Dyson Ruth: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18379] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I say with regret that I was disappointed in the contribution from Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga the member who has just resumed his seat. I understand he is a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which has considered the Westpac New Zealand Bill but he really had very little to add to the parliamentary debate. This is the time in the debate on the bill when we want to hear back from the select committee members about the point of the bill and about the submissions that they heard: perhaps whom they heard from and what they thought about it. A lot of thinking can go on during this stage of the bill. That member stood up said he supported the bill had a swipe at the Opposition and then sat down. I think he short-changed Parliament. He has been short-changing his constituents since the election day in 2008 and I am pleased that his tenure in this building is about to come to an end in a little while. 
I do not have the privilege of being a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and that is why I was keen to hear from another member of that committee. My colleague Brendon Burns made a good contribution in which he explained some of the consideration that had gone on in the committee but the National member did not take the opportunity to do that. I was keen to hear from him because as I mentioned I am not a member of that select committee. 
This bill is in the name of one of that member’s colleagues. It is in the name of Craig Foss who is also the chair of the select committee that considered the bill. That is interesting. I am sure that because of his personal integrity he was able to distance himself from any potential conflict in that regard arising from his being both the proponent of the bill and the chairperson of the select committee. But I am a bit surprised as to why the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee had this bill in his name. Generally the practice has been—and it is not without exception—that a private bill that is promoted in respect of a specific organisation is introduced to the House and followed through by the member in whose electorate the organisation is based. For example if Independent Fisheries wanted the introduction of the “Independent Fishery Amendment Bill” it would be in my name because that organisation is in my electorate. 
Westpac is actually in central Auckland but the member for Auckland Central does not seem to have had any input into this bill at all. I do not think she is on the select committee. If she did serve on the select committee as the current member for that electorate and therefore the member who is responsible for the head office of Westpac New Zealand she has not taken the opportunity to have a call in this debate. So I am a bit puzzled about the origins of this bill. I am a bit puzzled about why it is in the name of Craig Foss. 
Leaving that aside I am supportive of the bill. I think it is really important that we have a robust and accountable banking sector in New Zealand and this bill adds to that. It adds to a spectrum of measures we have in place to ensure that we can have confidence in the sector. Basically the bill provides for the vesting of certain assets and liabilities of Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand institutional business in Westpac New Zealand. I agree with the proponents of the bill that the only way that can be achieved is through legislation. 
I want to raise another point and again I am frustrated by the contributions from the National members on the select committee. I have not heard from them as to whether there was any discussion at the select committee about the fact that Westpac the bank that is the point of this legislation is the Government’s bank. I am not sure whether there was any discussion about whether that should continue to be the case without any competitive tender at all and without any process for reviewing whether taxpayers— 
Shane Ardern 
: Why didn’t the last Labour Government change it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The National Government is always going on about value for money and fairness for taxpayers. While Shane Ardern is a member of this House he should take up the mantle of responsibility that he has been given and not hark back to history. He has been given the position of being a member of the party that is in Government and therefore he should take the opportunity associated with that responsibility and privilege to look at all the issues that are before him. 
Westpac is the Government’s primary bank. Is that still the best idea? More important from my perspective is whether the select committee thought about that as part of its consideration of this legislation. Well we would not know from the contributions of the National members. The member who resumed his seat prior to my seeking the call said he was the last Government speaker in this debate. I am not sure about his ability to add up and I hope he is not in charge of any of the finances of anything other than his own money. He said he was the last speaker but there are 12 speakers in a second reading debate and he was the 10th speaker according to my count. So we still have my call and yet another one to follow it. I hope the National Party takes that opportunity to say exactly whether that issue was considered. 
The other issue that I want to express some disappointment in was that in the inquiry into banking which the Opposition parties set up because the National Government blocked the banking inquiry in 2009 Westpac did not make a submission. As a major bank in New Zealand and particularly as the bank that holds the Government’s accounts—all the Government’s banking business is done through Westpac—I would have thought that it would improve Westpac’s standing in the community and the perception of its responsibility if it had taken up the opportunity to make a submission to that Opposition parties’ inquiry into banking. Perhaps the Government leaned on the bank perhaps the Minister of Finance gave it same veiled threats about not appearing before the Opposition parties’ inquiry into banking or maybe the bank just did not bother. I am not sure why that was the case but it is certainly a disappointment to me that the bank did not take part in the inquiry. 
I will just mention another issue a little outside the ambit of this bill. I think it is appropriate for me to raise it given that we are talking about Westpac. Everyone in this House understands that we have had a major and significant series of earthquakes in Christchurch the most recent being on 22 February. One of my constituents raised an issue with me in relation to banks and their behaviour towards people who had been affected by the earthquakes. One bank had sent out an overdue penalty notice to one of my constituents who had been evacuated from her home had not been able to access her mail and was finding it very difficult to get through day-to-day living. That bank had sent her a penalty payment notice. I contacted the bank and said that was very disappointing and it agreed to remove the penalty payment and make sure that no other Christchurch residents were liable for such a payment if they had not met their dues in time because of the earthquakes. I place it on record that Westpac voluntarily did that. It contacted me and said it would make sure that none of its customers would be liable for penalty payments if they had been unable to pay whatever their due payment was because of earthquake-related circumstances. 
So I am disappointed that Westpac did not appear before the Opposition parties’ inquiry into banking and I am puzzled that this bill is in the name of Craig Foss and not that of the member for Auckland Central. I am gobsmacked as was my colleague the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central about the 67 percent pay increase that the chief executive of Westpac was awarded. At a time when so many people are losing their jobs having to reduce their hours and facing zero pay increases a 67 percent pay rise is quite gobsmacking. Leaving to one side those concerns and my disappointment in the contributions from the National members in not robustly reporting back to the House about the findings of the select committee on this bill I am pleased to support the progress of the bill. I think it is a bill that is considered. Its provisions are required in legislation. The bill will do more to support and protect New Zealanders and I am pleased to support its progress. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time.