Robertson Grant: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3204. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I really want to just carry on in many ways from where my colleague Lianne Dalziel left off because I think the debate about the title of this bill the Mixed Ownership Model Bill is important. I want to refer—in my first opportunity in this particular part of the debate—to Supplementary Order Paper 58 which is in my own name. 
Just before I do that I want to go back to Chris Hipkins’ Supplementary Order Paper 53 which prevents enactment unless there is a 75 percent majority. I think this is a very important Supplementary Order Paper because time and again over the last few weeks we have heard from the National Government about its mandate to pass this legislation. I want to make absolutely clear to that party opposite that in fact in the general election there were more people who voted for parties that oppose asset sales than there were for parties that favour them—40000 more people in fact right across New Zealand. They actually voted for parties that oppose asset sales. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Tony Ryall is laughing. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Tony Ryall does not care about the mandate issue. He is laughing at the fact that there actually is no electoral mandate on this issue. In this Parliament what we have is a situation where the majority— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Third in the party vote in Wellington Central. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Chris Finlayson is chipping in. Has that member won a seat? Has Chris Finlayson won a seat? No. Chris Finlayson has never won a seat. He has never won a seat. He has never even got close to winning a seat—never even got close to winning a seat. The majority for this legislation in this House comes from Peter Dunne. He represents a party that got less than 1 percent of the party vote and it is his vote that is pushing this bill across the line. 
There is no mandate. Chris Hipkins’ amendment is in fact a very good amendment because what it says is that this Government for something as fundamental as the sale of assets needs to actually have a greater mandate than being on the losing side of the issue in the last election—on the losing side of the issue. There is no mandate over that side. Those members like to crow and claim they do because they are the largest party in Parliament. Well this is a democracy. This is MMP. More people voted against asset sales than did for them. This amendment from Chris Hipkins actually means that the Government would have to come up with the kind of majority that should be in place for a matter of this order. 
The other Supplementary Order Paper I want to refer to is the one in my name. It makes sure that the Royal assent is not granted until the Finance and Expenditure Committee re-examines the bill in satisfactory detail and recommends to the House that it be passed. I sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for a brief time during this consideration and I simply could not believe the attitude— 
Dr David Clark 
: The whole time. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Dr Clark who has not had enough air time in this debate sat on the committee many many more times than I did. The committee meeting that I saw that I particularly could not believe was the one where the Government decided that it would not get officials to go away and find out whether power prices are in fact higher in private companies than they are in State-owned enterprises. That was put before the committee officials were asked to look at it and the Government would not give those officials the time they needed to go away and do that work. They gave such a limited time to be able to consider issues like that. They rushed through the debate. We have all heard the stories in this House of how select committee submitters were treated. They were given incredibly short periods of time were patronised by Government members and were asked by Government members like Maggie Barry whom they voted for and whom they supported. That is outrageous. It should not be part of our select committee process. This select committee which had over 1500 submissions was not able to hear those submissions in any kind of detail. It was not able to hear proper arguments. 
The Government in this case really truly showed its colours because it backed the 1 percent. It backed the 1 percent of submitters who came to the committee and said they support this bill. That is whom the Government backs just like it does in every other walk of life; it backs the 1 percent. The 99 percent of submitters who came to the select committee and said that they want to make sure that this is stopped and that they want a proper say about this have been ignored by this Government. That is why my Supplementary Order Paper has been put up to tell this Government to show some democracy and show some commitment to the process of having people come in front of a committee and have their say. Instead people were attacked people were not given enough time and the process by the officials who I am sure were working very hard through this process was truncated by members opposite.