP.

—it is an excellent Supplementary Order Paper—to add new section 45Y, “Restriction on holdings in companies with control of water resources”. I want to do that because there is little more that binds all of these assets, bar Air New Zealand, together than water—the control of, and the rights to use, water. It is an essential part of this debate. We have already heard others speak about the importance of these issues for Tūwharetoa in the context of their issues. We have got the Māori Council claim in place as well. On this side of the Chamber we believe that it is actually important to say that if we have got a resource like water, a resource that is for all New Zealanders, that resource should remain in the ownership of all New Zealanders.

I do not expect the National members to agree with this. I do not expect the National members to say: “Yes, we believe that water is a resource that should remain in the ownership of all New Zealanders.”, but I would expect it out of some of the people who are voting for this bill. I think the Hon Peter Dunne needs to take some ownership of this matter, because Peter Dunne said in October last year—this is what he said—when he was talking about all of the things about asset sales that pained him: “Thirdly, and one that I feel particularly deeply about, is water.”—this is Peter Dunne—“I do not intend to wait until it is on the asset sales agenda. I do not believe New Zealanders would ever—or should ever—accept a sell-off of the supply of the water, or any of the aspects around it.” So if Peter Dunne believes that—that he does not want to see the sell-off of the supply of water or any aspects around it—he should be supporting my Supplementary Order Paper to say that—

💬 Sue Moroney: He will be.

I think he will. I think he will support my Supplementary Order Paper, because he is bound to. He is bound to see Supplementary Order Paper 59 and say: “I stood by the words that I said in October 2011, that water should not be privatised.” And that is effectively what is happening here. Water is being privatised by stealth through the sale of these assets.

Peter Dunne should come down to this Chamber and say: “Yes, I am standing by what I said in October 2011. I am actually going to do that. I am actually going to say: ‘I’m not going to let these asset sales go through.’ ”, because they compromise the fundamental things that he has said New Zealanders believe, which is that water is something that belongs to all of us and that its privatisation will fundamentally undermine these assets. It will also fundamentally undermine the principle that New Zealanders believe in about access to water resources. I challenge Peter Dunne. I do not expect the National members to support this, because I know that the privatisation of water is on their agenda, but I do expect Peter Dunne to come down to this Chamber and say that he would like to support this.

The other matter I want to mention in clause 16 is new section 45Q around the Treaty issues. I want to pick up the words that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises used just before. [Bell rung] Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and my colleagues, I am sure, will have a lot to say on this clause when I finish in a few minutes. When Tony Ryall was speaking on new section 45Q, he said that the reason that the new Treaty clause applies to only the Crown and not other shareholders is that it applied to only the Crown in the State-Owned Enterprises Act. Well, the reason it applied to only the Crown in the State-Owned Enterprises Act is that the Crown was the only owner of the shares. So it is a ridiculous argument to make to say that it is a simple transfer of the rights and obligations of the Crown into this new bill. That is a ridiculous proposition. It is a ridiculous proposition to say that only some of the owners of these assets now have obligations under the Treaty.

I want to refer Government members to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which this National Government signed itself up to. I want to read from the preamble of that. This is what it says: “The Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) is the underlying foundation of the Crown-iwi/hapū relationship with regard to freshwater resources. Addressing tāngata whenua values and interests across all of the well-beings, and including the involvement of iwi and hapū in the overall management of fresh water, are key to meeting obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” This Government has recognised that issues to do with water are critical to the relationship with Māori. It has recognised that. But here we are standing in a debate where we have got a Treaty clause that applies to only part of these assets. It applies to only the Crown’s aspects of these assets now.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Half the water.

Exactly, Mr O’Rourke—half the water. It is only 49 percent of the water. How is the Government going to do that?

💬 Hon Member: Which half?

Which half? Is it the half that is in Mr Foss’ glass here? I do not know. We do not know, because this clause now applies to only the Crown.

There is no doubt that the Government has tied itself in knots with new section 45Q in this bill. It did not know what to do, the Māori Party was looking for a way out, and so it went with a ridiculous premise that because under the State-Owned Enterprises Act it applied to only the Crown, it could apply to only the Crown now. It applied to the Crown under the State-Owned Enterprises Act because the Crown was the owner of those assets. It should apply across the board, and Mr Mallard has an amendment in his name to make sure that those principles apply across the board.

If the National Government has any faith whatsoever in this National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, it will adopt Mr Mallard’s amendment and actually make a sensible Treaty clause here that applies right across the companies. It is a ridiculous proposition to try to say it applies to only the Crown. It is a ridiculous proposition to put forward a bill that transfers water rights away from New Zealanders, and that effectively begins the privatisation of water. That is something that is definitely on the National Government’s agenda, but it should not be done by stealth. The Government should be upfront about this, and if it is not, it should support my amendment to this clause.

I seek leave that a 30-minute allocation be provided in the next call so that the Hon Peter Dunne, who has not spoken in this debate, can participate.

No, no. The member cannot seek leave for someone else.

Mr Chair, I apologise for deviating yesterday, but can I say that I was about to give the Government a historical summary of how great this country has become. In relation to reconciliation, over generations we have worked hard with those Pākehās who came along, a lot of their tīpuna and mine—the Rutherfords and the Buntings—and took the Māori land. We flash forward and we listen to this prattle by Mr Ryall trying to ensure that Fly Buys cards and being better off by $12 is something that is important.

Let me tell you this, and mark my words: this is one of the worst days for Māoridom in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. The Government has undermined it. How on earth can you split between 51 percent and 49 percent and say that the Treaty is relevant here and it is not relevant there? This is exactly why Sir Graham Latimer went to London—because the Government was trying to flog off the assets before the settlements were done. There are seven settlements at the moment that rely on, and are relevant to, geothermal energy supply and water resources. How come all of a sudden it becomes an edict of this Government to decide that those resources are stripped out of a process that is legislated for in this country—the Treaty process? It is shocking and Government members should hang their heads in shame.

It is noticeable that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has not been involved in this discussion, because he does not like it. I know he does not like it. He knows it is treacherous, he knows it is traitorous, and he knows that it is about undercutting the good work done by successive generations in this country, both Māori and Pākehā. It is gutless. It is demeaning to the rights of the Treaty. The Māori Party has not shown up, and thank goodness it saw sense at the end and created one of the closest voting margins in this Chamber: 61 to 60. And you are saying you have got the support of the people? Ninety-eight percent of the submissions on this matter said no. They said n-o. Craig Foss knows that. He knows, living in Tukituki, that Kahungunu are still trying to etch together their Treaty claim. He knows it is relevant to water and the Mōhaka River. He knows full well that this Government is trying to pull a swiftie to ensure that the water right is diminished. This is unbelievable. To sell it on and to say that this is for mums and dads of this country—well, there will not be many Māori mums and dads buying these shares and getting a kick out of it, like the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Tony Ryall, has suggested.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about their KiwiSaver accounts?

KiwiSaver, which we had the common sense and the foresight to start, is something that will benefit our people, but where does this benefit the people of this nation in flogging off the assets that they already own? Guess what! I own a Ford car, but I will sell it to somebody else, and I will still own it. What a load of rubbish! What a load of rubbish!

What you have opened up in undermining the Treaty settlement process is that anything that becomes involved with foreign ownership or investment now is not relevant or does not have any standing in relation to the Treaty settlement legislation in the country, which is kosher. Trevor Mallard’s amendments and Grant Robertson’s amendments are very, very important—very, very important. I am overwhelmed with the support of the members of our party in relation to this Treaty of Waitangi clause.

Go to Tūwharetoa. What did Tūwharetoa do for this country? They gifted to the nation the reserves. They gave them to it. They gifted them to this nation as a sign of goodwill in relation to nationhood and partnership. And this gutless lot over there—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!

—this nonsensical lot, who are culturalists, are undermining it.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: No one can accuse this member of being gutless.

Maurice Williamson is one of the ones who really know the truth about this. He was the one who agreed about broadband and those things being allocated to Māori. That was Maurice. He understood that bandwidth was important to Māoridom. But to exaggerate that the water and that is nothing is a rip-off.

I want to begin, first of all, by setting out what National’s legacy is going to be as a result of the passage of this Mixed Ownership Model Bill, if, indeed, it does pass. In fact, there will be five legacies.

First of all, the glass will be empty when it comes to water rights for power generation in this country. Secondly, the cupboard will be bare when it comes to energy generation assets in this country. Thirdly, we will still be as deeply in debt at the end of this process as we were at the beginning. There is no doubt at all that this Government’s objective of achieving a surplus in 2014 is totally unrealistic. We will still have the debt at the end of that and it will be just about as much as we have now. That is the result of Government mismanagement, and it will not be saved by the sale of these assets.

Fourthly, we will have higher power prices for everybody in this country. Most people believe that. They believe it simply because that is what will happen when overseas purchasers get hold of the majority of the shares in these companies, as they will eventually—as they will eventually. And they will do that because they know that the ownership of these companies, and the control of these companies, is almost a licence to print money simply because of the degree of dominance these companies have in the New Zealand energy market.

Fifthly, of course, for the same reasons I have just outlined, we will have compromised New Zealand’s economic sovereignty. That is what most people think is a complete disgrace, and that is the main reason for most of the objections.

I also want to reply to Bill English, who made a speech earlier today. He goaded Labour about not making a commitment to buy back these shares. I would also like Labour to commit to a buy-back of these shares, and I would like to hear from the Greens as well on that issue, because New Zealand First has made that commitment and has made it unequivocally. But, in return, I also want to challenge Mr English and National to also commit to, and agree to, a clause in this bill empowering shareholding Ministers to buy back these shares and at no more than the price that was originally paid for them when they were sold by the Crown. I challenge Mr English and National to do that. If Mr English thinks it was smart to goad the other parties, let him put his actions where his words were and commit to exactly the same thing, because, as I have said, New Zealand First has made that commitment unequivocally and I want to hear that from all of the other parties, as well.

