Cosgrove Clayton: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 In this again swift process that we are embarking on we move to the title and the commencement. In this debate colleagues of mine will propose a number of amendments. 
Grant Robertson 
: Excellent amendments. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Excellent amendments. I know that Mr Clark has proposed Supplementary Order Paper 45 to rename the Mixed Ownership Model Bill the “State Asset Privatisation Act 2012”. In respect of the commencement we know of course that the Government has tried to expedite or in plain language ram through— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: With the support of the Maori Party. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —with the support of the Maori Party of course as my colleague Parekura Horomia says—this whole process. We know that the Governor-General’s pen will have hardly touched the parchment before the Government tries to move this bill through in the vain hope that the people of New Zealand might sort of say “Right that’s it.” hoist the white flag of surrender and forget about it which they will not. 
To that end we have a number of amendments in my colleagues’ names. Mr Parker has lodged Supplementary Order Paper 47 to change the enactment date to 2016 which will be a period as colleagues will realise after the next general election. Chris Hipkins has Supplementary Order Paper 53 which is a very good amendment that prevents enactment unless there is a 75 percent majority of this House effectively providing for an entrenchment provision to ensure that this legislation does not come into existence unless it has the overwhelming support of the House. Grant Robertson has Supplementary Order Paper 58 which prevents enactment until the Finance and Expenditure Committee reviews and approves the legislation. This is a very important amendment and one that is close to the hearts of a number of us including Mr Parker and Mr Clark who had to sit through one of the most disgraceful select committee processes that in my 13 years in Parliament I have ever been a part of.  
Andrew Little 
: What was Maggie Barry’s role? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well Maggie Barry’s role to answer Mr Little’s question was simply to attempt to subdue any submitter who came along in respect of being anti the privatisation of assets. It was a disgraceful moment in the committee one that I would not have thought we would see from any side of the House. I know that Mr Brownlee is Leader of the House—oh no this is not mate. Have a read of the amendments I say to the senior Government whip. He is doing his sort of callisthenics over there flapping his arms in the breeze. I suggest he might want to read Supplementary Order Paper 58 in Mr Robertson’s name. While he is trying to sort of levitate or whatever through flapping his arms he might actually want to read what is on the Table. As I was saying I am sure that Mr Brownlee a learned member and Leader of the House in this Parliament would agree that intimidating voters by asking in a select committee them how they vote or demanding to know how they vote would be a disgrace. Even though Mr Brownlee is a political opponent I know he is a bit of a traditionalist in the parliamentary and the culinary sense and I am sure he would agree with me. It was a disgraceful process a process where submitters were treated in many respects like dirt. They were abused in some respects ignored and basically laughed at by Government members especially by—I know that he is here somewhere—Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Come back to relevance. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Brownlee says “Come back to relevance.” Well had Mr Brownlee actually been on the committee he would know. He has been on the odd select committee; I think he was on what is the one the Government Administration Committee which deals with the catering or something perhaps in Parliament. He has been on select committees and he knows that an important part of select committees is to actually listen to submissions. Whether or not you agree with them the process is to listen. If you are really cynical as a politician you sort of act out the part that you are going to listen to submitters. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Come on—clause 1. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No no clause 2. Read the Supplementary Order Paper. I know Mr Brownlee that it is not published by Golden Books or Dr Seuss but try reading Supplementary Order Paper 58 in the name of Mr Robertson because that amendment prevents this legislation from coming into enactment until it goes back to the select committee the Finance and Expenditure Committee for a full review of the legislation. 
If that was to happen we would actually have submitters being given more than 5 minutes and we would not have the chairman of the committee turn to the committee and say that the committee as a whole—this is the select committee—can have one question. One question right? That is all we were allowed for many of those submitters and many of those submitters were rubbished. So I think this amendment is particularly good because putting all politics aside part of the job of select committees is to at least get the legislation into an appropriate form so that at least it can be dealt with in the House. That is what people expect of us. But when you have 1400 nearly 1500 submitters rock up to a select committee— 
Grant Robertson 
: Queuing up. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —they were queuing up indeed—to put their point of view forward and you get what borders on intimidation from some members that is not on. 
