Lees-Galloway Iain: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3206. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I must say I do appreciate receiving the call. It has been a considerable amount of time since I have had an opportunity to speak in the Committee stage on this bill the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. I am very pleased to be able to talk about the title and commencement clauses of this bill. The title as has been traversed is an extremely misleading title—the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. I prefer Damien O’Connor’s submission that it should be the “Mixed Up Ownership Model Bill”. That would be a far more appropriate title for the bill. 
But actually I want to talk to the amendment that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises wants to make to the title of the bill. Not only does the Minister want to split the bill into two bills but Supplementary Order Paper 41 in his name would see the title of one of the pieces of legislation amended to the “State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Act”. Well that is an even more misleading title than the one we started with. This is not an amendment to our State-owned enterprises; this is the gutting of our State-owned enterprises. This is taking away State-owned enterprises from public ownership. This is taking from the many and giving to the 1 percent. That is what this bill is all about. 
This is not some small technical amendment to our State-owned enterprises; this is a fundamental change to our public assets and the public good that they can be used for. That is what— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: We’re keeping them. You sold them all off. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Sorry what was that? 
Dr Cam Calder 
: We’re keeping them. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Cam Calder says that the Government is keeping the assets. Well I tell you what if Cam Calder wanted the Government to keep the assets he would support some of the other Supplementary Order Papers on this part. He would support the 75 percent supermajority amendment in the name of Chris Hipkins if he really wanted the Government to actually hold on to these assets. But coming back to Mr Ryall’s—[ 
Interruption 
] Say that again. Say that again Mr Calder. No he still does not want it on the record. 
I come back to Mr Ryall’s Supplementary Order Paper 41 to split the bill into two and also to have the ability for the Governor-General by Order in Council to commence the Acts on different dates. This is actually something that could be supported by the Labour Opposition because we want to see how big the public backlash is against the sale of assets when the first asset is sold. We want the Government to feel the burn of the public backlash against the sale of that first asset and for the Government to have the opportunity to see the error of its ways and to stop the process right there. It should stop the process right now. It does not have a majority. It does not have a mandate. It does not have support for this but it will really see— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Who won the party vote in Palmerston North? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I am interested to hear what Chris Finlayson says about the party vote in Palmerston North. Chris Finlayson said: “What about the party vote in Palmerston North?”. Well I am glad that that member has raised that issue because I have run the numbers. I have run the numbers and 55 percent of people in Palmerston North voted for parties that were opposed to selling off our State-owned assets—55 percent of people in Palmerston North opposed selling off our State assets at the election. So I know that my electorate Mr Finlayson—who does not have an electorate; could never win an electorate—the people whom I represent are opposed to selling off State-owned assets. I am glad I am pleased I thank Mr Finlayson for raising that issue because I am very pleased to tell the Committee about that. 
I would also like to address the amendment in the name of Grant Robertson and that is to take this bill back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee because this Government ran roughshod over the political process the democratic process. It belittled members. Maggie Barry acted like she was on a talkback show bullying people who submitted to the committee and asking people what party they voted for. That was the way this was handled. National members cut the process short. They brought the bill back to the House 5 weeks early. People are saying that this is because the Government does not want to see what the result of the referendum is. 
I know why the Government brought the bill back early. It is because its majority in the House is so wafer-thin that it does not want to lose John Banks. It does not want to lose John Banks because it knows it is in deep deep trouble if it does not have even that one-vote majority. That is what the rush is about. This Government knows that if the police inquiry finds anything wrong with John Banks’ donations its majority is gone—that is how thin its majority is in this House—and it has no mandate to sell off these assets. So I personally support part of Tony Ryall’s amendment because it will give this Government the opportunity to see how deeply deeply unpopular this policy is.