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: 21 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3238. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the excellent contribution from my colleague Chris Hipkins on Supplementary Order Paper 41— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: And Lianne Dalziel. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —and also the contribution by Lianne Dalziel—that was a little stumble there—and the contributions by other members around the House as well. It is only water; do not worry. 
What I really want to do is to pick up for the most part on Mr Hipkins’ concerns about the division of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill into only two bills. I think this is quite a serious matter because when we look at what is in Part 1 which makes up the majority of what will now be called the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill we see a number of matters covered. We see amendments to the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 and it would be quite logical in the system that we use in this Parliament to call any bill that amends those the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill so on that count we can be satisfied. But then we look at what were clauses 6 to 11 of Part 1 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill which now make up the part of the divided bill here and we see there amendments to the Ombudsmen Act 1975. The Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction was not in the House in 1975 but I am sure he can provide us with some guidance around the question of whether or not it is possible to create something called the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and in doing so amend the Ombudsmen Act and not directly split the bill up to amend the actual Ombudsmen Act. 
To remind the Committee of what is being divided here the amendments to the Ombudsmen Act 1975 that will now form part of the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and that were in clause 6 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill are in fact to remove Genesis Power Ltd Meridian Energy Ltd Mighty River Power Ltd and Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd from the Ombudsmen Act to take them right out remove the accountability on those matters and completely take out the ability of New Zealanders to find out what is going on in these companies that allegedly according to the Government we still own nearly half of. So they have gone. They have gone from the Ombudsmen Act. Surely that would be an occasion to have a completely new Act called the “Ombudsmen Amendment Act” rather than to have it under the State-Owned Enterprises Act. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The “Ombudsmen Sidelining Act”. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right. In fact it could have a number of names. That is right Mr Peters it could be called the “Ombudsmen Sidelining Act”. It could be called the “Ombudsmen (Hiding Information from New Zealanders) Act”. There are many different names it could be called but whatever it is called it should be an Act by itself. I simply cannot understand how it can be part of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. It does not describe what will be done. It does not explain to New Zealanders that their rights to take issues to the Ombudsman about companies that they previously have owned all of and under this Government will own less than that—half of that less than half of that over time I am sure—will be repealed. They should have the right to have a piece of legislation in front of this Committee called the “Ombudsmen Repeal Act” the “Ombudsmen (Hiding from the Public) Act” or whatever name we would choose to give it. I simply cannot understand why the Government has split the bill in this motion into only two bills. 
If we then move to the next of the pieces covered under the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill which is what was previously in clause 7 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill these are amendments to the Official Information Act. This amends the Official Information Act to “repeal the item relating to Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd.” That means this is a significant change and it would be deserving of its own piece of legislation I would have thought. We need to explain what that change is. The change is that New Zealanders previously would have thought that the Official Information Act applied to an entity that they own to an entity that even under this proposal they have at least some ownership of we are told by the Government. Surely that would have been something of such significance—that New Zealanders could no longer use the Official Information Act to find out what is actually going on in Solid Energy; so much for control of it—that that would justify an “Official Information (Hiding What is Happening in Solid Energy) Amendment Bill” or an “Official Information (Taking Away the Rights of New Zealanders to Information About Assets That They Own) Amendment Bill”. All of those things would be more accurate descriptions than the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Act. That does not describe what is happening here. That does not describe to New Zealanders what is going on here. 
Now we have a situation where under Supplementary Order Paper 41 which we are discussing the bill will be split into two; we have the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill and we have the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill but we do not have any reference to the Ombudsmen Act the Official Information Act or indeed to the Income Tax Act which are clearly distinct parts of what is Part 1 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. 
So I think the Minister in the chair does need to stand up and answer to the Committee as to why this is happening. I could posit some reasons for him. It would be more constructive I suspect if the Minister were to get up and do that but I could posit some reasons. I would say that one of those reasons is that the Government does not want New Zealanders to know that their rights under the Official Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act would be taken away in this legislation. That would be one reason why the Government split this bill into only two parts rather than the many parts that would accurately describe what is happening here. 
It seems quite clear to me that we have a serious issue within Supplementary Order Paper 41. We are not allowed to debate the substance and the merits of what will happen within this but it is quite clear to me having listened to and participated in the debate that members raised many Supplementary Order Papers many amendments and many issues relating to changes to the Ombudsmen Act and changes to the Official Information Act. These are Acts that lie at the core of our democracy. These are the things that enable New Zealanders to know what is going on in public companies and entities in which they have an interest and in which all New Zealanders have an interest. Yet today the Government is blithely putting all of that under something called the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill which is half of this motion. I simply do not think that describes what is happening here. I do not think it is accurate in terms of the history and as Mr Hipkins said of how we describe laws in New Zealand. 
Chris Hipkins 
: It’s a change from our practice. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right; it is a change from previous practice. We have not had a single explanation from the Government side about why it has decided to completely ignore the fact that it is amending the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act let alone I might add the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Act does get amended more often in this House. I absolutely accept that. But again these are very important items in terms of the overall accounts of New Zealand. If we look at what the amendments are we see that what was formerly Part 1—clauses 9 10 and 11 of Part 1—are serious amendments that are being undertaken here. They remove from the Income Tax Act items relating to Genesis Power Ltd Meridian Energy Ltd Mighty River Power Ltd and Solid Energy. So the amendments remove them from the Income Tax Act. They are removing them from a fundamental piece of legislation so why is there not something on the Table right now in Supplementary Order Paper 41 called the “Income Tax (Taking Away the Profits that New Zealanders Get From these State-owned Assets) Amendment Bill”? It may not be that title. Mr Williamson possibly would want something with fewer words in it but it could be that title. So not actually having the Income Tax Act amendment— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Fewer. Fewer words. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Fewer yes. I said fewer. Fewer words. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Could we have an animated version? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: We could have an animated version. We could have an app if it was the Minister in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction. It may be more appropriate that some kind of app was created that could actually do that for us. 
Phil Twyford 
: Smart app. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: SmartGate. That is right. Those amendments to the Income Tax Act are now lost within the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Bill. 
There is another curiosity in this matter and that is that in fact what is now going to be the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Act also includes amendments to the Public Finance Act. I think that creates an internal contradiction here because the second bill from this divided bill is the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill and I endorse the comments made by Russel Norman and Winston Peters on the Freudian nature of that title. Actually we are now also amending the Public Finance Act within the State-Owned Enterprises Amendment Act. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain to us exactly how that works. Would it not make more sense in this Supplementary Order Paper to divide the bill to include what was clause 8 of Part 1 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill in the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Bill? If that is a bit confusing for those listening on their crystal sets—Maurice Williamson is aware of crystal sets—the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act is the second— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He’s got earrings made of them. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is almost worth getting on the record is it not? Mr Peters says that he has got earrings made of them which I think is very clever. The Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Bill—