Lees-Galloway Iain: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3071. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chair. It was a big call I know. Tau Henare thinks that was a pretty good call. 
Brendan Horan 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This was brought up earlier— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. Well— 
Brendan Horan 
: —by the Rt Hon Winston Peters— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Please sit down. We are not going to have a debate every time I make a call. I am keeping a score of everybody who is here and proportionate to the number of members in the Chamber. The member will see that I deliberated long enough. I saw both members. We are not going to get into points of order in this regard about who gets the call. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Chair. [ 
Interruption 
] What was that Mr Henare? Would you care to repeat that one for the record? No. Mr Henare I am sure will take a call on National’s asset sales bill the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. That is what we are debating this afternoon—Part 1 of National’s asset sales bill the bill that is robbing the future by selling off something that was paid for in the past. That is what Part 1 of this bill does. It robs future generations of their birthright by selling off the effort of past generations of New Zealanders. That is the one and only thing that this bill does. It is the implementation of National’s irrational ideological obsession with asset sales. It is the one policy that comes up time and time again whenever National is in charge. The only thing it can think to do is to flog off the assets mostly because it is bereft of good ideas but it has to be said also because it has some people in its pockets who will do very well out of the sale of State assets—the taking away of the dividends from those assets that go to all New Zealanders and concentrating those into the 1 percent the few who will actually be able to afford to buy these shares that the Government is putting up for sale. 
Mr Henare has been told off by the whip Louise Upston. He is in a bit of trouble. Louise Upston is a sensible member. She has got Tau Henare under control. That is good to see. 
I would like to address clause 6 of the State asset sales bill. Clause 6 is of course the clause that removes the former totally State-owned enterprises from the purview of the Ombudsman by removing them from the schedules in the Ombudsmen Act. Of course the result of doing this is to remove from New Zealanders the ability to refer concerns they have with these companies to the Ombudsman—to an impartial and independent investigator who will be able to look at any concerns that New Zealanders have with these companies. So not only is the Government taking away New Zealanders’ birthright by giving its mates the opportunity to suck up all the dividends from these assets but also it is removing New Zealanders’ democratic right to have a right of referral to the Ombudsman of any concerns that they might have with these organisations which will now have an element of private control as well as State control. 
The intention of the Crown is that although it is retaining 51 percent of the voting rights—let us be clear about that; no part of this legislation actually ensures that the Crown retains 51 percent of the ownership rights of these companies but it does ensure that the Crown retains 51 percent of the voting rights—this Government thinks that it is appropriate to remove the New Zealand public’s right to refer these companies to the Ombudsman and indeed to apply the Official Information Act to those organisations as well. This diminishes the oversight the public scrutiny and the consumer protection that the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act currently allow for. It makes it impossible for ordinary New Zealanders for members of Parliament and for interested community organisations to hold those organisations to account to monitor the practices of those organisations. For example if they show the same behaviour that we have seen from every privatised organisation—from every privatised power company—and put their prices up in an unreasonable and unjustifiable way the public has no right to refer that issue to the Ombudsman. That is what this Government is taking away from New Zealanders—their democratic rights. That is what is being removed under clause 6 of this bill. 
Of course what we know is that the Government is also taking away the application of the Treaty of Waitangi to the private shareholders in these companies. How that is going to be discerned between the activities of the private shareholders and the activities of the Crown I do not know. But maybe—maybe—one place that you could take that question is the Ombudsman. No! That right is being taken away. So although we look at the application of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and look at the requirement for these companies to act in the social good interests of New Zealand there is no option for us to refer questions about those requirements back to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is an independent investigator who could have investigated complaints about these companies. 
Those two Acts the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act are the sole security nets or information conduits that are currently available to ordinary New Zealanders in situations where there is concern about the activities or actions of Government organisations or local government organisations. I would point out that the other mixed-ownership model companies that are out there and that this Government has been so pleased to promote actually fall under the purview of the Office of the Ombudsmen as council-controlled organisations. So on the one hand we already have a good example of how the Office of the Ombudsmen could still have jurisdiction in the realm of mixed-ownership model companies but not for this Government. It does not want this scrutiny. It does not want this scrutiny. It is the kind of lack of scrutiny that we see in fully privatised companies. One has to suspect that that is actually where this Government is taking these former State-owned enterprises—to full privatisation. That in fact must be the only reason why clause 6 is sitting inside this bill. 
The Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem does not think this is a good idea. She says it is unjustified on commercial grounds and will see a valuable part of the democratic process lost. The sale of a minority shareholding in these companies does not affect the reasoning for their being subject to the independent oversight and accountability provided through the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act. Even Ms Wakem says that there are plenty of safeguards already within the Official Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act to make sure that any issues of commercial sensitivity and disclosure around those Acts can be mitigated. I certainly know this from having tried to get commercial information out of KiwiRail. It constantly cited the clauses of the Official Information Act that said that they were not able to provide that commercially sensitive information. These mixed-ownership model companies would be able to do the same. 
There is no reason no justifiable reason for clause 6 to remain in this bill. Partially privatised council-owned businesses have already proven that ongoing obligations under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and the Ombudsmen Act did not put them at a commercial disadvantage when compared with fully private companies. Ms Wakem says there is no evidence that continued coverage under the Official Information Act would place these companies at a competitive disadvantage. 
So we come back to the question of why clause 6 is even in this bill. It is purely—purely—about removing people’s democratic rights and the right of referral to an independent investigator so that the public has the right to continue monitoring these companies. These companies are still 51 percent owned by the public. These companies will have a huge impact on people’s daily lives due to their ability to set the price of electricity. This will have a massive impact on people’s day-to-day lives. New Zealanders deserve the right to have an independent arbitrator that they can go to to refer any issues that they might have with these companies. The sole reason National is so hell-bent on having clause 6—