Jones Shane: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12867] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora no tatou e te Whare. Ko Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. There is such randomness in the life of a politician. Given that I have enjoyed a promotion on to the very fine and powerful Finance and Expenditure Committee in the last week it falls to me to support Mr Burns and Mr Cunliffe to show that our party the Labour Party supports the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill and to say that the legislation was actually Labour Party policy. It was part a suite of options that we introduced to ensure that institutions essential to good commerce are adequately regulated. 
The ideas lying behind this bill serve as a very timely reminder that those of us who are parliamentarians need to be vigilant when problems strike the commercial sector so it is very sad that I cannot say that about my colleagues on the other side of the House. Mr Hotchin and Mr Watson live free but they hound Hubbard. This legislation based not on rumour but on institutional transparency in the insurance industry ensures that people will be held to account for their decisions and will demonstrate the commercial discipline that we expect in key institutions in this sector. 
This bill has had a long gestation period. Its gestation period unfortunately has been held up whilst our colleagues over there visited their attention on relatively petty things and on their impact on the economy. That is why there is a great deal of support for it on our side of the House. We want to see that those New Zealanders who rely on insurance institutions have institutions that not only are adequately managed and capitalised but are held to account in a very strong transparent way. That is why this bill will enjoy support from our side of the House. 
My colleagues have turned the debate on to a very important but largely unseen area and that is prudential circumspection. 
Paul Quinn 
: Leadership! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I tell Mr Quinn not to get that word wrong. Circumspection will reign very highly to ensure that when people save when people dedicate funds and when overseas investors come here they will know that our institutions are regulated to the highest standard possible. 
David Garrett 
: They will be held to account; that is what it’s all about. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I do not want to have the debate deviate on to people with mental problems being put in prison; that lies with Mr Garrett. Let me come back to the actual purpose of this legislation which in a broad global sense ensures that New Zealand has maintained its high-quality reputation. A bit of work has taken place in the broad area of where savings are held how equities might be invested in and how people can take confidence that once they need help either from a bank or an institution such as an insurance company it will be there. But in order for that to happen capital needs to flow. The Capital Market Development Taskforce with its fantastic ideas repudiated was in large a very good idea. It was picked up by our leader but parried aside by the other side of the House. That shows that there is a broad level of interest in these commercial matters. 
There is one thing on which I must agree with the South Island member Amy Adams. She correctly pointed out that smaller organisations will not be afflicted by this tide of red tape that we are seeing day after day whether that is because of foolish notions or an unwillingness of courage to make the right decisions—about driving regulations or making the connection between alcohol and bad decision-making. It is not that I can blame alcohol but we have had an enormous amount of bad decision-making over the course of this week from that side of the House. 
This bill will finally come to pass as a consequence of our support and of the Government taking forward the original policy which was laid down by that peerless parliamentarian Dr Cullen. Was he dwarfed by the current Government front bench? No. Had it not been for his commitment to savings and his conservative macroeconomic management the current Government would not have had the opportunity to make even the puny attempts that it has made to improve the prospects of our economy. 
When prudential regulations for example are made we need to ensure that they are adequately scrutinised. We cannot suffer a further reversion to Muldoonism which we are beginning to see signs of from that side of the House. That was a style of Government where regulatory-making power was used holus-bolus without the quality of parliamentary scrutiny over such important issues as regulating the commercial sector when people’s savings or wellbeing were at risk at vulnerable points in their life. 
David Garrett 
: There’s been some scrutiny upstairs today Shane. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The member from ACT has talked about his impending vulnerability. After the “three-strikes” debacle he has much to thank the insurance industry for because it will be his sole source of livelihood. He will no longer be back in this House and that will be an interesting episode in our recent political history: how a person from relatively obscure origins could come distort the criminal code and then go. But that is another matter. 
A key part of what the insurance industry has to deal with is distress management. Today and yesterday we saw a fine example in Mr Brownlee. He stood up and lectured us on gaps. But beneath his rhetoric was evidence of great distress because that man identified the standard that he desired to be judged upon—that is the gap between the earnings of a Kiwi and the earnings of an Aussie. He has demonstrated despite his inviting the rest of the country—and indeed us perish the thought—to judge his performance on that basis: firstly that he did not understand it; secondly that he no longer believes in it; and thirdly that he is reverting to half-recalled vague recollections to do with the OECD. That is why not only is the insurance industry successful in identifying distress; we as parliamentarians on this side of the House have seen an example of distress management in the form of Mr Brownlee. 
I turn my attention to another reason why we will support the entirety of this bill which is recovery plans. I find that that particular segment of the bill the recovery plan has a certain resonance. We need to ensure that all institutions that respond at a point when a society firms or individuals suffer a calamity have the ability to rise again. 
As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and as a proud member of my caucus I look forward to enabling this bill to actually play a key role—a key role—in ensuring that people do not disappear or lose the ability to cope with stress. We have seen an inordinate amount of it in the front benches today; I do not have much to say about Mr Groser. The Prime Minister is completely and utterly incapable of articulating how he might see such an essential institution in the world of commerce as the insurance industry play a role. 
The key point I will finish on is that we look forward to supporting this bill. We know that the thousands of New Zealanders listening as the bill goes forward will thank us for that. Kia ora tatou.