Connell Brian: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21184] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The National Party supports this legislation but I want to raise a couple of issues through the course of this Committee stage. At the bill’s first reading it was suggested by one speaker that the legislation would put New Zealand’s assets at risk because the Promina Group which bought the Royal and SunAlliance group of businesses is incorporated in Australia and Australian legislation gives a statutory priority in a winding up situation to Australian creditors in relation to assets of Australian banks financial institutions and insurance companies. 
I have to say that the suggestion made by that speaker is misleading. It is true that the Australian legislation the speaker referred to does apply to some of the companies of the Promina Group but it does not apply to trust funds under the control of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Hence Australian creditors would not have a priority over those trust funds. That really goes to the heart of the issue. 
When I was taking a call during the second reading I suggested that this type of legislation should not be brought to the House every time there is a change of ownership. Although I respect the fact that beneficiaries should not have their funds put at risk I suggest that there is no conflict whatsoever. The Guardian Trust Co. is just one of many companies that will have their parent companies change ownership all the time. I think it is a waste of parliamentary time that every time that happens Parliament will have to go through this protracted process. 
Some of the members I was dealing with on the Commerce Committee were concerned about the financial stability of a company like Promina. I think that that concern is misplaced. On 25 August 2004 that company announced a A$204 million half-year net profit after tax. That is a 51 percent increase over the prior year’s comparative period a return on equity of 17.5 percent and an earnings per share of 19.3c or if you like a 52 percent increase. I want to bring the size of that balance sheet to the attention of members in the Committee only to try to allay any fears they might have that if we pass this bill that company will in some way put beneficiaries’ funds at risk. That is just not the case. I argued before and I will mount the argument again that Parliament’s time should not be wasted in members being asked to pass this sort of legislation every time there is a change of company ownership. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I completely agree. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: If I recall correctly the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard was building the same argument when she made her first reading speech. I think that all we are doing essentially by making this decision now is just putting the decision off for another Parliament. I think it is time we just bit the bullet and said: “Let’s invest in the Minister of the time the ability to make decisions based on the information presented.” I think that that is an entirely reasonable position. I know a couple of members in Parliament have a contrary view but the vast majority of submitters who came to the select committee actually supported the argument that the Minister in the chair and I are now mounting. [ 
Interruption 
] The member who is calling out will get his chance in a moment I am sure. 
But the point is that the vast majority of submitters in a very cogent way said that there was no need to be concerned so we are simply putting off making that decision to the time of another Parliament. I think we have lost a huge opportunity—in fact I have called it a lost opportunity—to make that decision now and stop wasting the time of this Parliament. This will not be the last occasion in which the ownership of the Guardian Trust Co. will change and we will then go through this debate again. Then it will happen again and we will do it again—and again. All the members on the select committee who looked at the legislation agreed that it was essentially a technical issue. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: No they didn’t. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well that member will get his chance in a moment. The vast majority then if I can put it that way of members on the select committee agreed that it was a technical issue only and essentially a waste of time for Parliament. The right thing to do as the National Party argued at the time would be for the Act to be changed by Order in Council and I know that the Minister in the chair agrees with me. A rugby match is on with a very close score but here we are at 25 past 8 spending our time debating an issue that is simply unnecessary! 
In conclusion I say that the National Party’s position is to support the Act. It was never in doubt that we would not do that. But we suggest that it is time parties in this House had the courage to change the legislation so that relevant decisions can be made by the Minister at the time by Orders in Council with the absolute surety that beneficiaries’ funds will not be put at risk. We say that those decisions are for the Minister at the time to make.