Robertson Grant: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3075. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chair— 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Oh hang on—the next Prime Minister’s speaking. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The member who will resume his seat in a minute—thank you—the member who just resumed his seat Paul Goldsmith tells us that we live in uncertain times and that there are things to be concerned about and worried about coming from Europe. I know that is the perfect time to hock off a whole lot of assets! That is a brilliant brilliant economic lesson from Mr Goldsmith to stand up in this Chamber and say: “In the middle of a global financial crisis here’s the bright idea.” 
Hon Member 
: “Mr Sachs”. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: “Mr Goldsmith Sachs”. Here is the bright idea from the National Government: let us sell off assets into the most uncertain market we could possibly have. No wonder Bill English can only guess at the price it will get for the assets because he wants to sell them into a market where New Zealanders’ future will be put at risk not just by selling them off but also because the price they will get will be appalling. 
We also heard from Mr Goldsmith the importance of using the money that is gained from these sales for the Future Investment Fund—you know the sort of  
Logan’s Run  
- style future that will be brought to the world. Well the problem with the Future Investment Fund is that the Future Investment Fund involves selling off revenue-generating assets to invest the money in schools and hospitals. These are things that are important but they are not revenue generating—or perhaps that is how the National Government sees them as revenue-generating schools and revenue-generating hospitals. 
We have been there before with National but the logic fails for Mr Goldsmith. Sell off efficient profitable organisations and claim a hoax on the country by saying: “We are going to reinvest that money in schools and hospitals.” Mr Goldsmith it is your Government’s job to invest in schools and hospitals no matter what not just on the basis of selling off things that have been built up by past generations of New Zealanders. The National Government side of this Chamber should take some responsibility and actually invest in schools and hospitals. Do not try to put a cruel hoax on New Zealanders that you are going to transfer this money across. Make the investment because it is worth doing; do not sell off future generations’ revenue-generating assets just to make that kind of hoax. 
The other element of Mr Goldsmith’s presentation that I would like to mention is the question of the efficiency of the private sector in running some of these organisations and the fact that there is just no way that a State-owned outfit could possibly be able to run at the level of efficiency that Mr Goldsmith’s mythical private sector outfit could. Well need I remind Mr Goldsmith of KiwiRail and Air New Zealand the companies that actually had to be bailed out by the Labour Government because the private sector boards failed to run them efficiently? The evidence does not really work for Mr Goldsmith on this one. It does not really work for him. 
Also we have heard from the Auditor-General and we have heard from Treasury that these State-owned enterprises are currently run efficiently. They are currently well run. Why is it that Mr Goldsmith wants to take something that is currently well run is efficiently run and is generating revenue for New Zealanders and hock it off? It is because of ideology and because of failed economic policies from this Government. Make no mistake this bill is a testimony to the failure of this Government. It is a testimony to the failure of this Government to come up with any ideas to actually grow the economy. So having got no ideas to grow the economy— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s why a million people voted for us. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Henare wanted that mining in national parks. That is what he wanted but the Government did not want to go ahead with that so that idea went out the window. Then the economy was going to be grown by turning us into one big call centre for financial services. That idea went out the window. We had the Job Summit. There were more people at it than jobs created by it but that does not matter. Mr Henare’s Government ran out of ideas completely and said: “All right we’ll hock off the family silver.” Well the problem with that argument Mr Henare is that it is “sugar hit” economics. One sugar hit of somewhere between $5 billion and $7 billion and then the assets are gone. It is “sugar hit” economics from that side of the Chamber. It has no economic plan. It is trying to find a way of generating a bit of money for a year—$5 billion to $7 billion—and then the assets are gone and control of those assets is gone. 
