Sepuloni Carmel: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17724] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I apologise because I have taken three calls tonight on bills before the Committee and I have not acknowledged you Mr Robertson in your new role as Mr Chair. I acknowledge you in that role and I congratulate you. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Like many in the Committee I too am pleased you are back in the Chair but as members will be aware— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It is a point of order because it goes to clarifying an issue. The House itself has not actually agreed to have you permanently as an Assistant Speaker although we have given leave for you to act in that capacity for the next 3 days. That does not take away anything from the contribution you are currently making and we are all very grateful for the level of competency you bring to the role. But in fairness I think we do not want to waste congratulatory messages at this early stage when they pre-empt the House’s taking a decision on the issue more formally. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Minister. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I will speak on the point of order raised by the Hon Simon Power. I say that although his point of order was heartfelt and well meant there is nothing wrong with the Chamber congratulating the honourable member Ross Robertson more than once on his elevation today. It is not out of order to congratulate him on his temporary position but that does not mean to say that we cannot then congratulate him later when the position becomes permanent. I think the member making the congratulations is entirely in order and I am sure the whole of the Committee would join with her in that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you gentlemen. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I will speak on Part 3 of the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill which is really about the Securities Commission’s functions in relation to issuers and operators.  
Looking at this part of the bill I see that it gives the commission the power to require a trustee statutory supervisor or unit trustee to attest to the commission as to whether he or she is satisfied that an issuer has not breached an issuer obligation in a material respect. If the trustee statutory supervisor or unit trustee is unable to do so he or she must report details of the issuer’s breach or possible breach to the commission. A duty is imposed on a trustee statutory supervisor or unit trustee who believes that an issuer has breached may have breached or is likely to breach an issuer obligation to report the breach to the commission and advise the commission of any steps that he or she intends to take. 
A trustee or supervisor must also inform the commission if he or she becomes aware of information on the basis of which a trustee or supervisor could reasonably form the opinion that an issuer is unable or likely to be unable to pay its debts or the value of the issuer’s assets is less than or likely to be less than the value of its liabilities. That really is the gist of Part 3. 
I will reinforce why Labour supports this bill. The reform of the ways that trustees and statutory supervisors operate is essential for the prevention of another financial collapse. That is why Labour takes this bill very seriously and it is why we support it. We need to recognise that across this Chamber there is a shared understanding that there needs to be greater transparency in this area. People will not want to hear this but that was evident in respect of the Government’s handling of the South Canterbury Finance situation. Just to remind the Committee again—and we all know this to be the case—that was the largest financial collapse in New Zealand history. It highlighted the need to have transparency in the sector. Although we may debate the issue of the South Canterbury Finance situation and its collapse obviously we agree that there needs to be changes in the sector and that there needs to be increased transparency. 
There were and there are serious questions about why South Canterbury Finance was not put into statutory management and about why the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme was extended despite the negative rating and the state of the audited accounts. Hopefully as I have discussed Part 3 of the bill will create some of the transparency we need in order to ensure that we do not head down that path again that we do not end up in the same situation and that we do not end up with a lot of New Zealanders asking questions about what the Government is doing what really happened to South Canterbury Finance and where the accountability and transparency is. Those were the questions that New Zealanders were left to ask after South Canterbury Finance collapsed. 
Here we are with this bill before us. The aspects of it that I have just discussed in respect of Part 3 will hopefully ensure that in the future we do not end up in a similar or in the same situation. I am sure that Kiwis across the country will be relieved that we are looking at this issue and that we across the Chamber can agree on some things. Labour supports this bill alongside National and other parties as well. Our support is not without reservation and we have said that throughout the debate when discussing this bill but in general we still support it.