It makes sense. It makes sense to commit to buy back these shares, simply because these shares are such a good investment. That is why they will be popular in the market place. People know that they are worth buying, and New Zealand First does not deny that. New Zealand First understands that. That is why they should not be sold in the first place, and that is why New Zealand First will buy them back if it ever gets the chance to do so—and I think we will.

Another thing is this. Because of the dividend stream, including both ordinary and capital dividends, it makes no economic sense for these shares to be sold. In fact, they are profitable shares. They are worth more for their dividend stream than the cost of servicing loans if they were sold. It will be profitable and economically responsible to buy them back because over recent years the average return from these companies has been 16 percent or more. That is the truth, if you include both capital and ordinary dividends. That is the fact. That is exactly why we should be keeping them. At the same time, the cost of borrowing by the Government is usually less than 4 percent, so it makes absolutely no sense whatever to sell these shares.

In addition to that, of course, there is capital growth in these companies, as well. That should accrue to New Zealanders and not to some overseas purchaser of them.

So New Zealand First’s proposal in the amendment in the name of Winston Peters is to make it possible, at the option of the shareholding Ministers, to compulsorily buy back these shares—

It is always interesting to listen to New Zealand First. It is a party of great barefaced ability to say one thing and do the other. We have Winston Peters. This is the man who is recorded as saying, when he signed off the sale of Auckland Airport when he was Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer only a few years ago, that he was “very pleased with a most successful public sale—it is popular capitalism in action.” It is also the party where we had Mr Williams talking about how terrible these sales were, yet when he was North Shore mayor he was very happy to sell off the former council works depot for $11.4 million. Is that not amazing? So it is one thing when the Government does it; it is a different thing when those members are in power.

This Mixed Ownership Model Bill—we are on Part 2—is about controlling our destiny. It is about keeping the total amount of Government debt under control in a dangerous global environment. It seems ironic to me that we have heard a lot from the other side about the fear of foreigners—“Aren’t they terrible!”. That is what is behind Supplementary Order Paper 51—a lot of anti-foreigner rhetoric. This puzzles me, because any clear assessment would say that the fastest way to have this country lose its independence of action is to have too much international debt at this time. This Government is proposing to sell minority stakes in these companies—we expect mainly, though not exclusively—to New Zealand investors. In doing so, we reduce our need to borrow more on the international market, and that is a good thing. If Labour and the Greens have the courage of their convictions, they will commit here, right now, today, to buy back these companies—to go out to the international markets, borrow the money, and buy them back. They will not, because they know that it is a crazy thing to do.

It is often forgotten that by introducing a share of private sector investment—49 percent as outlined in section 45R, in clause 16—this bill will strengthen the companies involved by bringing to those companies private sector scrutiny and governance. Some people would say that is ideological. It is no more ideological than the assumption we have heard expressed relentlessly that State-owned enterprises are somehow better than private sector companies. I have seen no evidence for it, and no evidence for Mr Parker’s claim yesterday that State-owned enterprises have a lower cost structure than those in the private sector. Where is the evidence to show that? Any awareness of New Zealand history shows that State-owned enterprises—and trading enterprises back in the 1980s, such as forestry, telecoms, and the like—reveal that the State is not a good runner of business.

Let us have a listen to what Mr Lange said in 1996. What did Mr Lange say when he talked about the Government’s economic policies? He said: “We had enterprises”—this is the Government—“that were ludicrously overstaffed, horribly overcapitalised, just embarrassments because they used social services that they provided as a shield against investigation into their wastefulness and inefficiency.” That is what David Lange said about the Government’s trading enterprises in the 1980s—“ludicrously overstaffed, horribly overcapitalised, just embarrassments”. Today’s State-owned enterprises are infinitely better than that, but there is certainly no evidence to suppose, as the Greens and Labour blindingly and ideologically believe, that State enterprise is more efficient than private enterprise. So it is time you moved on with the times.

When we look at the electricity market today, the Consumer Powerswitch site, as we have heard, shows that in 14 out of the 21 regions in New Zealand today the cheapest company is privately owned. What those members do not understand is that if a company is always more expensive than the opposition, it goes out of business. That is how market capitalism works. We can legislate all we like for social responsibility and other things such as what Supplementary Order Paper 61 talks about, but a company will be successful for its shareholders only if it serves its customers well. That is how it works. And to do that, it needs to be as efficient as possible and it needs to look after its staff, and if it does not, some other company will take over. That is how capitalism works. It is bizarre to hear members opposite spitting out the word “profit” as if it were a dirty word. Well, profit is the basis of the market economy. The food, the clothing, the cars, the books, the TVs, the iPods—all the things that we desire—are provided by companies not as a response to some clause on social responsibility but because they want to provide a service and make a well-earned profit. It works well. It is the most natural thing in the world.

So the relevant question is whether the infusion of this private sector thinking and capital—a minority infusion, as outlined in this bill—will be beneficial for these companies. I believe that it will. On that basis, I think Part 2 is excellent legislation and I am looking forward to it going further.

Kia ora mai anō rā tātou. Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kia ora tātou katoa. Do you know what is so sad about looking across the other side of the Chamber and hearing people talking about the Treaty clause—section 45Q in clause 16? Not one of the Māori MPs from National has even bothered to speak in defence of this Treaty clause. Not one of them. Tau Henare has not spoken in favour of the Treaty clause. He has not got up to speak on it at all. You can normally not shut the man up, but do you think he is going to come here and defend National’s Treaty clause? No way, Jose. Hekia Parata—has she stood up to defend National’s Treaty clause?

💬 Hon Members: No!

Paula Bennett—has she stood up to defend National’s Treaty clause?

💬 Hon Members: No!

Mike Sabin—has he stood up to defend National’s Treaty clause?

💬 Hon Members: No!

Simon Bridges—has he stood up to defend National’s Treaty clause?

💬 Hon Members: No!

And what about your buddies in the Māori Party? Tariana Turia—has she stood up to defend National’s Treaty clause?

💬 Hon Members: No!

Pita Sharples—has he stood up to defend National’s Treaty clause?

💬 Hon Members: No!

Te Ururoa Flavell—has he stood up to defend National’s Treaty clause?

💬 Hon Members: No!

Do you know why? Because all of your Māori buddies think it sucks! The one electorate that always backed you guys has been Tūwharetoa. Georgina te Heuheu, come hell or high water, always backed National. What happens? She goes off for 5 minutes and you are kicking her tribe in the teeth. That tribe gave its water for the nation, for the benefit of the nation, and you guys have betrayed them. You are going to flog it off. You and your market capitalism.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Do not bring me into the debate.

My apologies, Mr Chairman.

💬 Hon Member: They’re going to flog it off.

They are going to flog it off. Market capitalism has nothing at all to do with the Treaty. This is embarrassing. When, of course, they say that they have been out and had their consultation, come on, who is the iwi leader that has come out in support of this? Nobody! Nobody supports this.

This Treaty clause is a jack-up. You can see it when it says: “For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to persons other than the Crown.” And then the Crown takes the view that it is only going to be a majority shareholder in a private company. There are no Treaty obligations on the Crown in respect of this deal. I heard somebody speaking earlier about the Crown’s recognition of the Treaty as being cast in concrete when it comes to water. That is a wonderful statement. What happens? The New Zealand Māori Council says: “Right, let’s test that commitment. Let’s take it to the Waitangi Tribunal and see what the Māori interest is.” What does this Government do? It opposes the New Zealand Māori Council even getting a hearing. This ain’t got nothing to do with the National Party supporting Māori interests in water or recognising Māori interests in water or anything of the sort. It is about betraying that Māori interest in the water.

Mihi atu ki taku tuahine e nohonoho nei, ki a Nanaia.

[I acknowledge my sister colleague seated here, Nanaia.]

Waikato-Tainui seem to have got themselves a nice private deal, so congratulations to them. But if this is supposed to be for everybody, how come other Māori did not get it? And why did Tainui get it and Tūwharetoa get a kick in the teeth? This is a sad piece of legislation. This has nothing at all to do with recognising the rights of Māori or recognising the rights of the Treaty. I want to say that Mana opposes this Mixed Ownership Model Bill in its entirety today, tomorrow, and ever after. Kia ora tātou.

This is just typical of this Government: to say one thing and do another, to get up here and make soothing noises to reassure us about the Mixed Ownership Model Bill and say everything will be all right, and then do another thing. Deceit—that is what it is all about. Deceit.

My colleague Phil Goff in the Committee last night talked about the deceit of this Government, and I want to give this Government a history lesson of its own tonight about downright deceit. It has already practised it on previous legislation, and it is going to practise it on this piece of legislation. I am referring to “Mr Smooth”, the previous Minister in the chair, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, who got up and reassured the Committee tonight about the 10 percent cap on shares, and that serious, terrible sanctions are going to be applied if anyone breaches them. In effect, they are being set up to breach them, and if they do breach them, they will get away with it. If they do not get away with it, the Government will provide a waiver, which is what it has done in previous legislation.

