Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:666;Page:13790] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I would like to join colleagues in the House in acknowledging the very hard work that is being done by all MPs based in Canterbury. I have spent some time talking to colleagues. I especially want to place on record my appreciation for the contribution given today by Amy Adams. I think she expressed to the House the intense feeling that all of us are getting from relatives who live in the area and from most people in the House with family members who are currently unable to live in their houses in Christchurch. I know the intense pressure that people are under and that it means a lot to them to know that we are uniting in a way that we do not very often do in order to be supportive of them. 
I like my colleagues will make some comments on the South Canterbury Finance situation. I think that members who have been following the views of Labour members on this will know that they have not always been consistent with one another and Mr Power and I have exchanged some views that have been closer to each other’s on occasions in this one. I would like to do the unusual thing now of acknowledging the work that has been done by Bernard Hickey by Cactus Kate and by Fran O’Sullivan in their analysis of this particular issue. They are people with whom I do not always agree but their ability as bloggers and as journalists to get in underneath and behind some of the fronts that are being put up I think is valuable. 
I thank them for drawing my attention to the John Campbell interview which was very informative where Mr Sandy Maier effectively admitted that the company had violated a lot of prudent lending criteria. In doing that he made it clear that the company was in breach of the Crown deeds of guarantee which I have copies of here and will seek to table in the House at the end of my time because there is an obligation to conduct affairs in a proper businesslike efficient and prudent manner. Sandy has made it clear that that did not occur. Analysis has shown that it was in breach of its trust deed and that audited accounts were not available at the time when it was appropriate for them to be available. In fact there had to be a waiver from the stock exchange in order for the late accounts to be filed and it is now obvious they were being held back in order to get a better rating from the rating company. After the rating came in the new accounts were audited and were made available. So the company was in breach both of the trust deed and the stock exchange regulations as well as the Crown deed of guarantee. 
I think what we will get to at some stage is finding out effectively who knew what when. In this case there are four deeds of guarantee and notwithstanding the comments from the Prime Minister all of these were entered into in the time when he was Prime Minister—every single one of them. There was no deed of guarantee for South Canterbury Finance under the Labour Government; it came into the scheme at the time Mr English was the Minister of Finance. Most importantly the deed of guarantee that was entered into in April this year at a time when South Canterbury Finance was very very clearly in breach of its requirements leaves open the question as to why Mr English allowed it to be part of the continuation. Why did he allow it to continue to take deposits with a very clear Government subsidy? With those amounts people probably could have got 4 percent if they were lucky. They were getting 8.5 percent with a Government guarantee as a result of Mr English’s decision to let them stay in and at the same time there was a lot of lending going on to shonky people not in South Canterbury but in Auckland. 
I seek leave to table the set of four Crown deeds of guarantee dated November 2008 December 2009 April 2010 and June 2010 between Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand and South Canterbury Finance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Leave is not granted.