Clark David: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3195. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I have waited a long time and I am very very pleased to finally have my say although I remain disappointed that many of the issues that I feel are germane to this debate have not been discussed because Government members have been so keen to rush the Mixed Ownership Model Bill through without full scrutiny by Parliament without a full debate because they do not like it and they know that people out there in the street are marching against this. Mr Brownlee knows that they are marching against this in the street. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: When? 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: They were marching in Dunedin Mr Brownlee. They were marching in Dunedin. They were marching elsewhere around the country. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Woodhouse was not there. He was invited but he did not turn up. People hate this. They do not like this legislation and that is why I particularly want to support Mr Robertson’s amendment that calls for this bill to go back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee because the process was rushed there too. The process in the select committee was rushed. The people who spoke were limited to 5 minutes. The people around the table asking questions on behalf of Parliament were frequently limited to one question— 
Andrew Little 
: You’re joking! 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: No I am not joking at all. This is a very serious matter. This is not proper democracy. Mr Little is right. This feels wrong. This is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to go through this House and I fear it has not had a proper select committee process. That is why Mr Robertson’s amendment makes a lot of sense. This bill should go back to the select committee to make sure that it has a full and thorough process. I know that there were submitters who were not heard because they could not make teleconference calls arranged at short notice. We know those of us who sat around the table and heard 150-odd submissions that there were more who wanted to speak against this. Some of them may have wanted to speak in favour—we do not know. There were 0.6 percent of the written submissions in favour of the bill. There may have been some germane ideas amongst those. Goodness knows the National Government could do with one or two arguments in support of its bill but we did not hear them; nor did we hear from those many people who submitted but could not make the teleconference calls that were arranged at short notice. Mr Robertson’s amendment is one well worth supporting. 
In Treasury on the top floor there used to hang a cartoon. It was a cartoon by Tom Scott. I am not sure whether it is still there but it is germane to the amendment I wish to move about privatisation—renaming the bill. In this Tom Scott cartoon stand two Treasury officials obviously furious with one another. It sits I am sure up on the top floor of Treasury as a reminder not to be stuck in ideological blinkers but to take pragmatic solutions as the way forward through to the future. The Treasury officials in this cartoon are arguing. They are arguing about the ECNZ split-up—this goes a long way back. One Treasury official says to the other: “I know it works in practice but it does not work in theory.” 
Treasury I think has learnt from that. Treasury now provides advice that says we should take the wider picture into account. We should not have our ideological blinkers on our privatisation blinkers. We need to take the facts into account. That is why Treasury has provided advice that shows that there are lost dividends that are greater than the proceeds from these sales. These privatisation sales will take the country backwards. The Government will be out of pocket as a result of these sales. I am with Brian Fallow who sees this legislation as a solution in search of a problem. I think this bill should be renamed the “State Asset Privatisation Bill” and that is why I have moved the amendment in my name to be very clear about what this bill is doing. 
We heard from a submitter at the select committee—one of the ones who was allowed to speak although he was kept pretty brief and within the constraints the unreasonable constraints placed by the chair of the select committee—who gave an explanation of what had happened in one of the regions in India where a partial privatisation had proceeded. At a given point when the region was cash-strapped the private investors came forward and said: “We will invest further in this company if and only if the whole thing is privatised.” 
 It is a slippery slope. That is the position that this bill puts us in. It puts us in a position where the people who are in charge of these companies we are told will still be the Government at 51 percent but it is suddenly in a very vulnerable position for any future capitalising. It is also tied in to raising any debt that is required to fund future capital developments. This legislation puts the Government on the back foot. Why would we do that? These companies currently provide dividends that fund our schools and hospitals. We are talking about privatising them so we can fund schools and hospitals overseas. We already own these assets. Why on earth would we want to sell them to other people—those who have got the money and who have only benefited from National’s tax cuts—and then allow them to sell them offshore so that those dividends flow offshore and so that they undermine our balance of payments yet further and get us into more of a hole than we are already in? 
Andrew Little 
: It doesn’t make sense. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: It does not make sense. Private interests will control these assets in a way that they should not. Energy infrastructure is essential to this country. It is essential to our industries that rely on electricity for manufacturing. It is essential to our people down in the south certainly who are at risk of freezing in their homes if there are blackouts. We need to control these assets because that is the role of the State. The role of the State is to look after its people. We in the Labour Party are afraid that the appropriate measures are not contained in this bill to make sure that the appropriate Crown control is retained so that these assets can be properly managed in the interests of the whole of New Zealand not in the interests of the bottom line of a minority—at this stage—of private shareholders. 
I am arguing vehemently that the name of this bill should be changed to the “State Asset Privatisation Bill” because that is what it is. Anything else is a mealy-mouthed attempt to divert away from the real issues here. The mixed-ownership model as it has been called is not a popular vernacular term. It is not a term that everyday mum and dad New Zealanders understand—if there is such a mythical beast. 
So the bill should have this name and then it should be sent back to the select committee. As I began at the beginning of my speech to say Mr Robertson’s amendment is one that I will be thoroughly and fully supporting because it would see these issues debated fully and properly not in a rushed process that reports back to the House 5 weeks ahead of schedule—5 weeks 5 full weeks ahead of schedule—for one of the most controversial pieces of legislation likely to go through. This was a rushed process; teleconference submitters missed out we had 5-minute limits on the submitters and the select committee reported back 5 weeks early. There was no need for that rush. 
There were plenty of questions that were not answered in the select committee. These are the kinds of questions that we could ask for further advice on. We could ask for further advice on the risks in the Tuwharetoa case. We could ask for further advice from Treasury on what would happen in the management of the Manapouri dam where we understand there may be an increased cost to the Crown of doing business as a result of these changes. But we did not get the opportunity to ask advice from the officials because the chair of the committee Mr Todd McClay was in such a hurry to bring these issues back to the House. 
I would be interested if Mr Todd McClay wished to take a call on these title and commencement clauses but we have not heard anything from him. He has been keeping his head down since doing his part of this dirty deal and bringing this bill back to the House in short order because he does not want the debate to flourish. He does not want the debate to be held fully in this House and nor does the Minister in the chair Tony Ryall. I challenge the Minister also to take a call on this part of the bill to argue as to why it should not be called the “Privatisation Bill” and to argue also why it should not go back to the select committee for a proper and full hearing Mr Ryall. Mr Ryall I think you understand the processes of this House. You have been around long enough. I would like to see it go back to the select committee as Mr Robertson recommends in his amendment. 
Other issues that could be debated in the select committee and upon which we could seek advice are the discount rate choice done in the modelling and the replacement costs of these assets—could they actually be replaced? These were questions we did not have advice on. We know that those are difficult questions. We know that the Government does not want to face those questions but it can and it should. It has advisers for a reason. We have a select committee process so that we can argue fully these issues and understand them fully so the public can fully understand them and so this House can reach proper and good decisions. When the process is rushed the House is at risk of not making the best decisions on behalf of the country. And that is what we are here for—we are charged as parliamentarians to have this debate fully and properly. As the Opposition Labour members know we are not always going to win the debate but we actually want to make sure—