O'Rourke Denis: Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3938. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill going to the Commerce Committee and congratulates Lianne Dalziel on bringing it forward. The problem addressed by the bill is a matter that has needed to be addressed for some time and has had a very significantly adverse effect on a large number of people. I am very disappointed to hear of National members’ opposition to the bill because they are effectively opposing the needs of the elderly people and mum and dad investors whom they claim to support. New Zealand First on the other hand is always very keen to support the elderly and mum and dad investors in particular and this is one of the ways in which that can be done. 
The provisions of the ING-ANZ settlement concerning the Frozen Funds Group which gave rise to this bill were utterly deplorable. It amounted to nothing more than bullying people into accepting settlements with excessive and unethical provisions using their unequal bargaining power to achieve that. That is something that this House should take particular notice of. The behaviour of ING in this matter demonstrated the need for tighter regulation of the whole industry and that did result in the 2011 legislation relating to the Financial Markets Authority but this bill is still needed and that is the point that my friends on the other side of the House do not seem to have grasped. They need to have a look at it again. 
This bill addresses a specific problem which I have already referred to and it needs particular attention. Simon O’Connor in talking to the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill referred to efficiency and to tidy legislation. This is one of those issues that do need to be tidied up. It is not solved by disputes resolution procedures or anything of the kind. The practice complained of needs to be made clearly illegal. 
In the circumstances of the ING case the general release clause of the kind investors were required to sign to obtain the benefits of the settlement was objectionable especially the words: “including any claims or the extent of any claims of which you are not currently aware and any claims brought on your behalf or for your benefit by another person.” So any claim or right arising as a result of the Commerce Commission inquiry would have been avoided and any benefit arising indirectly by the action of another investor would also be avoided. That is not proper and needs to be made illegal. These provisions are nothing more than trickery and they should not be allowed. The bill declares such provisions to be illegal under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 and rightly so. It is exactly the legislation that we need to address this issue. 
I would like to also comment on the commencement date. Although New Zealand First normally opposes retrospective legislation we would in this case approve the 10 July 2009 commencement date in the circumstances of the particular case that I have referred to and in relation to the matters that gave rise to the problem to be corrected by this bill in the first place. If there is to be a debate about the place this bill has in the regime of protections for investors then the correct place to have that debate in that sort of detail is the select committee not this House. In fact if you reflect upon the relatively lightweight debate that we have heard from the other side then you would have to say that there is no possible way they could properly vote against this bill based on what they have said so far. 
What I would respect and what New Zealanders would respect is National members changing their position turning up at the select committee debating the detail of the bill properly and then reaching a decision. I and other New Zealanders could accept that. But what we cannot understand is why based on the actually frivolous I think arguments that have so far been put forward—there is no possible way that anyone could have respect for a conclusion based on that level of debate. 
So I would really encourage my friends on the opposite benches to have another look at this bill at least let it go to the select committee debate it properly and then make a decision—and that is fair enough. For all of those reasons New Zealand First says that we must allow this bill to go to the select committee and we support it for that reason.