I want to speak tonight to Supplementary Order Paper 50, in my name, which would amend Part 2. I also want to show that you just cannot trust this Government. But before I do, I would just like to point out that today Otago residents are feeling the impact of electricity price rises as the winter temperatures plummet. Today, yesterday, the day before, and for at least a couple of weeks now there have been freezing temperatures in Otago. It has been estimated that an average-sized household could face increases of $58—at least $58—for the period from June to August, taking the price for those 3 months to $779 for an average household. That is a very conservative estimate, because so many households in Otago face costs of around $400 to $450 a month for their electricity bill. Any price rise on top of that will make things difficult. And this is before the sale of the assets. As we have heard, post the sales the average charges are going to increase. They are going to increase, and people simply cannot afford it. Those kinds of price rises and those kinds of costs on the average family are just simply not sustainable, and, as every member in this Committee knows, as every resident in Otago knows, and as every household in this country knows, the price of electricity is going to go up following the sale of these energy companies.

I am speaking to clause 16 in Part 2. Section 45T in clause 16 addresses the effect of exceeding a 10 percent limit on shares in the sold-off energy companies. It sets out the effect of a person exceeding the 10 percent cap. We have heard that the person who breaches the cap will have to comply with any written notice from the company to ensure that that 10 percent limit is not exceeded, that they will have to remedy it within 60 days, and that they may have their voting rights and their shares taken away should they exceed it. Such terrible sanctions they are! But where is the compliance on this? Where are the teeth? This is a toothless piece of legislation. It is a joke. It is cloud-cuckoo-land. There is no serious penalty in this legislation.

This time last year this House was debating a piece of legislation. It was the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It was a serious piece of legislation. In that legislation there were significant financial penalties. The Labour Party, at the time, argued that those financial penalties did not go far enough. We did manage to get them increased from $5 million up to $10 million per breach of the law, and we had to argue pretty strongly for that. But that was $10 million—$10 million—for a breach of that legislation by Telecom, essentially, because the legislation enabled Telecom to be handed $1 billion, more or less, to roll out ultra-fast broadband. But if Telecom breached the key provisions in the legislation it was going to be handed down a $10 million penalty.

Supplementary Order Paper 50, in my name, requires that there be a $1 million fine—one-tenth of $10 million—if the 10 percent cap is exceeded. One million dollars. I do not think that is unreasonable. Do other members of the Committee think that is unreasonable? It is not unreasonable compared with another piece of legislation that was essentially around another important policy that this Government was pushing out. The fine was $10 million for breaching it. So a $1 million penalty is not unreasonable. If you do not have a financial sanction, you do not have a sanction that is going to dissuade people from breaking it. So that is one point I would like to make.

The second point is that this Government cannot be trusted to follow through on this part of the bill, around the 10 percent cap, and I would like to tell you why. In early May just this year the Associate Minister of Finance Steven Joyce defended the Crown’s decision to waive the 10 percent Kiwi share restriction for AMP Capital Investors following the Australian-owned company’s decision to lift its stake in Telecom’s spin-off, Chorus, to 15 percent. This was to 15 percent from the 10 percent cap that was on the Kiwi share. I challenge the Minister in the chair tonight, the Minister for Building and Construction, to get up and tell us that he will give a guarantee on behalf of his Government that there will be no waivers for the AMPs of the world that come to the Government and put up a good case to lift their 10 percent stake.

I think Mr Goff in the Chamber last night demonstrated how easy it would be for four or five foreign-owned companies to take that 49 percent. Only one of them would have to come to the Government and put up a case for putting a waiver out so that the company could buy some of those shares from the mums and dads and lift its share to 15 percent. So I challenge this Government to give a guarantee, because Steven Joyce in this Chamber, this time last year, gave this House a guarantee that there would be no breach of the Kiwi share—there would be no breach of the Kiwi share. And what did he do? In May this year it was breached, and it went to 15 percent. So how can we, and how can the public of New Zealand, be reassured that that will not happen with the Mixed Ownership Model Bill and with the sale of our assets? How can we be reassured that the so-called mum and dad shares that are bought up cannot be bought by a company outside of this country, or even inside of this country, and that a special case cannot be made to the Government whereby the company can actually lift its holding to 15 percent? As I said, I challenge the Minister in the chair tonight to get up and give us a guarantee, because we have seen it happen under previous legislation, and I suspect we will see it happen under this legislation.

Labour argued, and we have put up Supplementary Order Paper 49, in Clayton Cosgrove’s name, to keep that cap at 1 percent. That would be a much more sensible thing to do. That would provide much more reassurance for the people of New Zealand that this Government is serious about not allowing outside interests to gain more of a foothold, and about allowing and encouraging the so-called mum and dad investors to actually buy those shares. This Government appears not to be listening to that. When we argued for a 5 percent cap in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Government members certainly did not listen. So we know that it looks as if it is going to be 10 percent, and it could be 15 percent, and if it is 15 percent, then we are going to see outside companies gaining more and more of a foothold in our energy assets.

I would like to talk about Part 2, and this is my first chance to go on the record. I am really pleased to have this opportunity—

💬 Hone Harawira: No testosterone now.

No, I will get in touch with my feminine side, for the benefit of the Committee, and speak in a delicate tone. My question is: do Part 2 and the bill give all our citizens more power to ensure our collective future? No, they do not. Does the bill give everyone a sense of honouring our parents’ efforts to create assets? No, it does not. Does the bill give us confidence that our power bills will be safe? Not at all. Also, does the bill honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi? No, it does not. I would like to agree with the speech of Hone Harawira about the attack on te Tiriti in this bill.

Let us look at new section 45Q, in clause 16, “The Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”. I find subsection (2) very interesting: “For the avoidance of doubt,”. So just in case anybody thought this nation was actually serious about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, just in case we actually thought we meant it, just in case all these MPs who trot off to Waitangi every year pretending to honour te Tiriti, just in case we thought that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was actually a serious issue for this Parliament, just in case the Government said it was fine to raise the tino rangatiratanga flag, because it meant something—let us test that, just in case. And what it comes down to is section 45Q(2): “For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to persons other than the Crown.” If that is not a betrayal of te Tiriti, I do not know what is. It happened before when the assets were sold, and it is happening again. Some of us—me in particular—are getting older. We remember what happened in the 1980s. We have not forgotten Roger Douglas. He is much missed in this House by some but not by me. What we are finding is a repeat of history that is very, very disappointing for the New Zealand public.

What I want to talk about is Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which is an obligation of Pākehā and tauiwi katoa, not just of Māori. So it is not just the Māori MPs who should be standing up and saying “Shame on this bill!”; it is the Pākehā MPs, because we are the beneficiaries of te Tiriti, and we have an obligation to stand up for it being implemented in full, not ripped off by this legislation.

But let us get on to the favourite expression: “mum and dad”. If we were in the 21st century—which this bill definitely is not; it is a repeat of the 1980s and 1990s—we would not be talking about mum and dad. We might be talking about mum and mum or dad and dad. We might be talking about mum as a solo parent. We might be talking whānau, whanaunga, or hapū. We might be talking about aiga, because we no longer live in the nuclear family, people. We live in a vastly diverse world, where families who will not be buying these shares because they cannot afford them are actually facing real challenges.

What this bill highlights is the ideological divide between people who think that we are shareholders who want to have dividends and profit, and people who think we are citizens who believe we belong to a nation. So which one do we favour? Obviously the Greens stand for the concept of citizenship. We stand for the idea that buying shares and making a profit as individuals is less important than the actual collective well-being and the ability to plan based on assets owned by us that we do not want to give away. It is very interesting, this whole mum and dad kaupapa.

I went out on the streets and I have met some fantastic people on the streets of Aotearoa in the last few weeks and months. It has been really awesome, and some of them are mums and dads, some of them are mums and mums, and some of them are grandparents. All of them are lining up to sign the petition because they do not believe a word of this bill. They are not convinced by a word of this, and, what is more, they are insulted by the idea that we have amnesia, that we cannot remember what happened, that we have forgotten that we had to buy back the railways, that we have forgotten that we can actually have schools and hospitals without selling our assets, and that nobody, if they are a decent budgeter, sells the roof of the house while they are in hard times. They keep the house, then they build upon it, and they make sure they stay dry in the interim. Instead, we are going to sell off these things. Once they are gone, they are gone, and then who gets to buy them back? The taxpayer, as usual. The mums and dads, dads and mums, and grandparents on the streets of Aotearoa did not say: “Oh, I wish I could buy a share. Oh, I am so excited.” They said: “What is it going to do to my power bill?”, and “How dare these people do this in our name?”, and “How dare they say they know how to run an economy in our name, because this is just a joke.”

I want to tell the story of one particular mother, because I think the human story is important. This week I got a letter from Christchurch, and it was from a sole parent. She is an unusual sole parent. She has a son in his 30s, and he is an intellectually disabled and often violent young man, cared for by his mother at home. She said to me, with regard to power increases: “We have no oven, we have no fridge, we have no phone, and I can’t pay the power bill now.” I do not know how I am going to look this person in the eye and say: “Well, I was part of a Parliament that sold off the assets so that your power bill will go up.” She, already, is not surviving. I wonder whether this Committee can try to imagine what it is like to be a mother who is raising a child who will not grow up and is potentially violent, and who is cold, and who has no oven or fridge or phone, in this winter, and we are selling her assets, not because she asked us to but because that is what the Government has decided is its way out of paying for tax cuts for the wealthy, which is something this woman will never be. What is more, she will never be buying a share. She does not have a share in your vision of the world. Her share as a citizen is through the Government owning assets that are going to provide a health and education system that should support her. I am ashamed to see the struggle that she lives in on a daily basis, and now we are going to make it worse. That is actually one of the most powerful reasons for standing up against this bill—it is the human reality. Te Tiriti reality, the human reality, is that the Parliament does not have the right to destroy something that has been given to us to talk about, and that belongs to the citizens of Aotearoa.

