Flavell Te Ururoa: State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 26 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3307. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. I am pleased to take the opportunity to represent the Maori Party in setting out our position on this legislation. The Maori Party has maintained a clear position on the mixed-ownership model from the moment it was mooted and that is to oppose this legislation which enacts National’s decision to sell a significant share in specific State-owned assets. The planned sale of power companies raises issues of ownership and management of freshwater and other natural resources that are still under discussions between iwi and the Crown. We absolutely support the well-founded right of Maori to be party to those discussions. We also remind the Crown of its obligation to enter into dialogue with its Treaty partner and I hope to speak to that matter shortly. 
Let me make it clear that we strongly oppose the removal of the four State-owned enterprises from the State-Owned Enterprises Act and the proposal to sell 49 percent of these important Crown assets until historical Treaty settlements are concluded with all claimants who wish to include these assets in the redress package. We should not claim that not a lot is left in the bucket on the one hand while at the same time selling off the resource. 
Our position has been informed by the context of some fundamental kaupapa that the Maori Party believes in and it forms the foundation of our analysis of the legislation. Kaitiakitanga talks about resource management and healthy water land and people. Whakapapa relationships talks about the relationship between the sea and inland and our commitment to enhancing the well-being of whanau hapu and iwi. It is also about understanding the interconnectedness between the different elements of our environment. Mana whenua and mana moana are about rights and responsibilities. These are the sorts of kaupapa that give us a Maori world view and concepts by which we should operate.  
Then we must consider the historical context: a history shaped by far-reaching decisions throughout our history in education land te reo Maori forestry radio and television. It is a history that has helped define our nation ensuring that Maori have the same rights as others to the protection of law and recognising our unique distinctiveness as tangata whenua and as one of the two partners of the Treaty. Vitally it reminds us all of the constitutional significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi as instructing us on how we should live together as partners.  
Since the famous New Zealand Maori Council lands case in 1987 Treaty protections have kept economic and strategic assets of huge value in New Zealand hands; they have been guaranteed protection by the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. To arrive at a point whereby that partnership is beginning to be recognised by the Crown through its legislation has taken many many years and we have been absolutely determined to follow that through and preserve it. This legislation is a backward step that makes a mockery of a proud history and in particular section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 which declares that “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” 
 Despite voting against this legislation we are happy enough with the precedent established by that section 9 which is retained in this legislation. We fought very hard and to the wire to ensure those protections were maintained but we know that the fight is not over. Although we know that the legislation imposes Treaty obligations on the Crown there are however some fish-hooks about how the Crown will exercise its Treaty obligations. As a case in point the Crown Treaty obligations apply only to the exercise of the Crown’s powers as a shareholder. And what would that mean in practical terms? That is pretty much uncertain at this point. Under this bill the Crown-appointed directors would not be subject to the Crown’s Treaty obligations. Although it would be unorthodox it would have been a showing of good faith if this bill spelt out how the Crown’s Treaty obligations would be met through its directors. These questions prompted us to vote in support of the amendments put forward by Mr Mallard and Mr Parker at the Committee stage that would enable companies and the directors placed under a mixed-ownership structure to continue to be bound by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi but it was not to be. 
This legislation has been a mammoth exercise that iwi Maori have been actively engaged with. The Maori Party pays a huge tribute to all of those iwi and indeed to the 1488 submissions of which many were from iwi and hapu groups for being prepared to stand up and be counted. It would be impossible to summarise these views but I did want to ensure that this final debate ends with the words of iwi. In this case I have turned to the submission from one of our own Te Ariki Tumu te Heuheu on behalf of Ngati Tuwharetoa. The collective Ngati Tuwharetoa position was to oppose the bill on five clear grounds and I will outline those now. 
 Firstly they said that “Ngati Tuwharetoa are the legal owners of the lakes and rivers used by Mighty River Power and Genesis Power …”. Their concern is that the model privatises electricity generation operations on their waterways without them having any say in the matter. They are not prepared to stand by and watch private commercial interests generating private profits from lakes and rivers they own in freehold title. 
Part 2 of the submission was about the fact that these power schemes were established to generate electricity for the public good not for private profit. Sir Tumu in his eloquent way said that “The model expressly enables the privatisation and consequential commercialisation of schemes that were previously operated in the national interest.” Tuwharetoa also remarked that it was a very auspicious occasion in 1993 under the National Government of the day when Lake Taupo was returned to the hands of Ngati Tuwharetoa. This legislation will now urge them to reconsider their position around public free access in light of the likely commercial exploitation of the Taupo waters. 
The third element I want to talk to from the Tuwharetoa submission was that “justice dictates … our opportunity to reach a fair resolution … Treaty claims should not be foreclosed by the sale of the SOEs.” This is a key position for iwi across the motu—that our rights need to be properly provided for before the sale of any State-owned assets results in the trampling of those rights. The fourth issue raised was that Ngati Tuwharetoa has a relationship with the Crown and is therefore entitled to expect that the Crown will act honourably and consistently with its Treaty obligations. This is what they expect as a party to the Treaty relationship. 
Finally they said that relationships with the Crown are critical to the success of electricity generators like Mighty River Power and Genesis and yet this does not get translated into this bill. Tuwharetoa describe the significant relationships that they have entered into with various landowning entities and Mighty River Power such as the joint ownership of Tuaropaki Power Station. 
I want to make it clear that we are not here to tell iwi what to do with their money but I think that the points that Ngati Tuwharetoa and indeed many iwi have made in opposing this legislation are really important drivers as to how the Government can expect to work in good faith with iwi going forward. 
One of the critical omissions in this legislation is that it does not include a social responsibility requirement as in section 4(1)(c) of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. That section requires each State-owned enterprise to amongst other things be “an organisation that exhibits a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.” This has been a really important basis for many iwi in establishing an effective relationship with the entities. It has provided an important balance to the commercial focus of the State-owned enterprises and reflects the public good—say for electricity generation—for which they were established. A lesson for the Government must be to build on these relationships and to be socially responsible. 
Finally I want to reiterate the Maori Party’s strong opposition to this legislation but also our commitment to futureproofing the next generation. Thinking ahead is an important pillar to making sure that we look after our natural resources and the management of them. Our customary rights to use resources were founded on customary responsibilities to protect sustain and enhance. We agree with the analysis by Mr Brian Gould that the stated reasons for iwi being keen to be buyers in the question of our State-owned assets deserve some attention. His view was that iwi have made it clear that their intention—and here is the punchline—is to buy so that they can hold the assets in trust for future generations of Maori. In this respect we have pushed for iwi to have their own share category as tangata whenua and we know that these negotiations are still in progress. How National responds will be an ongoing marker in the relationship it has with whanau hapu and iwi into the future. We oppose this legislation.