O'Connor Damien: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3205. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I have not spoken in this debate before because my colleagues have been doing such a very good job but I had to take the opportunity to come down and speak in this Chamber for two reasons. Firstly this is so important for my electorate. Solid Energy is one of our assets that that Government is going to sell to its mates so it is important that I speak out on behalf of my electorate. Secondly I have also taken the liberty of the democratic process to submit an amendment a very minor one which adds one word to the title of this bill. It adds the word “up” to the title of Mixed Ownership Model Bill because this is indeed mixed-up ownership. 
You can take two perspectives on that. If the Government is right in the fact that it is offering opportunities to a wide range of mums and dads in this country then I guess mixed-up will be the ownership model that it is referring to. More accurate though is the mixed-up management approach that each and every one of these State-owned enterprises will take in the interim period to their final sale. As a fine example of that—and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises over there will know—Solid Energy through the late 1990s and through the period when it was getting ready for sale under the previous National Government in fact ran an outrageous regime of management that saw shortcuts taken and in my view contributed in no small way to what we saw at Pike River unfortunately. That mixed-up ownership model which would be a more accurate title for this bill in my view was a mixed-up management model for each and every one of these State-owned enterprises which have a vital role to play in the infrastructure and development of this country. That mixed-up ownership and management will lead to in my view inferior outcomes for us as a country and superior outcomes for all those people who might want to invest in it. 
This debate is about sovereignty in this country. The title and commencement of the bill are absolutely crucial because in my view they do not accurately reflect what is going on here. This is the sell-out of New Zealand. This is the right to control our destiny through our ability to manage our infrastructure into the future. This National Government is going to hand over to a mixed bunch of owners it says or mixed-up bunch of owners the rights to extract monopolistic dividends in many cases because in my view the problem with electricity of course—and anyone who studies the market will know—is that the less investment that occurs in the electricity sector the more the owners can extract from their existing investments. And so that will see the rundown of our infrastructure up and down this country and excessive profits put into the hands of Mr Brownlee and his wealthy mates who can afford to come along and purchase the shares. Those mixed-up owners will not be there in the best interests of New Zealand and that is why I have put forward my amendment that adds the word “up” to clause 1—not in a flippant way but in an accurate way that in simple terms more accurately reflects what will happen with these companies. The unfortunate outcome will be that this country will suffer in the long term. 
This is about our ability to own and control our destiny into the future. That Government is prepared to put that destiny into the hands of people who will extract as much money as they can from the assets that my father my grandfather and the people before them contributed to sometimes with their lives and with their hearts and souls to build a better country. The National Government is now prepared to hand that to people who have the privilege of more money when at this very point each and every New Zealander owns those assets. This is an outrageous act of treachery and in any other country it would be called treason. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Is that acceptable Mr Chair? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: In any other country that is what it would be called. Although the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery over there is somewhat sensitive to it that is the truth of what is happening in this Chamber this evening and he very well knows that.