Anticorruptionnz's Blog

13/04/2012

Mixed Ownership Model Bill submission

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 10:55 am

The following is the  submission which I have made with regards to the Mixed Ownership Model Bill .

The  fact that  our government  even considering such a move  without consideration to ant  corruption measures shows that  there is a  need for  an   independent commission against corruption  hence my petition.

The Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee

I am a licenced Private Investigator   , former Police Sergeant and an anti-corruption specialist.

New Zealand was amongst the first to sign the United Nations convention against corruption in 2003 and since that date we have done little to honour the treaty.

Here we are again poised to transform a bill into legislation and I have to ask what anti-corruption measures have been considered in writing the bill.

Caution has to be taken in creating legislation from the moment the first bill is drafted.   I have documentary evidence of persons with vested interest writing legislation for their own business plan and their own   financial growth.  In that particular case the person became an employee and advisor of the select committee through the transition of the bill. Yes it happened in New Zealand but we prefer to keep this quite.

It is therefore important for the select committee  in the interest of  corruption known as state capture to consider

  1. Who wrote the bill
  2.  what  interest have they declared
  3. What prompted the need for the bill in the first place.
  4. is the  writer of the bill involved in  its transition stages
  5.  What purpose does this person have for the bill/ resulting legislation ?

Ideally the bill’s author should be truly independent and have no future aspirations as to the fruits of the bill or the legislation arising from it.

The party  the  author of the bill is connected to  also warrants  consideration , what is his/ her connection to the party  . In the instance I use as an example the   writer/ advisor   utilized  the legislation for self-enrichment  and to facilitate it  this person   had the opportunity to  heavily edit  the caucus papers of the  minister whose portfolio  the  legislation directly related to.   Whilst treasury and ministry opposed the approval for  the establishments  of a  law enforcement authority  under that legislation,  approval was given   by caucus on the strength of the caucus papers   .

My next issue is with the definition of person   referred to in the   interpretation act and relied on for this  bill.

Person includes unincorporated groups.   This is a very loose term and gives provisions for person and persons unknown to become involved in the ownership model. see Anthony Molloys QC article on trust busting

When we allow for   invisibility we open the door to corruption.   The persons need to be   real and legally definable. Unincorporated trusts  are a vehicle for of corruption , the deeds are not  visible and  not recorded.  No unincorporated body  which does not have   true   transparency should be considered.

This  also implicates companies  , as we often don’t know who the owners of New Zealand companies are , due to our very loose processes with the company registrations and before we   even  consider sharing public assets with  third parties we have to be certain that we know  who they are.

Currently a New Zealand company can  be owned  by   foreigners  but because  the company is   registered in NZ we consider it a legal  NZ person even if we cant see beyond some names which  could very well be fictional directors  and a  overseas registered company of which we have no proof of registration or control of continued registration. .

Further there are the provisions of the United Nations Convention against Corruption itself.  What considerations have been given to the terms and expectations of  this   treaty ,which we signed  and then relegated to the bottom draw?    What articles of this treaty have been considered in the drafting of this legislation and what consideration has been given to transparency and   the right to access information from the third parties who   through this legislation could become part owners of our national assets?

And what of the power companies themselves, will we still be able to seek accountability under the state sector act?  Or any other provision? Or will the companies be deemed private and  the  information they hold will no longer be available under the official information act and will they still come under the  jurisdiction of  our public watchdogs  such as the Ombudsmen and auditor general?

Power is already a monopoly. The definition for corruption is monopoly & discretion – accountability.

I fear that this bill will diminish the   accountability of the power companies further, giving greater scope   for discretion in already well-established monopolies what this bill is  doing is opening the door to corruption even further, the only people who stand to lose are the New Zealand citizens who currently own the assets through the crown.

This bill has not considered corruption, it is a vehicle to asset strip the county.

We appear to be hell bent on profit, what is wrong with a model where by the people are the owners and shareholders and the benefits of their shareholding  is that in return they   receive economical   gas and  electricity bills .

The profits for that third party shareholders will seek, has to be paid by someone . The people who will pay for this initiative are the   consumers, the people of New Zealand.

Have we not learnt from the sale of telecom, the sale  of the rail ways,  the rich get richer  the poor are left to foot the bill we should be looking at closing the gap not  continue to increase it.

Where there are shareholders there is an expectation of profit . There is a radical notion one which we adopted in the past and one we have lost sight of, and that is service .

We could have a power service but only if the assets remain those of the people and the profits are fed back into the asset.

Lastly where is the cost benefit analysis in this?  Where is the need to consider partial privatisation what studies are there to show what serves our country and our people best.

It appears to me that this bill is not one that will serve in the interest of the   country, it will serve well for a small group of people  who are already  anticipating personal wealth creation   as a result of this   bill passing into law.

We should be legislating for accountability and transparency   not be creating laws  that will allow  our assets to  pass into unseen and unaccountable hands.

Yours sincerely

Grace Haden

Licenced Private Investigator

Advertisements

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: