Hipkins Chris: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 21 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3236. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in the final stages of this debate on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill on Supplementary Order Paper 41 which will divide the bill into two bills. The new bills will become the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill 2012 and the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill 2012. 
I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction one or two questions on how this Supplementary Order Paper has been structured and the reasons for doing so. Part 1 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill which is going to become the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Act actually amends more than just the State-Owned Enterprises Act. It also contains amendments to the Ombudsmen Act amendments to the Official Information Act amendments to the Public Finance Act and amendments to the Income Tax Act. I am wondering why it is that in this Supplementary Order Paper to divide the bill it is actually being divided into only two bills. It has not been divided into bills for all of the respective legislation that it amends. 
Actually the amendments in Part 1 are more than just to the State-Owned Enterprises Act. For example amendments to the Ombudsmen Act repeal a number of provisions related to these State-owned enterprises from that Act and surely that is a reason that that should have been separated out into a separate bill or a separate Act—we are getting to the point where it is about to become an Act. It should be separated out into a separate Ombudsmen Amendment Bill. It should have been separated into a separate amendment bill for the Official Information Act a separate amendment bill for the Public Finance Act and a separate amendment bill for the Income Tax Act. 
 So I would quite like to know—I guess as much from an interest in parliamentary proceedings as anything else—why it is that it has not actually been separated into all of the respective Acts. It is a relatively simple question. It seems a bit odd that we would go so far as to separate it into two but not go so far as to separate it into about seven because I think there are in total about seven Acts that are amended by this bill. That is the first question that I have for the Minister. 
The second question that I have—which is really for the Committee—is whether the titles that are being used for the two Acts that this bill will become accurately describe the contents of the bill that we are debating. I think that is very important from a legislative perspective. We have a convention in New Zealand that the titles of our legislation are not overly political that they are factual and that they describe what the subject matter is. If you look at other jurisdictions overseas they have laws that are very politically labelled and that do not necessarily describe— 
Grant Robertson 
: No Child Left Behind. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The No Child Left Behind Act for example. 
Hon Member 
: Clear Skies Act. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The Clear Skies Act. They do not really describe the contents of the legislation in question. We do not have that practice here in New Zealand. Our convention is that our titles tend to be pretty boring and they tend to be just relatively factual descriptions of the laws concerned. The question the Committee now turns its attention to is whether the titles for the two new Acts being proposed here accurately describe in accordance with those conventions for how we label legislation the content of them. 
The State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill 2012 is I think probably a reasonably accurate description for that part although having said that again it comes back to my question about whether it accurately describes the contents of the bill given that it amends a whole lot of other Acts in addition to the State-Owned Enterprises Act. But when we come to the second part which is amendments to the Public Finance Act—an Act that is going to be subject to further amendment by this House I would say in the fairly near future—the question is whether the use of the term Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill is an accurate description for what this bill actually does. I think that is where we want to spend a little bit of time pulling that apart. 
The mixed-ownership model is frankly a legal fiction. There is no such thing as a mixed-ownership model. Effectively what the substance of the bill does is it removes these entities from the State-Owned Enterprises Act where there is a legal nature and a very detailed legal purpose and so on for them and it puts them into the ether where they are kind of not quite private companies but they are not quite State-owned enterprises or public companies any more either. This is a whole new thing. Actually it is a fiction to say that it is a mixed-ownership model because it is portraying it as something that it is not. The Government will no longer be the owner of these companies; it will merely be a shareholder in them. The substance of the issue is whether the title the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill is an accurate description of what is being done here. As I have said there really is no such thing as a mixed-ownership model. This is a legal fiction that is being created by the Government. 
What it probably would be more accurate to say is that it is the “Public Finance (Share Sales in Previously Public Assets) Amendment Bill” because that is effectively what it is doing. These will now become publicly listed companies. The fact that the Government owns the majority of shares in the publicly listed company does not get away from the fact that they are going to be publicly listed companies. They are no longer going to be State-owned enterprises. They are no longer going to be publicly owned assets. Although the Government may own 51 percent of them that does not make them a publicly owned asset any more. So the question that I have is whether the description that is being used here the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill is an accurate description. I do not think it is because as I have pointed out there is not really any such thing as a mixed-ownership model. 
So then the question becomes whether this new bill that is being created adequately establishes a robust legitimate framework for there to be such a thing as a mixed-ownership model. It is a very light piece of legislation and I do not think it does. The title of this bill suggests that it is creating a whole new framework—something that is entirely new—in the nature that the State-Owned Enterprises Act would have been back when it was first created in I think 1986. Was it 1986? 
Grant Robertson 
: For the SOE Act yes. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: For the State-Owned Enterprises Act it was 1986. So when that was first established it was— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Before you were born? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I was at primary school actually Ms Dyson. It was a substantial Act— 
Hon Member 
: Maurice was here. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Maurice was here. It created a significant new body of law and a significant new structure for companies. So the question we have is whether this is an appropriate name for what will become a part of the Public Finance Act; the question we have to ask ourselves is whether “mixed-ownership model” is a sufficient description for that because it is nowhere near as substantial as the State-Owned Enterprises Act actually was and of course it has not been through quite the same process that the State-Owned Enterprises Act went through when it was first established. I would argue quite strongly that in fact this is not an accurate description of the law that is being created by this Parliament and that it is a term of spin that is being used in the title of an Act which is not something that this Parliament has traditionally engaged in doing. Therefore I think we should find a more accurate description for the title. 
On the wider issue I still have the question as to why this bill is not being divided into many many more contributing bills or amendment bills for all of the relevant pieces of legislation that it amends. As I have said it covers the Ombudsmen Act the Official Information Act and the Public Finance Act—all of which I regard as constitutional instruments in New Zealand’s law—and the Income Tax Act which is amended all the time. Although the Income Tax Act has a significant bearing on Parliament’s income I would not necessarily describe it quite so much in the constitutional sense although I am probably going to get emails about that. But certainly the Ombudsmen Act the Official Information Act and the Public Finance Act are all parts of our constitutional framework. We do not have a written constitution in New Zealand so when we are amending those Acts I think we should be explicit about the fact that we are amending them. I do not think that this piece of legislation does that. 
At this point I think that probably concludes my remarks on this but I do look forward to the contribution of the Minister. I see that he has been taking some notes and I am sure that he is going to clarify my concerns.