I will say that these emperors are naked, and it is not a pretty sight. I believe that many people in Aotearoa can see that you are naked, and it is certainly not something that they are enjoying seeing, because that nakedness is the nakedness of an ideology that has failed in the past and will fail again. Basically, those people on the streets of Tauranga, of Hauraki, and of Christchurch are signing the petition and lining up to sign it—[Interruption] Thank goodness Maurice Williamson, the Minister in the chair, is not naked. Those people are actually doing a fantastic job of expressing their view, but unfortunately they are not being listened to. Of course, the National members will not take calls on this. Of course they will not, because as a flagship policy they are not prepared to defend it, they do not know how to defend it, and they do not even think they have to defend it. But the day will come—the day of reckoning. As a Cassandra on the walls of Troy, I tell you now that the day will come. It does not take a prophetess to tell you the consequences of not listening to people. So as a Cassandra I am saying to you that there are people out there watching the Government and listening to the Government’s extremely thin rhetoric on Part 2. We need to stand up now with those people and support the ownership of our assets. It is a pretty fundamental thing that this country should have something that belongs to all people, not just shares that belong to people who can afford to buy them.

Maybe I am mixing with the wrong crowd. Maybe I should make sure I mix only with the private school crowd, or maybe I should just stop going out on the street and talking to people, but actually there are many citizens from every level of the economy who understand how to manage a budget, and what they are seeing is that this Budget is not being managed properly. If you have to sell the roof off the house, you have actually got nothing.

I applaud all the people who have made the very complex technical analysis of this bill. I think Russel Norman has done a great job on economics. I heard a really good speech yesterday by Charles Chauvel. I have heard speeches by many people who have covered ground that I do not want to cover. But as a person working at a grassroots community level, and as a woman who has been a community worker and advocate for beneficiaries, I am really ashamed that this ridiculous façade is going on in this Chamber. This debacle is going on and the Government is not even trying to defend it. I can understand why it is not, because there is really nothing to say, except: “We want to sell the assets.” The idea that the Mixed Ownership Model Bill is somehow different from selling 100 percent of the assets is all about smoke and mirrors, and it is all about naked emperors. So for goodness’ sake, naked emperors, go and have a look in the mirror. It will not be a pretty sight, but you might learn something. Behind your shoulder you will see the people of this country lining up—they are lining up—to tell you that we do not want to sell our assets, and that the 49 percent is just a façade that will never work.

I am very happy to take a call on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. Specifically, I want to talk to clause 16 and address some of the rhetoric we have heard in this Chamber over the last couple of days, and the sanctimony we have been hearing—that it is OK to sell assets because someone else has done it before. I do not even want to get started about where that logic could take us. It pretty much leaves it wide open. Anybody could do anything, because everything has been done before.

What we are hearing is the sanctimony from members opposite that somehow what they are doing is offering protection, and that our assets will not all be sold. But the bit that I love the most—the kernel I love the most—in this sanctimony that has been flowing from the other side is: “It is OK for us to sell them because we told people first.” Somehow it is OK, because they went out and told people. Well, do you know what? Going out and telling someone you are going to do them over, and then doing it, does not make it any better. Selling assets is wrong, always has been, always will be, and it does not matter what you tell them.

💬 Maggie Barry: You’ve got amnesia.

I have no amnesia, “Queen Margaret”. I will tell you about growing up on the streets of Sydenham in the 1980s, and the fact that asset sales are very much part of my political whakapapa.

Let us have a look at the protections—the so-called protections—that have been put in place under clause 16. What we have is a Government that is running scared. What it has said is that it is going to protect these assets because we are going to retain 51 percent ownership of them, and it has put these protections around them.

Let us think about the technicalities of these protections. It is 51 percent of voting shares. This offers no protection against asset stripping. What will still be allowed is the fact that the assets of the companies can be sold. If members opposite want to traverse the history of asset sales in this country, I am more than happy to oblige and have a discussion about what National did in the 1990s, have a look at what asset stripping did to some of this nation’s assets, and talk about the shame that members opposite should feel. They should hardly sit there with the sanctimony and the crowing that we are hearing. Let us have a look at this much-lauded clause 16 about the restriction on the reduction of the Crown’s holdings.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is the member going to buy them back? No.

We do not want to sell them. That is what we are doing here. What we have is a clause that prohibits a shareholding Minister from disposing of shares in the Minister’s name, or permitting the issue or allotment of shares or securities in a mixed-ownership model company if doing so would result in the Crown owning less than 51 percent. But, ladies and gentlemen, this does nothing to protect the very assets that those companies hold.

Once a mixed-ownership model company has had its shares sold to private investors, the assets of that company are very much at risk. Pressure can be put on the company to sell the assets to meet the obligation to return a profit. The assets that these companies own are not guaranteed from being flogged off. It is disingenuous of members opposite to sit here and say that New Zealanders are going to retain a majority shareholding in these companies, because it is simply not true. The dams can be sold. The assets of all of our power companies that are being put on the block by members opposite are very much at risk, because the bill that this Government has brought to this House offers absolutely no protection against asset stripping.

We know, bitterly, from history that members opposite belong to a party that will do nothing to protect against asset stripping. They have shown it once, and they will show it again. When Treasury officials came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee to talk about this, they confirmed to the members of that select committee that there was no mechanism in this bill to prevent asset stripping. Likewise, Solid Energy, one of the companies on the block, confirmed that under this legislation before the House privatisation would allow it to sell subsidiaries under partial privatisation.

So I have an amendment that addresses this. I have an amendment to provide that companies cannot sell off individual assets, like dams and wind farms, to private companies in order to asset strip or defeat the purpose of the 51 percent ownership clause. Instead, a mixed-ownership model company would be required to publicly notify that it intends to sell an asset, and then must wait for the sale to be approved by the Governor-General by Order in Council. If members opposite really do not want to make a raid on the assets of this country, they will vote in favour of this amendment. There is no reason not to—not unless they are lining up to absolutely wholesale flog off the assets.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Say something new.

OK, Mr Brownlee, I will say something new. I am going to talk about Tranz Rail. I am going to talk about Tranz Rail and “back to the future”. I am going to look at the shameless asset stripping that happened when National was last in Government, in 1993, when the Bolger Government sold Tranz Rail far too cheaply to a consortium of Wisconsin Central Transportation, Berkshire Partners, and Fay Richwhite. This was privatised—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Talk about the bill.

I am talking about the bill. I am talking about an amendment that will prevent that from happening again. If you do not want to flog off the assets, you should vote for it, Mr Brownlee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Sorry; they should vote for it. So what happened? The assets of Tranz Rail were sold off, because there was no mechanism to prevent it, just as there is no mechanism in this present bill to prevent the sale of assets belonging to the 51 percent - owned company. There is no mechanism in here. It has been confirmed by Treasury officials at the select committee that that mechanism is not present in the bill. The amendment I am putting forward would put such a mechanism in place and would protect the very assets that have been built up by generations of New Zealanders—the dams that New Zealanders have toiled away at, and did not build just for members opposite to flog off to the lowest bidder.

The reason why the pressure will be put on these companies to sell these assets is to return a profit. These are companies that are now going to be covered off by the Companies Act, not the State-Owned Enterprises Act. They are compelled to operate with one purpose, and that is to return a profit to the shareholders. So there need to be these mechanisms to protect against that in this bill, and that is what this amendment is giving.

What this bill is doing is nothing short of looting. It is a raid on the assets of hard-working New Zealanders who have built these up over generations. We have seen what members opposite and the party opposite did in the dark days of asset sales. We have seen the state that Tranz Rail was in. We have seen the investment that needed to be put in to build it back up. There is nothing that they will do to stop the asset stripping that will happen there.

The profits of Tranz Rail dropped dramatically from 1999 to 2000. What had to happen when the Clark Labour Government came to bring it back was there had to be a huge infrastructural investment, because there was no ability for Tranz Rail to invest in that company. So if members opposite really do believe in a 51 percent stake for New Zealanders, if members opposite really do believe that, and it is more than empty rhetoric, and they are not just planning an ideological raid on our assets, they will vote for this amendment and they will put in place the mechanism that will stop the asset stripping. They will put in place the mechanism that will allow New Zealanders to, at the very least, retain a 51 percent shareholding. You should not be selling them at all, but if you are going to sell them, then you should, at the very least, protect against that.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. Let us look at five facts. First, the five energy-generating State-owned enterprises raised $868 million in dividends last year. That is a return of 16.2 percent in the last 10 years, and by comparison the Government could borrow at a rate of 3.66 percent per annum. The Government has said that the proceeds from the asset sales will go towards investing in new infrastructure. We heard that today. Well, despite this, the Government plans to spend $150 million from the Future Investment Fund on doing up New Zealand House in London.

There is also a loophole in this legislation that means that the Government can sell more than 49 percent of these shares in these State-owned enterprises, given that the 10 percent and 51 percent restrictions should be calculated on the basis of voting rights, rather than the total percentage of all securities. Growing rates of poverty show that the mum and dad investors are having a hard enough time putting food on the table, let alone investing in companies that they already own.

Earlier today we heard some members from that side of the Chamber speaking about how Winston Peters had sold Auckland International Airport shares. Let us bring a little bit of honesty to that argument. First of all, New Zealand First was in coalition with the National Government. It was a National Government idea to sell those Auckland International Airport shares. National was going to sell them to anybody, but New Zealand First put in there—and Winston Peters made sure that there was—a clause that those shares went only to New Zealanders. After doing that, the Rt Hon Winston Peters reflected and realised it was wrong, and said so at the time. Mr Brownlee would remember that.

