Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3089. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to focus on some of the amendments that are sitting to Part 1 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill—in particular the amendment in my name that will take out Genesis Energy and that in my colleague Chris Hipkins’ name that will take out Solid Energy from the group of assets that are up for sale. The reason I would like to focus on these is that these are the two dirty companies. Genesis Energy is certainly the dirtiest generator around and it is one where it is very important that we get a shift in its attitude and its production over time as far as possible towards renewables. It is part of in the end social responsibility which is another clause that we will be debating by way of amendment in order to keep it in and keep it applying to these companies if in fact my amendment and that of my colleague are unsuccessful. Genesis Energy’s frankly appalling annual report—if one goes to the chairman information it says “A word from the top” and it has a picture of Jenny Shipley—is not quite the image that some of us think is appropriate for a State-owned enterprise but— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Before the dinner break I was speaking on my amendment which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65. The objective of it is to—within clauses 4 5 and 6 of Part 1—delete Genesis Energy known as Genesis Power Ltd from this piece of legislation. The point that I was making earlier and it is something that I am sure the Leader of the House is aware of from his previous responsibilities is that Genesis is really the Crown’s dirty energy company. It has the Huntly power station. It is one that I think it is fair to say over the 1990s and one could say even into the 2000s had a focus more on non-renewables than was desirable. And it was the one that had the furthest to go. I know there has been some asset swapping around the place with the intention of getting more energy for Genesis in the South Island. But that is not something that from my perspective means that this company is one that should be allowed to go out into the private sector and take its relatively dirty methods further out into the commercial world. I was also associating that with the Supplementary Order Paper from my colleague the intention of which is to take Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd out. I want to try to link these two points which my colleagues I am sure will speak to going forward. 
I was for a period of time the Minister for State Owned Enterprises I think for 3 years. When I got my punishment at one stage I had a number of portfolios that I liked taken off me including sport and Rugby World Cup. I note my colleague smiling there. I was left with the State-owned enterprises portfolio because like the environment and labour portfolios it was seen as a punishment. And dealing with Solid Energy I think was one of the harder jobs but there were some really big decisions. 
One of the decisions which I know my colleagues in the Greens disagreed with but I think was something that was really important was the purchase of the farms with the lignite under them in Southland. My view is that there is a pretty clear choice there around the ownership of those and whether we should have a State-owned enterprise involved in whatever development happens and whether the Government should have influence over that as an owner as well as a regulator. My view has always been that at some stage in the future the energy that is there—there will be the methods developed in order for it to be used in an environmentally sustainable way. It might be 20 years away it might be 40 years away but if we left it to the private sector and if it is privatised in this way what will happen is it will be done on a strictly commercial basis it will be mined very very soon it will be burned in pellets and it will be outrageous. 
We have some choices to make and I disagree with both sides of the House. The Greens say: “Leave it to the private sector to own it and to use it.” The National Party says: “Sell it to the private sector and let them use it.” I disagree with both of them. What I wanted to see was us get to the point where that energy can be taken out and where the emissions can be held underground. There are a number of loose heads in the Greens shaking around. There are a number of loose heads flapping. It is something that may be able to be done in the future but if we do not own it our ability to control it is removed only to the basis of our regulatory ability and that is something that is pretty hard. That is what my amendment is about and that is what my colleagues’ amendments are about. It is about the role of the State in the energy companies and my view is that that is a role that goes well beyond the role of the regulator. 
The other point that I now want to make is that there is on the Table a group of amendments that are what I would describe as fundamental or substantive. They are really big amendments from the Labour Party. They have to do with the Ombudsmen they have to do with individual companies and they have to do with Treaty issues—there are lots and lots of issues there. They are what I call substantive. But I want to say that the member in charge of this bill the Hon Tony Ryall has done a shocking job on the drafting—a shocking job on the drafting of this bill. I think the Attorney-General should be talking to Mr Ryall and trying to get—or Mr English; whose name is the bill in? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Ryall. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He should be talking to Mr Ryall and getting him to sort out the drafting. The Labour Party has found hundreds—hundreds—of drafting errors in this bill. There are hundreds of drafting errors bad English English that is not plain things that create doubt. We have mixed feelings on this. Should we help the Government tidy up its legislation by moving a number of amendments to clarify the purpose and to make it clear or should we leave it to stew in its own bad drafting? I am a parliamentarian—a parliamentarian first. Some of these amendments are clearly matters of policy difference and very big policy difference. But as a parliamentarian I cannot let legislation go through the Committee that is so badly drafted and around which the Government is so disorganised. So it is the reverse of the normal saying; it is normally “I’m from the Government I am here to help.” but in this particular case we are here from the Opposition and we are here to help. That is why my colleague Chris Hipkins has on behalf of the Labour Party tabled a number of amendments. I take some care at letting one clerk carry them. There are copies of each of them there. We are doing that in order to make clear to the Government that it is important not only as a matter of principle but also as a matter of proper parliamentary drafting.