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:3159. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It is a frightening thought to think of Mr Ryall’s mantelpiece. There will be the share certificates alongside the Whakatane amateur dramatics society “most improved player” award. The truth is that the nurses around the country who Mr Ryall says are queuing up to buy the shares are the same nurses protesting against Mr Ryall because they actually do not have enough money to pay the power bill let alone buy the power company. 
Let us take just one of Mr Ryall’s words there. Who is really looking after the “small elite” here? Is it this side of the Chamber who want to see these assets stay in the hands of all New Zealanders or is it that side of the Chamber who want to see them sold off eventually into foreign hands? That side of the Chamber are the ones who are looking after the small elite; this side of the Chamber are the ones who are saying that we should continue to have these assets in public ownership for all New Zealanders. 
Mr Ryall says that the Labour Party does not believe that New Zealanders can be trusted. We believe that New Zealanders can be trusted to retain these assets for future generations unlike that side of the Chamber who want to sell them off hock them off and make sure that New Zealanders will not have them in the future. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Are you going to buy them back? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Nick Smith is chirping in. I just think it is appropriate to mention what the 1990s National Government did given that is what the Minister has just done. BNZ New Zealand Rail the Ministry of Works Radio New Zealand Commercial Contact Energy half of Auckland Airport—they are not talking about them now are they? That is what they sold in the 1990s. In the 2000s a Labour Government had to come in and buy back the rail because it had been run down so badly. It bought back most of Air New Zealand because it had been run down so badly. The record of this side of the Chamber is far stronger on growing New Zealand’s asset base than that Government over there and the Minister in charge of this bill the Minister for State Owned Enterprises was in a Cabinet that hocked off those assets. 
 I want to talk about my Supplementary Order Paper 59 on this part to amend clause 16— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Great SOP. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —it is an excellent Supplementary Order Paper—to add new section 45Y “Restriction on holdings in companies with control of water resources”. I want to do that because there is little more that binds all of these assets bar Air New Zealand together than water—the control of and the rights to use water. It is an essential part of this debate. We have already heard others speak about the importance of these issues for Tuwharetoa in the context of their issues. We have got the Maori Council claim in place as well. On this side of the Chamber we believe that it is actually important to say that if we have got a resource like water a resource that is for all New Zealanders that resource should remain in the ownership of all New Zealanders. 
I do not expect the National members to agree with this. I do not expect the National members to say: “Yes we believe that water is a resource that should remain in the ownership of all New Zealanders.” but I would expect it out of some of the people who are voting for this bill. I think the Hon Peter Dunne needs to take some ownership of this matter because Peter Dunne said in October last year—this is what he said—when he was talking about all of the things about asset sales that pained him: “Thirdly and one that I feel particularly deeply about is water.”—this is Peter Dunne—“I do not intend to wait until it is on the asset sales agenda. I do not believe New Zealanders would ever—or should ever—accept a sell-off of the supply of the water or any of the aspects around it.” So if Peter Dunne believes that—that he does not want to see the sell-off of the supply of water or any aspects around it—he should be supporting my Supplementary Order Paper to say that— 
Sue Moroney 
: He will be. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I think he will. I think he will support my Supplementary Order Paper because he is bound to. He is bound to see Supplementary Order Paper 59 and say: “I stood by the words that I said in October 2011 that water should not be privatised.” And that is effectively what is happening here. Water is being privatised by stealth through the sale of these assets. 
Peter Dunne should come down to this Chamber and say: “Yes I am standing by what I said in October 2011. I am actually going to do that. I am actually going to say: ‘I’m not going to let these asset sales go through.’ ” because they compromise the fundamental things that he has said New Zealanders believe which is that water is something that belongs to all of us and that its privatisation will fundamentally undermine these assets. It will also fundamentally undermine the principle that New Zealanders believe in about access to water resources. I challenge Peter Dunne. I do not expect the National members to support this because I know that the privatisation of water is on their agenda but I do expect Peter Dunne to come down to this Chamber and say that he would like to support this. 
The other matter I want to mention in clause 16 is new section 45Q around the Treaty issues. I want to pick up the words that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises used just before. [ 
Bell rung 
] Thank you very much Mr Chair and my colleagues I am sure will have a lot to say on this clause when I finish in a few minutes. When Tony Ryall was speaking on new section 45Q he said that the reason that the new Treaty clause applies to only the Crown and not other shareholders is that it applied to only the Crown in the State-Owned Enterprises Act. Well the reason it applied to only the Crown in the State-Owned Enterprises Act is that the Crown was the only owner of the shares. So it is a ridiculous argument to make to say that it is a simple transfer of the rights and obligations of the Crown into this new bill. That is a ridiculous proposition. It is a ridiculous proposition to say that only some of the owners of these assets now have obligations under the Treaty. 
I want to refer Government members to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management which this National Government signed itself up to. I want to read from the preamble of that. This is what it says: “The Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) is the underlying foundation of the Crown-iwi/hapu relationship with regard to freshwater resources. Addressing tangata whenua values and interests across all of the well-beings and including the involvement of iwi and hapu in the overall management of fresh water are key to meeting obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.” This Government has recognised that issues to do with water are critical to the relationship with Maori. It has recognised that. But here we are standing in a debate where we have got a Treaty clause that applies to only part of these assets. It applies to only the Crown’s aspects of these assets now. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Half the water. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Exactly Mr O’Rourke—half the water. It is only 49 percent of the water. How is the Government going to do that? 
Hon Member 
: Which half? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Which half? Is it the half that is in Mr Foss’ glass here? I do not know. We do not know because this clause now applies to only the Crown. 
There is no doubt that the Government has tied itself in knots with new section 45Q in this bill. It did not know what to do the Maori Party was looking for a way out and so it went with a ridiculous premise that because under the State-Owned Enterprises Act it applied to only the Crown it could apply to only the Crown now. It applied to the Crown under the State-Owned Enterprises Act because the Crown was the owner of those assets. It should apply across the board and Mr Mallard has an amendment in his name to make sure that those principles apply across the board. 
If the National Government has any faith whatsoever in this National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management it will adopt Mr Mallard’s amendment and actually make a sensible Treaty clause here that applies right across the companies. It is a ridiculous proposition to try to say it applies to only the Crown. It is a ridiculous proposition to put forward a bill that transfers water rights away from New Zealanders and that effectively begins the privatisation of water. That is something that is definitely on the National Government’s agenda but it should not be done by stealth. The Government should be upfront about this and if it is not it should support my amendment to this clause.