What happened when that Government over there tried to sell Wellington International Airport? A man of infinite character, honesty, and integrity, who was Deputy Prime Minister, said: “No. I will have nothing to do with selling these Wellington Airport shares.”, and walked. That was the coalition gone. It is too bad that the Hon Tau Henare is not here. If he is watching TV, if he could get out of his barber’s chair—I apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

I apologise for that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I know you are apologising. I know what you are apologising for. There have been too many references to members who are not present, and we must make sure we do not comment on the absence of members from the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr Chair. [Interruption] It is very hard for those members over there to learn anything with their lips flapping. Perhaps if the Hon Gerry Brownlee would stop his lips flapping, then he would be doing a bit more for the people of Christchurch, because he would hear what is really happening there. But as I was saying—before I was rudely interrupted—there is a man, Winston Peters, who left the deputy leadership on principle. Now there is an opportunity for those members over there to walk across the floor, because they know that this is wrong for New Zealand. We have heard it before, in their unconvincing speeches.

Let us talk about the Hon Mr Dunne, who campaigned on the preciousness of our water. We heard about that earlier today. And yet here he is, trying to sell our water. One of the great things about New Zealand is our water.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can talk rubbish but you can’t tell lies.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Do not say that.

The reason why our water is so precious is because it carries the wairua of New Zealand.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Leader of the House—who is the Leader of the House, and should know better—used an unparliamentary term. I waited for a few moments to see whether you would admonish him. But I think you are very well aware that that term and accusation of a member cannot be used.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Speaker’s ruling 42/2 says that you cannot say the word “lie”. From now on in, I want to keep it seemly. It is a robust debate. I did warn the member that he could not say that, and I do not want to hear that again.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect—and thank you for your ruling—as I understand it, it is the normal practice if that word is used that the member withdraws and apologises, especially somebody as eminent and powerful as the Leader of the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is my view, and I make the decision. I have ruled that he will not do it again. I am asking Brendan Horan to complete his speech. That is the end of the matter.

This water contains the wairua of New Zealand. It is the blood and bones of our ancestors that has leached through the soil into the waterways. How could this Government sell our wairua—our soul? That is why the Māori members on that side of the Chamber are not standing up and giving convincing speeches.

Yesterday I drew your attention—and the media’s attention—to Genesis and the Genesis chair, Ms Shipley. Last year, just before the Budget, remember that Genesis purchased two power stations at Tekapō.

Thank you for the opportunity to put on record the opposition from the people of the Waikato to this bill, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. It may have escaped some people’s attention, but most of these resources that are being put up on the block actually come from the Waikato region. We have got dams up and down the Waikato River. We have got the Huntly power station. We have got the coalmines of the Huntly region. We have got the geothermal fields of the Wairākei area. So for the region that I come from, actually, it is a bit personal. It is a bit personal, because this bill disproportionately affects the Waikato region. None of those Waikato MPs for the Government have had the courage to put on record the opposition of the vast majority of people in the Waikato to having their State assets flogged off from underneath them.

For us in the Waikato, it is not just an issue of why this is so fundamentally wrong economically but also because this actually makes up our geography. These are many of the landmarks of our region. Yes, clause 16, I think, is the part that the Waikato people object to most strongly. This is the part—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Interjections should be related to the speech and not be cross-interjections that have got nothing to do with the debate. I want to hear what this speaker is saying. I ask you to tone it down.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I am talking about the vast majority of the people of the Waikato and why they oppose Part 2 of this bill, in particular. The thing that worries Waikato people the most is that many of our landmarks could be sold into foreign ownership. As I was saying, for the rest of the country this is economic madness, but for us in the Waikato this is actually deeply personal, because it is many of our families who actually built those dams. It is many of our families who built the Huntly power station. So it is about the sweat of our ancestors, who actually created these State assets, and, yes, we all own them. It is not that Government’s right to sell, from underneath the feet of the people of the Waikato, those assets into foreign ownership.

I do want to speak in favour of two Supplementary Order Papers being put forward, one in the name of Phil Goff and the other in the name of Kris Faafoi. Those two amendments to clause 16 in Part 2 of this bill actually would limit the ownership to New Zealand residents. They would do it in this way. Supplementary Order Paper 52 from Phil Goff would actually limit the ownership to New Zealand tax residents. I think that is only fair. That would give the people of the Waikato some comfort that our landmarks are not going to end up in majority foreign ownership. Then there is Supplementary Order Paper 51 from Kris Faafoi, which takes a slightly different approach.

💬 Kris Faafoi: That’s a very good amendment.

It is a very good amendment. The people of the Waikato would also gain comfort from this, because Kris Faafoi’s amendment would limit ownership to New Zealand passport holders. There, again, we would know that the Karapiro dam that we drive across, the Ātiamuri dam, and all of those dams up and down the Waikato actually would remain in New Zealand ownership, and I think that is deeply personal for the people of the Waikato.

I also want to talk about the lunacy of what this part does around the Treaty of Waitangi commitments. What are we going to do in the Waikato? The Waikato River—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Oh, yeah, that’s right. I remember the foreshore and seabed. Yeah, that’s right.

Well, Tau Henare might like to listen to this. The Waikato River is co-managed. It is co-managed between Tainui and Environment Waikato—a fantastic model. It was actually brought about by Labour, but good on the current Government for keeping it going. But here is the problem: what are we going to do about only 51 percent of the dams up and down the Waikato River having the Treaty of Waitangi obligations applying to them? What are we going to do? Are we going to say that when it comes to opening up the floodgates and putting water down the Waikato River from the Karapiro dam we are going to consult Māori, but if it is the Ātiamuri dam we are not going to consult Māori? Is that what it is going to mean?

I want members opposite—in fact, I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Maurice Williamson, to get up to explain exactly how this is going to shake down. If that State-owned enterprise is split and if only 51 percent of those dams have Treaty of Waitangi obligations attached to them and the other 49 percent do not, how, literally, are we going to manage that when it comes to the water resource management, when it comes to actually consulting Māori, and when it comes—

I move, That the question be now put.

Well, there you have it. National members do not like it. They do not like it, and they want to shut it down. They want to end the debate, because it is not going well for them. It is not going well for them because they know that New Zealanders do not support this piece of legislation, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. New Zealanders know that we inherited these assets from those who came before us, and this Government has no respect for that, whatsoever. It is ready to hock them off. Forget about future generations. Forget about leaving anything for them. Just sell it—just sell it. If it cannot cut it, it wants to sell it. That is what this Government is all about. Those members do not want to talk about it any more, so now they are trying to shut the debate down. It is no wonder they do not want to talk about it, because the Mixed Ownership Model Bill is riddled with holes.

I want to talk in particular about new section 3C, inserted by clause 15. This is an incredibly important section because it is a provision that under normal circumstances would never get through this House. It would never get through this House because this is what is known as a “Henry VIII” clause. It is a “Henry VIII” clause in the sense that it gives the Government, without reference to Parliament, the ability to change the law. It gives the Government by Order in Council the ability to change the law without reference to Parliament. We call it a “Henry VIII” clause because in the Proclamation by the Crown Act of 1539, Henry VIII effectively gave himself the power to do just that—to basically make laws by a proclamation and without any reference to Parliament. These days that is frowned upon. These days we think it is a good idea that where the law is going to be changed, the Parliament should debate and vote on that. This provision here gives the Government the ability to change this legislation, once it is passed, without coming back to the Parliament to have that approved. It is a constitutional outrage. It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

In fact, this Parliament has recommended against such clauses. The Regulations Review Committee in this Parliament was set up at least in part to prevent those types of mechanisms being put in place. Normally, the Regulations Review Committee would produce a recommendation against this. Of course, that may well have happened, had this bill not had a truncated select committee process. Had the Government not used its majority on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to report it back 5 weeks early, perhaps the Regulations Review Committee would have had a chance to do its job. It could have highlighted to the Government the fact that this provision is a “Henry VIII” provision, and it is not something that the Parliament should be passing.

This section, new section 3C, particularly subsection (2)(a) and (b), allows the Government by Order in Council to amend the Ombudsmen Act and the Income Tax Act without those amendments going to Parliament. That is absolutely outrageous. The Ombudsmen Act is actually quite an important part of our constitutional framework. It is not just a regular law; it is actually part of our constitutional framework, the Ombudsmen Act. It is a constitutional outrage. I have already said that. Listen up, listen up. This provision gives the Government, by Order in Council, the ability to amend the Ombudsmen Act 1975. Orders in Council without reference to Parliament are not designed to amend primary legislation. They are not designed to amend primary legislation.

Gerry Brownlee needs a lesson in how the New Zealand constitution works. It is very concerning to learn that the Leader of the House, the guy responsible for overseeing how Parliament works, does not understand that the Government should not change legislation without bringing those amendments to Parliament, debating them, and having them voted upon. Gerry Brownlee seems to think it is OK. Well, it is probably not surprising, because this is the guy who brought a bill to Parliament that basically made him the tsar of Christchurch, with the ability to change just about every law in the land without it having to come back to this Parliament. This provision is wrong and it should not be allowed to stand. In fact, I have a few amendments that I intend to table on this particular provision to allow us to examine that more fully.

I want to turn now to Supplementary Order Paper 64 in my name. It has been on the Table for some time, so members should have made themselves familiar with it. It is a very good Supplementary Order Paper. By way of background, first of all, under the recommendation of the select committee, if a vote has been passed by one of these new mixed-ownership model companies whilst somebody holds more than 10 percent of the shares, under this legislation being proposed by the Government if the company could mount a case that it was unaware that someone held more than 10 percent of the shares, then that resolution would continue to take effect. What my amendment does is that it does still allow that to happen, but for situations where a person breaches the 10 percent cap and where the vote was close and it would have made a material difference to the outcome if that person had not held the 10 percent, this amendment basically says that the resolution passed by the company should not stand. So it is a very important safeguard. I hope the Government will vote in favour of it.

