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:9825. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak yet again on this important bill the Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill. Really I want to take this opportunity just to prevail upon the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice to answer the question that I think has been put in both the first and the second readings even though we have not had the benefit of closely studying the transcripts of each of those readings. The question does remain of why urgency was taken on this provision when there are alternative ways that would have allowed appropriate scrutiny of it and at least have allowed members of the House if not the officials themselves through their regulatory impact statement to take a considered view and hear from the professionals who are routinely dealing with these issues in the field every day.We did not need to hear from Perpetual Trust. It clearly is taking its action. Were it not for the urgency the Minister would stand to be fully wholly and unequivocally congratulated on the stance she has taken. It is right that she has taken the view that notwithstanding how unforeseeable it might have been—the Trustee Act might have been used by securities trustees or trustee companies—she should seek to protect the public entity that is being invited to step in as the trustee of last resort. That might never have happened in the 130-odd years of the Public Trust and in the many pieces of governing legislation for that office but in any event it clearly was a possibility which is what the lawyer for Perpetual Trust is banking on and is relying on. When you look at the Act and when you apply the black-letter law of the Act there is nothing there to exclude a securities trustee. It simply refers to trustees of a trust—of any trust. That particular provision of the 1956 Act is very widely drawn. So it was certainly a possibility on a simple reference to the Act.The fact that we had a whole swag of failing finance companies from 2008 I would have thought would have prompted someone in the bureaucracy if not in Cabinet the executive to think about the potential risks of just this sort of thing happening. Each of those finance companies was required to have a trustee. The basis on which deposits were to be taken was that there would be a trust sitting over them so that the deposits could not be used for anything other than the purposes for which they were provided or sought. That clearly has been a weak regime.In any event trustees were in place and there were failing finance companies. I thought it would have been obvious that the trustees were going to be under some pressure. Receiverships have been created and receivers have been appointed since 2008. The issue should have been triggered at least within that part of the bureaucracy that deals with commercial issues—the old Ministry of Commerce the old Ministry of Economic Development now the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.The fact that it took until there were legal proceedings afoot for the bureaucracy to be alerted I think causes us some alarm. But even then the proceedings were afoot and it was not noticed until just recently which has prompted this flurry of activity and urgent action. That is equally alarming.But then when it comes to the executive and the Minister considering what steps to take I think we are entitled to expect alternatives to urgency to be considered. The question remains for the Minister in the chair to answer the question of what alternatives other than urgency were considered and why urgency—in the event that other alternatives were considered—was preferred because there are alternatives that would have preserved the position. Clearly Perpetual Trust in relation to its failed trusteeship of Capital + Merchant Finance is outside the net and there is a risk to the public purse at least to the Public Trust and the public purse that it holds. Perpetual Trust is off the hook in that regard and we want to prevent other finance companies and their trustees from being in the same position. That could have been achieved simply by the draft legislation having a start date and that date being effective once the legislation took effect even if it was retrospectively. That would have been a fair and appropriate signal to give to potential litigants or those who were considering following the same line as Perpetual Trust. That is the question that needs to be answered and we eagerly await the answer.