Groser Tim: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Groser Tim: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:14414] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 First of all in response to the member who shouted across the House at me: “We’d like to hear you talk about the WTO.” I say that since I am not sure that I am capable of speaking for anything less than 2 hours on that subject the old phrase “Be careful what you wish for.” came to mind. 
On this occasion the danger of my speaking even up to my allotted time limit is zero as my knowledge of this issue is—I will be kind to myself—less than encyclopaedic. However I have looked at the issue and it seems to be a very sensible thing for this Parliament to do. It is obviously not a partisan issue; it is supported by the parties concerned. Of course it has become what seems to be if not quite a hardy annual a very frequent affair for this Parliament to address. Its purpose I think we understand is to validate the transactions of this very important financial institution in terms of its dealings with its new parent company and to try to change the procedure for the reasons that my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith very succinctly pointed out in order to try to avoid so much of Parliament’s time in the future being taken up with this type of procedure. 
Nevertheless it is important that things are done properly. There is as far as National members can see—and obviously as far as other members can see—absolutely nothing remotely dodgy about this. It is simply that the normal provisions of trust law in this country are necessarily conservatively drafted—they have to be; they are protecting the assets of thousands of New Zealanders who use this trust or other trusts who quite often are quite vulnerable New Zealanders. 
We have just seen the collapse of the finance companies and how would we describe that? On a nationwide scale it is frankly entirely manageable simply because the assets of the finance companies were I think only 5 percent of the total banking sector. But I do not think the individuals involved would want to hear anyone say what I have just said because it has been an absolute disaster for them individually. I have always had the view that the phrase caveat emptor though it is necessarily the only practical way to proceed in these financial matters is as cold as charity and makes assumptions of people’s knowledge that are probably completely unrealistic. The law governing the actions of these trusts is necessarily conservative and we would not want to change that but for this particular reason because of the change of parent company we need to change the legislation through Parliament and validate those transactions. 
I am glad that the Government has now agreed with the proposal that National put forward the last time this occurred. It will I think expedite this matter. It is a reflection I suppose of the pace of corporate activity—mergers and acquisitions are happening not only in our country but around the world at an extraordinary pace. Although I suppose many New Zealanders may think that Suncorp-Metway is nothing more than a rugby stadium it is I believe one of the five or six largest financial institutions in Australia. 
I also reflect on the fact that the change in the name over the course of the last 30 years from South British Guardian Trust Co. to Suncorp-Metway tells us a lot about the distance we have travelled culturally. It is fascinating that our predecessors would have used the phrase “South British” as a winning name but there we have it. We have moved on I suppose as a country. 
The legislation seems eminently sensible and technical and National is very happy to support it so we can get on with rather more important business—or so I hope. Thank you.