It is in no way a frivolous amendment. In fact, it is quite an important amendment because it basically says that if someone knowingly goes out and buys more than 10 percent of the company to exercise more than 10 percent of the voting rights and then uses those voting rights so that some resolution is passed that would not have been passed had they not breached the 10 percent cap, that should not be allowed to stand, and this amendment guarantees that it would not be allowed to stand. So I hope the Government will vote in favour of this amendment, because it is a very sensible and practical amendment.

The two major issues that I have talked about are the “Henry VIII” provision, under section 3C in clause 15—I hope the Government will take that on board and support some of the amendments that I intend to put forward to that—and I hope it will support my Supplementary Order Paper 64, which will amend clause 16 with regard to the 10 percent voting rule, because I think those are very, very important.

Just one final thing. To talk a little bit more about section 3C, there is debate around whether or not the Government should able to declare these companies to be State-owned enterprises again if it decides not to sell them. In doing so, in saying that it is not going to sell them and is going to make them State-owned enterprises again—

💬 Hon Member: The flip-flop clause!

—the flip-flop clause; it is the back-out clause, because it knows it is on a hiding to nothing with this because the public just does not like it—this is the back-down clause—

💬 Hon Member: Hekia Parata clause.

—otherwise known as the Hekia Parata clause; that is right—it is designed to allow it to do that. If it decides to keep 100 percent of those companies, it can make them State-owned enterprises again and make them subject, without reference to Parliament, to the Ombudsmen Act, the Official Information Act, and so on. So the question is that if, by keeping 100 percent of them, the Government thinks it is acceptable to make them subject to the Ombudsmen Act, the Official Information Act, and so on, why would it not do that if it is going to retain 51 percent of them? What is different between owning 51 percent of the company and owning 100 percent of the company? Why would it be that with 100 percent ownership it should be under the Official Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act but under 51 percent ownership it should not be subject to those mechanisms? There is actually no justification for that. In fact, if the Crown is going to own a 51 percent stake in these companies, they should be subject to the Official Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act. They should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, as fully owned Crown companies are and State-owned enterprises are, because it is ultimately the taxpayer’s money that is involved in the shareholding here. It is taxpayers’ money, so they should be subject to that. Unfortunately, under this section 3C that the Government has put forward, the Government could make these companies that are becoming mixed-ownership model companies subject to those pieces of legislation only if it retained a 100 percent shareholding in them. If we take, for example, Air New Zealand, the Government does not own a 100 percent shareholding but it owns the vast majority of shares, because it was sold off and it collapsed, and the Government had to buy it back.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What Government did that?

It was the Labour Government that did that, Mr Cosgrove, and it was a very sensible decision by the Labour Government. Because of the failed privatisation of Air New Zealand, we were faced with a choice between having no national airline at all and the Government buying it back. So the then Labour Government decided that it should be purchased back because it was important that New Zealand had a national airline. The difference between that and this bill, of course, is that these things are bolted down. The hydro dams and the gas plants are bolted down. It would be a very, very difficult situation, if these companies collapsed, that the Government would find itself in. I strongly oppose this legislation.

I rise to speak on this bill before the Committee, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, which is the partial privatisation of the people’s assets by this National Government. I wish to speak to a few particular aspects of this bill, and I want to start with the amendment that the Government is moving around protecting—or apparently protecting—the 51 percent ownership limits. That is, it is moving an amendment so that the Government needs to maintain 51 percent not only of the voting shares but of all categories of shares.

On the one hand, this is a bit of a victory, in the sense that it is forcing the Government on to the back foot on this issue. Originally, what the Government wanted to do was maintain 51 percent of the voting shares only but then allow more of the non-voting shares to be sold off. It will not be able to do that any more, so that is progress. However, what it points to is one of the fundamental problems with this bill, which is about access to capital. Because these mixed-ownership model companies, which are established by Part 2, could originally, as the bill was, have accessed more capital by issuing non-voting shares, and the Crown would not necessarily have bought those non-voting shares—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

As I was saying before the break, I was discussing the Government’s amendment that would prevent the Government from selling more than 49 percent of all the share types, not just the voting shares, and the significance of that for the companies. What this means is that there is now fundamentally no difference in terms of access to capital between the mixed-ownership model companies and the State-owned enterprises. Previously, before this amendment came in, the mixed-ownership model companies had the ability to issue non-voting shares in order to raise capital, even if the proportion of non-voting shares in private owners went above 49 percent. That gave them a mechanism to raise capital via that method. Once this amendment goes through, assuming that it will, the mixed-ownership model companies will no longer have that access to that capital. In fact, they will totally require the Crown to buy 51 percent of all the shares that they issue, whether those shares are voting shares or non-voting shares, in order for the Crown to maintain its 51 percent ownership of all the shares—voting and non-voting.

There is no way that the Government is going to provide these electricity companies with half of all their new capital needs—it is just not going to do it. The Government has repeatedly said that it has no capital to spare, it does not want to provide capital to these companies, and it does not want to provide capital to any companies. So, from the point of view of the companies, their only option to raise capital will be through debt instruments—that is, they will issue bonds. They will not be able to issue new shares, because the Government will basically block it from happening. So their only way to get more capital is to issue bonds or debt instruments. That is exactly what they can do now. They do not need to be converted into mixed-ownership model companies in order to raise capital through issuing debt instruments. The only new opportunity that they are provided in order to raise capital, in becoming mixed-ownership model companies, is that they could issue new equity instruments. But because the Government will not be willing to fork over new capital to buy the necessary 51 percent of all the shares that these companies may issue, there is no way the Government will allow them to do that. It fundamentally undermines the basic rationale of the entire reason that the Government started down this path.

The next issue I want to talk about is the issue of appropriations. The Government has been floating in this House and elsewhere the idea that it will be issuing bonus shares, if you like. It is a loyalty programme. What this means is that if you purchase 15 shares and you keep them for a certain amount of time, then you will be given a bonus share, a 16th share, for free. The bonus share does not come for free from the point of view of the seller of the asset. From the point of view of the seller of the asset, they are basically giving away money. The Crown does not have the legal ability to give away money, without getting an appropriation from this Parliament. Under the Constitution Act—

💬 Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wish to apologise to the member for interrupting, but the Standing Orders very clearly say that interjections must be related to the debate. I find it highly disrespectful what is happening between the Minister and Clayton Cosgrove.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I do not think the member is a Minister; I think he is a member. But the point is well made that there should not be interjections going backwards and forwards.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my Green colleague and I apologise to you. I was assisting Mr Heatley with his addition.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order, and, let me just say, there will be no tolerance for that. If members are going to use points of order to make points that are not related to the debate or in regard to the order of the House, they may not be in the Chamber. Let us have some decorum.

The important point here is that the free shares that the Government will be issuing are essentially an expense on the Government account. They do not come for free. Someone has to pay for them, and the people who pay for them will be the Government itself. Under the Constitution Act, you simply cannot make expenses on the Crown account without parliamentary authority.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will take a call on Part 2 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. This bill is part of what the Government calls the rolling maul of economic initiatives. But today we have had the ANZ bank say that our economy is in the danger zone. I just want to use another line out of that famous early 1980s movie Top Gun, in terms of concerns in this bill that we have: “This is … a target-rich environment”, Part 2. It is a target-rich environment.

💬 Hon Member: Like a fish in a barrel.

It is. But I do want to look at one clause in particular, and that is section 45S, “10% limit on holdings by persons other than the Crown”, in clause 16. I will read it for the benefit of those who might be listening: “(1) No person (other than the Crown) may have a relevant interest in securities that confer more than 10% of the voting rights of a mixed ownership model company (the 10 percent limit).” This is the passing effort of the National Party to try to ensure that some—not all—of the 49 percent of the shares that it plans to sell in this share float stay in New Zealand.

I do need to—as the members across the Chamber have done ad nauseam during this debate—go back to some history. I will go back to 26 January 2011 when John Key gave a speech. There was a press release that came out with it, and a point in that press release said: “New Zealand investors would have to be at the front of the queue for shareholdings, and the Government would have to be confident of widespread and substantial New Zealand share ownership …”. These are the words, out of that press release, from John Key on 26 January 2011. As the press releases that come out of the ninth floor do on the odd occasion, it came with a Q and A. There were some other points that were made: “Will New Zealanders own the shares that are issued?”. Mr Key, in this press release, said: “New Zealand investors will be given first priority in any issues. There is substantial capacity between the KiwiSaver funds, other managed funds …” blah, blah, blah. The next question and answer are: “Will foreigners be able to buy shares? Majority government ownership means that control will always rest in New Zealand hands.” The press release says it will always rest in New Zealand hands. “If companies were listed on the NZX, then private New Zealand owners would be able to sell and foreign investors could buy. However, we expect that most New Zealand investors would be long term holders. This has been the experience of previous floats, such as Contact Energy. It is therefore likely that foreign ownership would be limited.”

Nowhere in this bill—nowhere in clause 16 of this bill—does it limit the size of foreign ownership. It might limit the size of a parcel of shares that you can hold to 10 percent, but nowhere in this bill—and I am looking at clause 16—does it put into effect any of the words that Mr John Key, the Prime Minister of this country, said in his press release on 26 January 2011.

So I want to have a look at a Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by our State-owned assets spokesperson, my colleague in front of me, Mr Clayton Cosgrove. It is Supplementary Order Paper 49, which would change section 45P(2) to—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: This is just silly.

Mr Bridges might want to listen because it would change the amount of ownership from 10 percent to 1 percent. I would urge members right around the Chamber to back Supplementary Order Paper 49 from Clayton Cosgrove to ensure that as many of these shares as possible—and let me make it clear that we do not want these shares sold at all—stay in New Zealand hands. I would expect the member for Tauranga to try to meet the needs of his constituents to make sure that these shares stay in New Zealanders’ hands.

