Norman Russel: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 21 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3233. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on this motion to divide this bill the Mixed Ownership Model Bill into two parts. We have Supplementary Order Paper 41 before us to divide this bill into two parts the first of which would be called according to the Supplementary Order Paper the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill 2012 and I do not have a particular problem with that. However the second part is to be titled according to this Supplementary Order Paper the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill and I do have an issue with calling it the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill as this Supplementary Order Paper proposes. 
The reason why I disagree with this is that I think this is a piece of propaganda. The reason I say that is that if you were serious about naming this piece of legislation in a non-propaganda way in a straightforward way as the title on this Supplementary Order Paper proposes here the Government would simply call it the “Public Finance (Mixed Ownership) Amendment Bill”. The question I have is that on this Supplementary Order Paper before us and in fact of course in the whole debate around this matter we have been forced to call this bill—now this bill that it is being divided—the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. The reason why this is being called the Mixed Ownership Model Bill in this Supplementary Order Paper “MOM” is that the acronym is “MOM”. That is the truth. The reason why we have been forced to call it the Mixed Ownership Model Bill is that the acronym forms “MOM”. What this Government has done repeatedly through this whole debate is refer to mums and dads and try to have a quaint little propaganda exercise around how it is doing this thing for mums and dads which is why in this amendment in front of us it is calling it the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. 
Louise Upston 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have already referred to the fact that your Speaker’s ruling 120/5 is that it is to be a very narrow debate. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Somebody in the position of a whip should know that it is completely out of order to interrupt a member to question the relevance of their speech. The sole judge of relevance—and there are Speakers’ rulings to this effect—is the member in the Chair. 
Louise Upston 
: I was not questioning relevance; I was coming back to the fact that this debate is a very narrow one specifically related to the dividing of a bill and I referred directly to the Speaker’s ruling that you mentioned earlier. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that obviously as the Chairperson I am the sole judge but I can rule about relevancy or whatever the case might be. I actually had signalled Dr Norman and he was starting to come back when the member rose to take the point of order. I would just refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 120/5 and I think that he was pretty much on key so let us just make it nice and tight and narrow. Thank you. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: The point is that in this debate we are referring to a Supplementary Order Paper in front of the Committee which is an amendment and there is a proposal within this Supplementary Order Paper that the second amendment bill be called the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill. I could not be speaking more closely to the issue at hand by addressing what it is that the Government proposes to call the second amendment bill. The reason it is calling it by this specific name the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill is that it wants to promote a propaganda purpose. It is not related to the reality of what we are doing which is that we are creating mixed-ownership companies. The reason why it is called the mixed-ownership model—and goodness knows what that is meant to mean—is for propaganda purposes because the acronym is “MOM”. That is it is like mums and dads. That is what the Government is using in this Supplementary Order Paper right in front of us which we are addressing in this debate whereby the Supplementary Order Paper establishes an Act called the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act. It is calling it this particular name because it wants to promote a set of ideologies about mum and dad New Zealanders even though most mums and dads will never be able to afford to buy shares in these companies. That is why all the way through this debate it has used the language that is in the title of the second Act that it is creating in this Supplementary Order Paper. 
When you look at what the Government has spent on SenateSHJ communications which is a spin-doctoring company a public relations agency with all the focus groups and all the propaganda it has put forward which will be funded by the taxpayer—$120 million on propaganda SenateSHJ communications advertising and investment bankers—it is all about these words in this Supplementary Order Paper. It is all about getting the propaganda right. Regardless of the fundamental fiscal or economic arguments what this Government has consistently done—and it is demonstrated in the words it has chosen to call the amendment bill in this Supplementary Order Paper—is make a propaganda point. My question to the Minister is why do you not just call it the “Public Finance (Mixed Ownership) Amendment Act” which is really what it is? Why is it that you have introduced the word “model” into the title of the second Act? The reason I would argue is that you wanted the acronym to be “MOM”. My apologies Mr Chair. The reason the Government wanted this second title to include the words “Mixed Ownership Model” was that it was part of its propaganda exercise. It is the propaganda exercise that has characterised this debate from beginning to end. Thank you. The Green Party will be opposing this amendment.