Dalziel Lianne: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18816] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am keen to take a call on Part 1 of the Westpac New Zealand Bill because I want to get on record what may not be apparent to people who have been listening to the debate. I know that one person came down to the House for a debate on banks thinking that it was on Banks’ announcement of his bid for the ACT Party candidacy in Epsom. They were disappointed to find out that the debate was actually about Westpac Banking Corporation so there you go. 
My understanding is that Part 1 has the definitions which help us clarify exactly who we are talking about. Westpac Banking Corporation is the corporation that is “incorporated in New South Wales Australia under the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth of Australia”. What it operates in New Zealand is a branch which calls itself the Westpac Banking Corporation New Zealand Branch. That is the branch that at the moment operates the institutional banking arm of Westpac. That branch is being transferred to the organisation known as Westpac New Zealand which is Westpac New Zealand Ltd and which is incorporated in New Zealand under our Companies Act. I think people have missed out on that distinction. I was interrupted by a member opposite while I was trying to traverse that issue earlier on but I just want to see whether I have got it right. 
I do not understand why the 2006 legislation that provided for the retail arm to be transferred from the branch to Westpac New Zealand was so narrow in its ambit that it allowed for only a one-off regulatory intervention to transfer the assets. It seems to me that if the legislation had done that for a further set of assets and liabilities then we would not be here debating this bill; we would just simply have passed a regulation and that transfer would have occurred. I do not know whether the member in the chair Craig Foss has some knowledge of the history of this issue. I am very mindful of the fact that it was the Hon Marian Hobbs whose name the 2006 legislation was in. 
Hon Member 
: Absolutely correct. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think that at that time we had a general discussion as to why the legislation was required but I do not know that we ever had a debate in the context of that legislation as to whether a further transfer of assets and liabilities would require other entirely new legislation to be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and go through the legislation process. 
I have the benefit even though I did not serve on the select committee of having in front of me Westpac’s submission to the select committee. Of course it has been very instructive. A number of comments were made about tax liabilities. The issues I have looked at were that Westpac as I understand it approached the Inland Revenue Department. I do not know whether the select committee looked at that and got independent advice from the Inland Revenue Department. Westpac sought to ensure tax neutrality as part of the seamless transition from one to the other. Perhaps the member in the chair might like to put that on the record because the issue of tax liability has been raised in this respect. 
The second issue that has been raised in this Chamber is on the nature of the legislative intervention that is required. Again the member in the chair could provide us with a little bit of background. If further transfers are to happen in the future does that mean that there has to be more legislation? Will this have to be the practice for all the strategic banks any time they get into a situation where branch activities that are still owned and operated by their parent companies fall within the ambit of the new local incorporation rules which have been set by the Reserve Bank? I think they are fair questions to put to the member in the chair. I think it is time he contributed to the debate on Part 1. They are two very good questions that he could respond to and generate some enthusiasm into this debate.