There is another Supplementary Order Paper also, in my name.

💬 Darien Fenton: An excellent Supplementary Order Paper.

An excellent Supplementary Order Paper—thank you very much, Darien Fenton. It is Supplementary Order Paper 51, which would also look to amend clause 16 by inserting section 45Y, which is titled “Kiwis at front of queue”. My Supplementary Order Paper 51 would restrict the sale of the shares in these State-owned enterprises to people who hold a current New Zealand passport. I am trying to put into effect in this bill what the Prime Minister promised but has not actually delivered in this bill. As we heard before, the Prime Minister of this country said that the majority of the shares that will be floated would stay in New Zealand hands, but has not effected this in the legislation that is before us in Part 2. If we are looking at those who currently hold New Zealand passports, I can tell those at home that that would mean that 3,225,000 New Zealanders with passports at the moment would be eligible, and only eligible, to buy our shares in this share float. If you put that together with Mr Cosgrove’s Supplementary Order Paper, and the fact that the maximum amount of shareholding you can have is 1 percent, we would not concentrate a lot of the value of State-owned enterprises either overseas or with one individual holding too much power. I think, in tangent, those Supplementary Order Papers and a number of other Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward from this side of the Chamber to Part 2 would be very wise—

💬 Andrew Little: Very sensible.

—very sensible for this Committee to adopt. I also want to look at section 45T in clause 16. This is very interesting. It covers—[Interruption] Thank you, I was just going to get on to it; I saw you giving me the evils. Section 45T talks about the penalties of exceeding the 10 percent limit, which is currently in this bill around section 45S. Section 45T(1)(a), (b), and (c) outlines the penalties if we did happen to go over the 10 percent limit. It gives those who transgress in this way 60 days, I believe, to make good, but that would also give them 60 days to make a profit off those shares, then hock them off and get back down to that 10 percent limit. In terms of section 45T, we have some problems there and also with section 45T(1)(c). It says that for the person who contravenes that section, they cannot “exercise or control voting rights that exceed the 10% limit.” That is actually common sense, and we would support that. We do not look at making any amendment there. I believe there is an amendment to section 45T in the name of my colleague Clare Curran—45T? I will continue while my colleague tracks that down, but I do believe there is a Supplementary Order Paper under Clare Curran’s name to make sure there is a penalty for anyone who exceeds that 10 percent limit. Clare Curran’s Supplementary Order Paper 50 would institute a financial penalty for breaching the ownership limit applied to the mixed-ownership model, which at the moment stands at 10 percent.

I did want to say that despite the musings from the Prime Minister a year and a half ago that he would protect assets from foreign ownership, he has in no way—in no way—enacted this in the legislation before us. I think that is sad. I would ask this Committee that it adopt the Supplementary Order Papers from me, from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, and from Clare Curran to make sure that if these assets are sold, as many of them as possible can stay in New Zealand in the ownership of Kiwis—I do not want to use “mums and dads”—and the ownership of New Zealanders, and that we do not let the limit of 10 percent stand as it is in section 45S at the moment. We need to make sure that the value is spread right around those Kiwis who want to own their shares—they do not want to; they prefer they would not be sold. If they are going to be sold, then maybe we should look at my Supplementary Order Paper and restrict the sale of these shares to current holders of New Zealand passports. I think it is a common-sense measure to bring in such a Supplementary Order Paper, and I would hope, as I look around the Chamber this evening, that members, at least on this side of the Chamber, would support my Supplementary Order Paper. Perhaps there may be a few members across the Chamber who can see that this is a common-sense measure too.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a pleasure to take a quick call on Part 2 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. For those who are watching, the Committee stage of the debate is, of course, where Parliament wrestles with the detail, and where we get down and debate the individual clauses.

Right at the start of amended section 2 of the Public Finance Act, in clause 14, we have the definition of what a mixed-ownership model company is—and, of course, the key word is “company”. We turn to new section 45P in clause 16, and it says: “In this Act, mixed ownership model company means a company listed in Schedule 5.” They are not State-owned enterprises. This is the end of those companies being State-owned enterprises under the State-Owned Enterprises Act. Does that matter? It sure does, because a State-owned enterprise is required to be a good corporate citizen; a company is not. A State-owned enterprise is specifically required to be a good employer; a normal company, outside standard labour law, is not. A State-owned enterprise has full-scale Treaty obligations; these companies do not, except to the extent that the half owned by the taxpayer subsidises the risk for the private party that owns the other half. That is the risk. Of course, they are not State-owned enterprises, so they do not have the reserve power of the Crown to direct them should they be in the situation where some grave danger to the public interest exists.

When we move down we see the 51 percent control provisions. New section 45R(1) in clause 16 says that nothing should result in the Crown holding less than 51 percent of the voting rights. That word “voting” is very important because, as others have pointed out, there would be nothing under that provision to stop less than 51 percent of the equity rights being held. We acknowledge that there has been some discussion—desperate discussion—between the Government and Mr Dunne, who has a very small fig leaf to cover his betrayal of the electorate. It is the amendment, I understand, according to media reports, of the words “voting rights” to the word “equity”. It is about time, because there are several ways that the equity can be diluted. One of them is non-voting shares, which would have got around new section 45R(1).

The next, which was confirmed by Mr John Palmer, Chairman of Air New Zealand, to the Commerce Committee when we did Air New Zealand’s review, is that subsidiaries can be created and can be divested or sold by the parent without transgressing this section. So a subsidiary could be sold off without breaking this section. That means that the supposed protection here of the 51 percent majority control is not worth the paper it is written on, and that means that the Government has not upheld its election promise to New Zealanders that it will retain majority ownership and control, because it is passing a law where it can quietly shuffle subsidiaries off the balance sheet.

Why would the Government do that? Well, a problem the Government has got is that a private partner—the 49 percent shareholder—could insist on their rights to the board to carry out an investment in a highly profitable future investment—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: This is the policy the member advocated.

—giving the Government what we call the dilution problem, Dr Smith—the dilution problem. The dilution problem is a new project that was highly profitable but which the Crown did not want to pursue, because, for example, Mr English has a complete fetish about not spending any money. So he would not want to invest any capital off the Government’s balance sheet into even a highly profitable investment, and the Government could be forced to and could be sued by the private party if it refused. That is why the Government is very concerned about having loose language here, because it gives the Government one way of protecting itself from that dilution risk.

New section 45S in clause 16 is the now famous provision about the 10 percent ownership cap. You know, I was looking in this bill for some definition of “Kiwi mums and dads”. Was it going to be the case that if you had not had children, you could not buy a share? There is no definition of “mums and dads”, because that was always public relations spin. The Government and the people of New Zealand know that the New Zealand shares—

I move, That the question be now put.

There are many reasons to feel angry about this Mixed Ownership Model Bill—there are many reasons. It amounts to a massive transfer of resources from ordinary New Zealanders, as taxpayers, to the relatively small number of people who can afford to buy shares when these companies are floated. Power prices will go up; we know that. We know that New Zealanders will suffer. People who can barely afford to pay their electricity bills now will suffer, and we know that this privatisation programme makes no financial sense for New Zealand.

I want to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 60. It basically adds new clause 16A, which states: “Any proceeds generated for the Crown as a result of the sale or disposal of shares in a mixed ownership model company must be paid to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund established under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.” One of the most galling things about this Government’s privatisation policy is the rather pathetic attempt to dress up the whole exercise in a thing that this Government calls the Future Investment Fund. It is a transparent attempt to sugar-coat what is a very bitter pill for almost all New Zealanders. National, for some reason, thinks that the two-thirds, or maybe it is 80 percent, of New Zealanders who were opposed to this policy will somehow be mollified by the idea that it is going to put the proceeds of this privatisation into some kind of notional—some kind of fictional—Future Investment Fund.

The only thing that is possibly more galling than this is that today we have had to sit in the Chamber through Tony Ryall, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, speaking in hushed tones about the European financial crisis and suggesting to the nation that if the Government does not privatise all these assets, then somehow New Zealand is going to tumble into a global financial crisis and the world will come to an end. That is totally overlooking the fact that the Government’s fiscal problems are largely a result of, firstly, its unaffordable tax cuts and, secondly, its utter failure to get growth going in the economy.

What is it going to spend the proceeds of the sales on? This is what it says: schools—a lick of paint here and there—hospitals, irrigation, and, according to the Budget, it is going to put $250 million into KiwiRail. Well, as many commentators have pointed out, this is all normal Government capital expenditure, and it is a nonsense to dress it up as if it is some extra Future Investment Fund. I want to quote Paul Callow from Deloitte, who said that “Tagging the proceeds in this way doesn’t really fool anyone: money is money and the fact that the Government has just sold a stake in an SOE simply means it has more of it to spend or needs to borrow less.”

It is an absolute nonsense that in an energy-constrained world we are now selling energy assets—these four precious electricity companies—to fund repairs on schools and hospitals. We are selling an income-earning asset to fund the maintenance on a non-earning asset. That, I think, exposes the total poverty of thinking and of economic development behind this Government’s policy.

The Future Investment Fund is a cruel hoax. It is a notional fund. It has no existence in reality, and all the items that the Government has mentioned in recent months that it is going to spend the proceeds on are standard items of capital expenditure. I urge members of this Committee to support my Supplementary Order Paper 60, which, instead of putting the money into this notional fund, would redirect it at least to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—the Cullen fund—which at least would not fritter away the proceeds of these precious assets on the repair and maintenance of standard items of capital expenditure. Every New Zealander knows that that should not be what happens anyway. What should happen is that this Government should cancel this privatisation programme, hold on to these assets for future generations of New Zealand, and hold on to them for the financial health of our nation and so that this country has the strategic assets—the energy companies—that we need to guarantee that the nation has a secure supply of sustainable and affordable energy for future generations.