Then we have of course the absurd case—and one that I think has made history in this place—where on instruction from the Minister on instruction from the chair of the select committee Todd McClay Treasury officials were told to write their report on the submissions and to submit it to the select committee prior to the submitters actually completing the hearing of evidence. That is— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Give us a new one. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Give us a what? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: A new one. Not the same old rubbish. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No no. You see Gerry Brownlee does not like it. He does not like it when we repeat these points because they happen to be true—that is why—and because the people of New Zealand and the 1400 nearly 1500 organisations and individuals who came to that select committee will remember the conduct that was visited upon them by the National members. They will remember that—the dismissive nature of the National Party. I know that Mr Brownlee hates it when we remind him of these things but sadly it is the truth. That is what happened. I will be seeking support for that amendment because that actually treats submitters with respect. 
If we look at the title of the bill and the naming of it— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh finally. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I was not going to call it the “Big Fella Bill” I will tell you that. The title of the bill could well go down in reference to Mr Dunne of course. This could be “The Day Peter Dunne Gave the Government the One Vote It Needed to Sell Out Kiwis Bill”. We could call it that perhaps. We could name it that. I invite Mr Dunne to break new ground in this debate and actually get up and take a call. That would be helpful. We know he has had several positions on things like water and other things that we will not go into. But I would have thought that given that it is the “Dunne deal” and he will go down in history as New Zealand’s biggest auctioneer if it turns on his vote he will want to get on the record as to why he sold New Zealanders out. So this could be the “Dunne Deal Bill”—the day Peter Dunne gave the Government the one vote it needed to sell New Zealanders out. We wait and we hope that Peter Dunne will do so. He would not turn up on radio today. He would not turn up at any forum. Submitters told us before the select committee that he refused to meet with them. He refused to meet with his own constituents to even discuss this bill. It is OK for an MP to say: “Look I disagree with you.” 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Come on. Say something serious. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “Plonker”—there is a title for that member. Mr Dunne would not meet with his constituents—he would not meet with them. It is OK for members of Parliament to say: “I disagree with you.” but they should have the decency to invite them to their offices and actually sit down and listen to them. That is what I say to the big fella over there. That is what I say to him. I know that that member does not meet with his constituents because he does not give a damn about them. He does not meet with them of course. But I think Peter Dunne has the one vote that could turn this the one vote that could stop this bill. There is a redeeming feature. There is redemption for Mr Dunne if he was to vote against this. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Come on. Talk to the title. Try hard. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The “Redemption Bill” indeed—there is a good title. Mr Brownlee would remember that from his Catholic Sunday school classes at St Bede’s College between other activities. But yes it could be the “Peter Dunne Redemption Bill”. It could be the one time that Peter Dunne could come into this House and say: “Actually I got it wrong the people have got it right and I am going to vote against the Government.” If I were a betting man I do not know what the TAB odds on that would be but I believe that Peter Dunne does owe a duty of care. He does have a moral responsibility to stand up take a call and explain to the people of Ohariu the people of New Zealand why it could be his vote—although we do not know where the Maori Party members sit on this of course; they are all over the place like the proverbial—that either sells New Zealanders out or redeems this Parliament and holds our assets in Kiwi hands. 
As to the Maori Party well I cannot refer to that but you know I would love those members to take a call on anything in respect of this—on anything in respect of this. We could call this the “Where is the Maori Party on State-owned Assets Bill”. I would love them to actually take a call and give us a position. They went around the marae of course and said: “We’ve done a deal with New Zealand. We’ve sewn up land rights property rights and Treaty rights for Maori.” Then Tuwharetoa came to us and said “Nah it hasn’t happened.”—and they were armed with legal advice. Those members have voted I think with the Government on everything—