Little Andrew: Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9813. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I am happy to take a call on the Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill. I can say this of the bill: we are supportive of the policy behind the bill and we will support the bill. I think the policy is a very sound one that if the Public Trust is to be called upon as the trustee of last resort in the case of collapsed finance companies or collapsing finance companies it is only correct that when theretiring trustees who wish to wash their hands of their responsibilities are looking for an alternative they should be required to have used their reasonable endeavours to look for an alternative other than the Public Trust. Then if in an application to the High Court the Public Trust is the only one left standing the Public Trust should be reimbursed or at least indemnified for the cost of taking on that responsibility.The truth certainly in relation to finance companies is that we are talking about corporate trustees. They are there in the good times and they charge fees and generate an income while the finance company is doing its best to take money and lend it. They may have whatever care or regard for the investors and depositors with them; they are quite happy to be there at that time and fleece the finance company and its depositors and creditors. But when it all gets too hard they want to flick responsibility and wash their hands of it. So I commend the Minister of Justice for adopting that policy and taking that approach.The question remains however as to why this bill has to be considered under urgency. There are two principal reasons. One is that the issue that underpins this bill is not new. The finance companies have been collapsing since 2008. The risk of an application to the High Court to nominate the Public Trust or appoint the Public Trust as a securities trustee for a failing finance company has been there at least since 2008. A question obviously arises as to why the Ministry of Justice the other appropriate authorities or indeed the Minister herself or her predecessor have not seen the risk and sought to move on it earlier. In that regard we have the Financial Markets Conduct Bill which is under way. In any event if it is passed it is not intended to take effect until next year.But this is not a new issue; it has been around. What we have is one application to the High Court by Perpetual Trust to appoint the Public Trust as a trustee for Capital + Merchant Finance. The other policy aspect is of course that if this bill should be passed if the Public Trust is appointed then the risk of loss to the Public Trust is mitigated by the indemnity. That however will not apply in the case of Capital + Merchant Finance and Perpetual Trust because the bill does not seek to be retrospective. That application has been with the court. It is due to be heard in a few weeks’ time. So any appointment of the Public Trust by the court cannot or will not take effect under this bill.The interesting thing about that is—and I have said this before about some of the personalities behind Capital + Merchant Finance—that one of them is Trevor Janes who was a director of Capital + Merchant Finance. Many directors in fact all the directors of Capital + Merchant Finance have been the subject if not of prosecutions by the Serious Fraud Office—and by that I mean successful prosecutions by the Serious Fraud Office—then of civil action by the Financial Markets Authority. The one director who has escaped attention for reasons that no one can understand and for reasons that have never been given is Trevor Janes.The interesting thing about Trevor Janes is that he is a favoured appointee of this Government. He was most recently appointed to the board of none other than ACC by the present Minister of Justice when she was Minister for ACC—she still is the Minister for ACC—as a consequence of the clean-out of that board following its crisis last year. Of course not only was he appointed to the board of ACC but he was made its deputy chair and the chair of the investment committee. He was a director of a failed finance company a finance company whose other directors have been the subject of prosecutions by the Serious Fraud Office and civil action by the Financial Markets Authority who found himself excluded from those actions and appointed by this Government to the board of ACC and as the chair of its investment committee. In thewords of that great English comedienne Catherine Tate I say: “What a liberty. What a liberty.” that that should happen.Mike Sabin: Give us the full version.ANDREW LITTLE: There is another word in that phrase but I understand that it is considered to be unparliamentary so I will not use it. But I simply say: “What a liberty.”Scott Simpson: It has something to do with ducks—something to do with ducks.ANDREW LITTLE: It might do. It might rhyme with it. I am not quite sure. It is a derivative of a word used I think by Aaron Gilmore not two weekends ago. But the point is that Capital + Merchant Finance and Perpetual Trust which was trying to absolve itself of any further responsibility for Capital + Merchant Finance will not have this bill applied to them. They have escaped the net. And it is only after they had escaped the net that the Minister the same Minister who appointed Trevor Janes a former director of Capital + Merchant Finance should seek to act under urgency to pass this legislation. I just go back to what the Hon Trevor Mallard said. That is not necessary. There is already legislation being considered by this House that would cover this situation and that is good. As I say the underlying policy is good but this could have been dealt with in a way that could have allowed proper and full consideration.It is interesting seeing the regulatory impact statement on this bill. It became available to us mere mortals in the Opposition only today. It is interesting seeing the regulatory impact statement because it refers to the limited amount of time the Ministry of Justice has had to consider the matter. It says that it has not been able to fully develop even one of the options that it was considering. It talks about the inability to consult with other trustees who will be affected by the proposed options and it talks about the inability to consult because of the litigation presently in the High Court. It talks about the lack of information about the financial implications of each of the options it was asked to consider before giving its report on this bill and notes that the Public Trust has had no experience up to now of acting as a trustee for a failed finance company.These are matters upon which there should have been proper evidence given to a select committee. These are matters upon which there should have been proper and considered deliberation by members of this House. Because of urgency we will not have that so we are flying blind. Not a blind trust of course but we are flying blind on this particular issue. That is a matter of concern when the issue could have been dealt with by simply saying in a bill that it will take effect from a particular given date so that should legal proceedings by other failed finance companies and their trustees follow there was then a clear signal and a clear warning that their legal action would be affected by the legislation before the House.Hon Lianne Dalziel: It has been done before.ANDREW LITTLE: It has been done before my colleague Lianne Dalziel tells me. So there is no need for urgency. All stages of this Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill are expected to be passed now under this urgency motion. We will not have the benefit of considered evidence from experts and those experienced in the field. We are in that position because of dilatoriness on the part of either the ministry or the Minister of Justice and/or her predecessor and we are simply no better off. This is not good lawmaking. We are in the unnecessary position of having to consider this legislation under urgency.So although we will support the bill and we support the policy and the direction it is taking it in we do not support the process. The Minister is deserving of the harshest of criticism for adopting this process in this particular way.Hon Judith Collins: Ha ha!ANDREW LITTLE: She can laugh and giggle. She is looking after her mate Trevor Janes as she has done all the way along by appointing him to statutory roles. Of course her track record in statutory appointments this year alone is not a very good one but she has made it worse. She has exacerbated it by the passage of this legislation which was totally unnecessary.