If this Government had a clue about economic development it would not be selling these assets. If you look at the example of Norway, it is the textbook study of a country that got the most out of its natural resource. Norway’s State-owned petroleum company ensured that Norway’s assets—Norway’s natural resources—were exploited for the good of the Norwegian people. New Zealand is a leader in renewable energy, and what is this Government doing? What is this Government doing? We are a leader in renewable energy and it is selling off the very assets that we own that will develop sources of renewable energy.

Even if you consider our State energy company Solid Energy and you think about the massive reserves of coal that this country has that one day may be able to be exploited in a sustainable way—it could be a huge resource for this country in years to come for future generations—what are we doing? We are privatising the very company that would ensure that the benefits from those resources are enjoyed here, and the only revenue stream for a future Government is a 1 percent royalty. I cannot believe how stupid this policy is in that respect.

If you consider Mighty River Power, it is one of the world’s 10 largest developers and operators of geothermal energy. Mighty River Power is a fantastic success story in the New Zealand energy industry. Geothermal energy is only 0.3 percent of generation internationally, but it is one of the parts of the global energy industry that is growing fast. It has huge prospects. Mighty River Power is developing new plants at Ngātamariki, at Puketoi wind farm, and another one north-east of Rotorua. It has also got a stake in the GeoGlobal Partners Fund, a US company that is developing a 50-megawatt geothermal plant in California. Mighty River Power is a treasure—it is a national treasure—that we should be proud of. We should be keeping it in New Zealand hands so that it is owned by all New Zealanders, and so that the benefits of this innovative company are kept in New Zealand and are there for generations of New Zealanders to enjoy. But what is this Government doing? It is privatising those assets. It is giving away the future potential of some of our most strategic assets. This Government has no qualms about privatising them.

What could be more strategic in the 21st century than energy companies and water companies? Instead, this Government is selling them off for a short-term sugar fix to give it a little bit of debt reduction in a fiscal crisis of its own making, and it is going to use the proceeds to put a lick of paint on schools and hospitals. It dresses up that phoney financial transaction with this ridiculous Future Investment Fund as if this would sugar-coat what is a very bitter pill for all New Zealanders.

The Future Investment Fund is a sham. It is a phoney fund. I urge members of this Committee to vote for my Supplementary Order Paper 60. Instead of wasting the proceeds of this privatisation on the maintenance of standard items of capital expenditure, what my Supplementary Order Paper would do is shift those funds into the Cullen fund—the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. At least then the resources, instead of being wasted by this Government, would be kept for the benefit of future generations.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. Those who are of that opinion—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Before you put the question I would like an assurance from you. You will be aware that we have submitted a large number of amendments. We had some chat about this, you will recall, last night. I just want an assurance that you have personally perused those and checked them over if we are going to move to a vote. It is a fair question, especially if you are going to make any rulings in respect of them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me, firstly, make this point. When the Chair makes a call for the Committee to determine whether it wants the question put, the Chair has given considerable consideration to all factors, and to start challenging the Chair at that point is actually a reflection on the Chair. It is a reflection on the Chair and members ought to do that with some caution. I assure all members that I have given consideration to every possible aspect, and that I think is appropriate for, at this moment, the Committee to determine whether it wants the closure. Accordingly, I put—

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you tell us which factors you have taken into account?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is entirely out of order. I have said I have taken all factors into consideration. The question is—

💬 Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask this with due respect as a new member who is not sure of the remedies available to me. As somebody who did not have the opportunity in Part 1 of the debate to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper, and raise some germane points, which I do not believe were raised in the debate, as someone who has not had a chance to speak in Part 2, and as somebody who listened to more submissions to the select committee than anyone else, what remedy is available to me to be able to speak to this debate?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The remedy the member has now is to vote against the closure. I have considered, as I say, all factors.

A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.

Order! Votes will be taken in silence and that will be upheld. No member will vote under duress in this Chamber, and it is difficult enough to hear the votes as they are.

Members, a number of amendments have been tabled by various members of the Labour Party. The amendments mirror those talked about yesterday. They seek to change words that are similar or change words that are an expression. A great number are vague, in that it is very difficult to know where they fit or where they should appear. There is, however, one exception—and we have diligently looked at all of the amendments—and that is the vote that we are going to put now. It is in the name—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not making a reflection on the Chair, but you have used rather graphic language—as you have a right to do—to describe those amendments. When those amendments were placed on the Table, you were the presiding officer, and to the best of my knowledge you have not retired from the Chamber. Given the description that you have used about those amendments, I would like to know whether you have looked through all those amendments. Given that you have used those rather colourful phrases—and I would have to question whether some of those might be in order, but that is your right—I would like an assurance that you have perused all those amendments, because you have not left this Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, I have. So the question is—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member needs to be very careful about where he proceeds with these points of order.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am entitled to make a point of order. I am not being facetious when I say this. You answered: “Yes, I have.” I take it that you mean you have perused them. Because there were two questions.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Correct.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to clause 13 be agreed to:

in new section 1A(2)(ea), replace “ownership” with “control”.

The remaining amendments that were tabled at 7.32 p.m. are ruled out of order for the same reasons as last night, under Speakers’ rulings 115/4 and 115/5.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 42 in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to Part 2 be agreed to.

Dr Russel Norman’s amendment to amend new section 45Q(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 71 is ruled out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 16 be agreed to.

The Hon Phil Goff has an amendment relating to a new section 45Y, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 52. That is now withdrawn.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 16 be agreed to.

My sincere apologies. I have misread the previous amendment in the name of the Hon Phil Goff. I will read it and then we will put that amendment. The Hon Phil Goff’s typescript amendment inserting a new section 45Y to retrict an interest in securities in mixed-ownership model companies to persons who are tax resident in New Zealand—Supplementary Order Paper 52 is withdrawn and that replaces it.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 16 be agreed to:

New Zealand ownership

45Y New Zealand ownership

(1) No person (other than the Crown) may have an interest in shares or securities of a mixed ownership model company unless they are tax resident within New Zealand.

(2) No company, trust, or other organisation capable of owning property (other than the Crown) may have an interest in shares or securities of a mixed ownership model company unless they are tax resident within New Zealand.

(3) Any ownership of shares or securities of a mixed ownership model company that does not comply with subsections (1) and (2) is invalid and of no legal effect.

Members, there have been two new parts tabled, both in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. I have to inform the Committee that the Hon Trevor Mallard’s amendment to insert a new Part 3, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 56, is out of order, as that amendment pertained to Part 2 and should have been associated with and debated at that point. The second amendment to insert a new Part 3, a typescript amendment providing that sections 3 to 18 have no effect until a citizens initiated referendum is dealt with, and providing for a power to suspend sections 3 to 18, depending on the outcome of the citizens initiated referendum, is out of order, because that amendment should have been voted on and associated with Parts 1 and 2 at that time. So the question now is—

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you have missed one of the sets of amendments that were tabled in my name, which also inserted a new Part 3. I appreciate that there have been a number of amendments. I have got copies here, if you want to have them, but they certainly have been tabled.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have to inform the member that the clerk has informed me that it has not been lodged.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Well, it was placed on the Table. I have got additional copies.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member, I think, knows that six copies have to be presented to the clerk.

💬 Chris Hipkins: And I can certainly assure the Committee that the copies have been tabled.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Just to clarify, when you say “tabled”, were six copies presented to the clerk?

💬 Chris Hipkins: I understand that they were certainly part of the various bundles that have been tabled.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We have been very, very carful to not make any mistakes. I have already made one, which I went back on tonight, in relation to the reading. I have no record of the amendment.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was the person who put the bundle of amendments with the clerk, and they have been checked. I am not questioning the clerk’s word at all. There is nothing underhand in that respect, but I am very sure that they were contained—the Minister in the chair, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, can shake his head, but I am addressing the Chair—within that bundle. So it was somewhere between their being presented and coming back into the Chamber. That is my honest view. I was the one who placed them on the Table.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Can members take a moment while we just check that.

💬 Chris Hipkins: One of the things we did, in addition to presenting a whole lot of amendments to the clerk, was I then presented a summary bundle of all of those amendments to the clerk to help them, basically, in their compilation of them, which is that one. It may be that the amendment to insert additional Part 3 was not in the bundle I gave them.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh!

💬 Chris Hipkins: Well, I did not have to give them the bundle. I gave them the bundle to be helpful. But I can assure you that it would have been in the large bundle that was presented.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I accept the member’s word that he has tabled them.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I have got copies if you would like to see them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Could I just have a quick look, please. I have had a brief look, and my assessment is that the amendment does pertain to Part 1 of the bill, and in that regard it is out of order. If there has been some mess-up in what have been a few reams of paper, I do apologise. I accept the member’s word that he did table it, but it is out of order in that regard.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I acknowledge that, and can I also acknowledge the work of the clerks. There is certainly not a criticism of the clerks or of you. I am sure there was a mistake somewhere, but it was unintentional on all sides. So there is certainly no suggestion that there has been any inappropriate behaviour.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is fine, and that is why I accept the member’s word. So we move to the debate on schedule 1, and the question is that schedule 1 stand part. Is some member seeking the call? [Interruption] There is no debate. Sorry. We are on the schedule. My apologies—

💬 Hon Member: The olden days.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is the olden days. Let me just refresh your minds, for new members, that when we debated the parts, that included schedules 1 and 2. So now that we have got that straight, I will put the question.

Schedule 1