Chauvel Charles: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3086. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am astounded by the acclaim that the decision to give me the call is met with from my own colleagues particularly as I am about to praise some of the Supplementary Order Papers that they have lodged in respect of this part. What we have heard in the debate so far is some very good points about what this legislation will do to the carefully calibrated accountability regime that exists in respect of State-owned enterprises. It will do away with that regime completely and it will replace it with something that is untested and about which much concern was expressed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee as can be seen from the report back. 
Let us start with clause 3. Section 4 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act is of cardinal importance to the way in which that legislation is put together. It is the one that requires companies to act in a socially responsible manner. Well every member of this House has to ask why it is that we would have a bill the Mixed Ownership Model Bill before the Committee tonight that removes that obligation—the obligation to act in a socially responsible manner in respect of four major companies in New Zealand. These companies are no longer going to be required to act in a socially responsible manner and that is something that all New Zealanders should be concerned about. 
The other problem with exempting these companies from section 4 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act is that they are not going to be required to be good employers. So not only will they not be required to act in a socially responsible fashion but they will not have any good-employer obligations placed on them either. It pays to remember that in particular the energy companies are amongst the last remaining New Zealand - owned companies of any scale operating in New Zealand. They are some of the few places where clever Kiwis can go and get managerial jobs in businesses that are of an international scale. Why on earth would we take away from them the obligation to be good employers to our clever Kiwi managers who are using their ability to work in these companies to get valuable commercial experience? It just beggars belief. 
Then there are the obligations to Maori that are taken away by this legislation. I know that my colleague Parekura Horomia and others will be addressing the Committee on this crucial point. You see the Crown cannot rely on sections 27A to 27D of the State-Owned Enterprises Act to meet its Treaty obligations because the specific rights protection regime outlined in those sections does not impose the obligations imposed by section 9 of that Act; nor does it protect any of the future or existing Treaty rights of Maori. The partial sale of these power companies will make the prospect of securing a section 27B resumption of any of the assets of the power companies highly unlikely and the question arises just as obligations to act socially responsibly and obligations to be a good employer are removed by this the Mixed Ownership Model Bill why the legislation would seek to diminish the rights of iwi that have been established over time under jurisprudence relating to the State-owned enterprises. The only thing that Maori will be able to do if they suffer a Treaty breach as a result of the actions of what will be partially Crown-owned companies is seek a monetary claim for damages. There will be no ability any more to seek the return of land or assets in the event of a breach. This is yet another removal of the rights of New Zealanders cherished and carefully established over time. 
There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers on the Table of the House in the names of colleagues of mine that deal with this part and I want to speak to some of them because I think they are worth consideration. I hope that we will hear from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Energy and Resources as to the Government’s response on these Supplementary Order Papers because they are put forward in the spirit of attempting to remedy some of the more egregious omissions that this legislation will enact if it is passed in its current form. 
I want to start with Supplementary Order Paper 46 in the name of Chris Hipkins. It is a Supplementary Order Paper that would basically make these mixed-ownership model companies subject to the Official Information Act and it is mirrored by Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway. 
The power companies that are subject to this bill are core strategic assets. It is important for the public to be able to continue to have access to information about them. I have sat on the board of Meridian Energy. I know the power of the Official Information Act when it comes to one of these companies. Boards and management take great care about the transparency of their decision-making processes—not because as Mr Goldsmith said of the continuous disclosure obligations that the companies could be subject to if they were listed on the open market because frankly the Official Information Act provides a much more immediate remedy than that. It is backed up by the powers that are provided for in respect of the operation of the Office of the Ombudsmen. But this legislation would take away the application of the Official Information Act to the entities to be privatised. I think for the reasons that we have heard from a number of speakers that that is a retrograde step. It is not going to enhance their accountability—quite the reverse: it is going to limit it. I commend both Supplementary Order Paper 46 and Supplementary Order Paper 54. These would enact improvements to the model that is being proposed to the Committee and they ought to be considered carefully. I think it would be a real shame if we did not hear anything from the Minister in the chair in response. 
The other Supplementary Order Paper that I think is worth mentioning is Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of David Parker. This would delay the implementation of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill in order to give sufficient time for the public to actually appreciate the consequences of the legislation and prepare for its consequences. We have heard from speaker after speaker who sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee about the difficulties they experienced in terms of process: the rushed hearing at the select committee and the fact that Treasury had prepared the departmental report before the public submissions had even closed. This Supplementary Order Paper if accepted by the Committee would in fact remedy that to some extent. It would provide for some proper consideration by the public of what is at stake here. 
It is mirrored in many ways by Supplementary Order Paper 58 in the name of Grant Robertson. That Supplementary Order Paper would send the bill back to the select committee in order to ensure that it has been thoroughly checked for mistakes. How many times have we rushed legislation through the Committee or through the House only to find that a patch-up job is needed in a Statutes Amendment bill or worse some sort of urgent specific legislation? I just do not believe given the speed of the process that that will not be the case here and that it will not be necessary at some point for the House to come back and look at the legislation in detail to ensure that mistakes have not been made. So I think the contents of Supplementary Order Paper 58 are well worth some thought. Again it would be useful to see the Minister in the chair get to his feet and respond to the contents of that Supplementary Order Paper. 
There is another excellent Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 45 in the name of David Clark. That Supplementary Order Paper would alter the title of the bill from the “Mixed Ownership Model Bill” to the “State Asset Privatisation Bill”. If we are after plain language in legislation—legislation saying what it actually means to do—then this would be a very very good Supplementary Order Paper for the Committee to look to with favour. That Supplementary Order Paper would bring honesty to the naming of this legislation and it would call the bill a name by which it can be recognised with some honesty by the public because that is actually the purpose of the legislation. 
There is another very good Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 53 again in the name of Chris Hipkins. What that would do is it would require a 75 percent majority vote in the House before one of these entities could actually be privatised. We have entrenchment provisions in our law; we have them in the electoral legislation. I think it is time for us to consider whether or not in other areas where there is a clear important public interest we should look at the entrenching power that this Parliament undoubtedly has. This must be an occasion given the strength of public opinion where that possibility ought to be contemplated very seriously.