Dalziel Lianne: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have been looking forward to making my contribution on this important debate because I have not had the opportunity to do so thus far but I am pleased that I can on this part of the debate. I have an amendment to clause 1 of this bill the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. The Government also has a Supplementary Order Paper to divide into two bills the bill that is being dealt with here. The first particular amendment on that Supplementary Order Paper actually is correct and that is changing Part 1 of the bill to: “This Act is the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Act 2012”. That is correct because what it does is it takes four State-owned enterprises out of the State-Owned Enterprises Act and moves them to the Public Finance Act only the public finance Act that they are moving to is the Act that is now going to be called under this particular provision the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act 2012. 
 I think there is a very serious reason why that particular language is incorrect. I believe that it is covering up for what the public know and that is that this is the privatisation of public property. That is what it is. It is nothing less than that. Those members use the language of the mixed-ownership model—the “MOM”. You know they are talking about the ownership of these companies going to ma and pa investors or mom and pop investors. Well I am suggesting that we change the name from “MOM” to “POP”—privatisation of public property. That is exactly what is going on here. 
My colleague Jacinda Ardern actually put forward on Supplementary Order Paper 44 this amendment to a number of other parts of this bill but this part of the bill clause 1 was not included because she had become I think quite disquieted by the fact that the Government had used its— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Disillusioned. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: In fact Jacinda Ardern is right here and she is offering her contribution to the debate from her chair. She is saying that she was disillusioned by the Government’s response to her very sensible amendment. The reason that she is disillusioned is that she felt that it was not being completely upfront with the language of this mixed-ownership model which really hid the essence of what was going on. So she gave up when it came to clause 1 the title but I have decided that it is actually worthy of debate here because the public have a right to know that their wishes are not being respected by this Government. It is trying to hide the reality of what it is doing behind the language of the mixed-ownership model when in fact the very act of this legislation removing four State-owned enterprises from the coverage of the State-Owned Enterprises Act shows that this is the privatisation of public property. It is the “POP” of the mom and pop legislation that we have been considering in this Chamber over the last few days. 
There are other amendments that colleagues have moved and I notice that Dr David Clark my colleague has also moved an alternative title which is the “State Asset Privatisation Act” or “SAP”. I think that is what the Government thinks the general public are—a bunch of saps. It is not taking them seriously. It knows that there is a citizens initiated referendum petition out there with Grey Power and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions joining hand in hand walking marching up and down this country gathering signatures. Those signatures are gathering and that is why this Committee is debating the bill a long time before the Finance and Expenditure Committee was even due to report back. That is the truth of it and the reason that the Government does not want this bill sitting on the Order Paper any longer than it is is that it does not want the people to have spoken their mind. It does not want to be forced into a referendum situation and to be voting for this legislation in the face of public opinion. But I can tell this Committee that the people will not forget that the Government proceeded with this legislation before they had a chance to speak. 
The other amendments that this side of the Committee is moving actually address that opportunity for the public to truly have a say. The one that I really like is the one in the name of my colleague the Hon David Parker. He says that we should change the date of the coming into force of this bill to 1 April 2016. What is relevant about that date? Apart from the fact that it is April Fool’s Day in 2016 the reason is that it would give an incoming Government the chance to actually listen to the people—