Part 1 of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill actually puts in place the system to make sure that these assets can be sold. But what this Government does not want to talk about today is that by taking these sections out of the State-Owned Enterprises Act they take away from New Zealanders the control that New Zealanders expect to have over core infrastructure companies—over things that are absolutely vital to the future of our economy. By taking them out of the State-Owned Enterprises Act that removes a number of key provisions. Firstly it removes the social responsibility provisions that are in the Act. Members on the other side of the Chamber have said: “Well that’s not really relevant. That is not that important.” Yes it is. The whole point of having these companies as State-owned enterprises is the notion that they will be working in the interests of New Zealand and that the revenue will come back to all New Zealanders. 
Tony Ryall stood up in this Chamber in this debate and said that this side of the Chamber does not have confidence in New Zealanders because we do not want them to be able to buy into these assets. Well Mr Ryall we are the ones with confidence because we want these assets to be 100 percent owned by New Zealanders. That side of the Chamber are the people who have lost confidence in New Zealanders because they want to hock off the shares to foreign buyers. This side of the Chamber is the one that is backing New Zealand 100 percent. 
The reason why taking these sections out of the State-Owned Enterprises Act is a problem is that by removing those social responsibility provisions we actually have a situation whereby the things New Zealanders think are important—the security of our infrastructure and the fact that there might actually be a social purpose for having electricity for instance provided in this way in New Zealand—are gone. They are undermined by this bill and they are gone. That social responsibility section will not be there nor will the requirements for good-employer provisions. That is actually covered by a number of amendments that have been put up by the Labour Party to try to remove these companies from this bill and to put them back into the State-Owned Enterprises Act. The good-employer provisions in the legislation are very important. They are missing now. In clause 3 in Part 1 of this bill they are now missing. 
Section 4(2)(c) currently in the State-Owned Enterprises Act says: “the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment;”. That is a key provision because these are agencies that should be working on behalf of New Zealanders and by removing that by the bill— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s a crony clause. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right Mr Mallard it is the “crony clause”. It is taken out by this bill to enable the National Government to ensure that the agenda of privatisation can carry on and to ensure that the interests of the private shareholders in this company are going to be what really matters not the New Zealand shareholders. At the moment under the Act we know that there are good-employer provisions and there are social responsibility provisions. New Zealanders can have confidence that these entities are being operated in the best interests of all New Zealanders. Under this proposal by not having those clauses in the bill we no longer have that confidence. What we have is a situation where the National Party’s cronies will be able to be appointed and the privatisation process will go on. 
The other impact of clause 3 of this bill relates to the question around the Treaty obligations. The Government has tried to come back on this. The Government has tried to say: “We made a mistake and we’re now going to be coming back.” But this bill does not protect Maori interests. Mr Henare might want to take a call on this. Get up and tell the Committee— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Why? Because he might actually be interested as the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee to get up— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh OK because he’s a Maori. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No as the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee he might actually be able to get up and tell this Committee how the future interests of Maori will be protected in this bill because the section that sits there today is not in the bill. By taking it out of the State-Owned Enterprises Act by taking it out of the provisions that New Zealanders know will actually protect them— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Listen mate Maori were sold down the drain in 1984 when your lot sold everything. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No. Mr Henare says that. What we learnt during this debate was that John Key did not even understand how section 9 made it into the State-Owned Enterprises Act. He did not even understand the importance that that section has had for protecting Maori interests and what New Zealanders own. There is nothing in this bill that will protect the future interests of Maori in these assets. 
Throughout Part 1 of this bill what we see is the taking away from New Zealanders of all the protections that they have had for these assets that are meant to work on their behalf. What we see in this bill— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What a shocking performance. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Henare would quite like to take a call and stand up rather than shouting continuously. He could stand up to take a call and say how it is that New Zealanders are losing something that they 100 percent own and something that has been built up by past generations for an ideological “sugar hit” piece of economics. This is a shameful bill from the National Government because it undermines core infrastructure. It takes away in Part 1 everything that it means for a piece of infrastructure an asset to be in New Zealanders’ hands. It takes it away and says it can be sold offshore. There is nothing in Part 1 of this bill that justifies selling these assets. There is nothing in Part 1 of this bill that actually says that New Zealanders can keep their birthright. It is a shameful piece of legislation.