Nash Stuart: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
Nash Stuart: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18366] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I am quite saddened that I missed the climax to David Bennett’s career: being thanked for the passing of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is a crowning achievement with which he will be able to go to the electorate and say that after 6 years he achieved it for the people of Hamilton. At least he did not sell it—but maybe he is planning to. I do not know. He did not sell this one—he might have even nationalised it. 
Anyway it is good to follow Chris Tremain because as Mr Tremain said every party in this House supports the Westpac New Zealand Bill. Mr Foss brought it to the House. It is a common-sense bill and Labour supports it. There are a number of reasons why we support this bill: it is common sense it is absolutely necessary legislation and Labour has always supported any sort of financial legislation that we believe improves business integrity and Government efficiency. What people will find is that the vast majority of bills that come through this House in support of business integrity and Government efficiency and increase the ability of everyday New Zealanders to have confidence in financial markets Labour will support. I know that over the last 3 or 4 weeks I have spoken on a number of those bills. It is a common-sense approach. 
Of course there are certain types of bills in respect of banks that we do not support. A classic one is that we certainly would not support the sale of Kiwibank which the Government wants to do. We certainly would not support the sale of BNZ. I think we heard today that BNZ was sold for $1.5 billion and is now returning dividends of over $15 billion. That is the sort of banking legislation we certainly would not support. If anyone is unclear about it let me just clarify: Labour does not support the sale of State assets of which Kiwibank is one. It is owned by all of us. 
This bill provides for the vesting of certain assets and liabilities— 
Simon Bridges 
: Phil has sold more assets than anyone else. 
STUART NASH 
: Have I just heard Simon Bridges say that he thinks Kiwibank should be sold? Is that what he has said? I challenge that member— 
Todd McClay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member opposite needs to have his hearing checked. Nobody on this side of the House said that at all. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but I will remind Mr Nash that this is a second reading speech not a first reading speech and to come back to the content of the bill. 
STUART NASH 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I obviously heard Simon Bridges wrongly but I would love that member to hold a public meeting on asset sales in Tauranga and try to convince his constituents that it is a good idea. 
This bill provides for the vesting of certain assets and liabilities of the Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand institutional businesses in Westpac New Zealand. That can be achieved only through legislation. 
Simon Bridges 
: Phil could run us through it. Phil knows more about it than anyone else in here. 
STUART NASH 
: Simon Bridges is dead right: Bill English does know about selling State assets because he sold Contact Energy in 1999 the company that returns over $100 million in dividends every year to its Australian owners. So yes Simon Bridges is dead right: Bill English does know about selling State assets. 
This is the sort of bill where legislation is the only means by which the assets of Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand retail business can be invested in Westpac New Zealand. There are two reasons for that. First it is the only means by which Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand retail business can be vested in Westpac New Zealand efficiently and economically without interference in the conduct and continuity of the banking business. Mr Tremain talked about that and it is the reason why the bill has come through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is most important because there can be no disruption to Westpac’s business and customer base—of that there is no doubt. It is very important not only for customers but for staff as well. I have spoken many times in this House about the need for a strong and robust banking sector. 
I think the vast majority of people will agree that there are two main reasons this economy made it through the recession in the shape that it did: one the fiscally prudent way in which Dr Cullen managed the economy and reduced Government debt to such a level that there was none and secondly we had a very very strong banking sector. Dr Cullen and the strength of the banking sector ensured that we got through this economic crisis in the shape we did. 
It is just an absolute shame that Dr Cullen’s legacy has been ripped apart in 2 years by the Government. What a shame. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund used to be called the Cullen fund but Dr Cullen has asked whether his name can be removed from it because he is so embarrassed by what the Government is doing to the fund that he set up to provide for the savings of New Zealanders. 
Mr Bridges had the nerve to stand up and ask a question in the House about what the Government is doing for savings. He should have asked Minister English why he cut funding to the Cullen fund. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Bring it back to the bill.  
STUART NASH 
: Of course Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us bring it back to the bill we have in hand but when Simon Bridges sits up and says we should sell State assets and cut funding to the Cullen fund it is hard not to respond. 
Anyway as mentioned this legislation is the only means by which appropriate amendments to and appeals of existing legislation can be effected as Westpac Banking Corporation currently operates under legislation in New Zealand through the Westpac Banking Corporation Act 1982. The private Act of Parliament approach has commonly been used for bank mergers in the past. For example there is the National Bank of New Zealand Limited Act 1994 and the Westpac Banking Corporation Act 1982. 
Simon Bridges 
: Who wrote this? 
STUART NASH 
: I think everyone knows that. Everyone knows how the finance and banking industries work do they not or am I mistaken? Does Mr Bridges have no financial literacy whatsoever? Mr Bridges has once again admitted that he knows nothing about the banking sector yet he had the nerve to stand up and ask his finance Minister about what the Government is doing for savings policy. He knows nothing. But to give Mr Bridges credit he did stand up in the House in a moment of honesty and admit that he lost half the cases he brought as a public prosecutor. 
Anyway this bill is important as I was saying to strengthen the local banking sector. It is most important we have a strong local banking sector. It has already been alluded to that Australasia—Australasia—came out of the financial crisis well and as mentioned the reason we did is that we had a strong banking sector. 
Amy Adams 
: Look he can read and breathe at the same time; that’s impressive. 
Simon Bridges 
: And why is this member wearing a $25 parliamentary tie? 
STUART NASH 
: Amy Adams knows that—she knows that. I think she needs to go and tell Simon to keep quiet because he does not know what he is talking about. But that is OK—that is OK. 
Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought the rules of this House meant that a member’s full name is needed to be used in debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well the member is right but the member was asking for this so he has to expect something in retaliation. 
STUART NASH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No there will be no more. The member will continue but I say to the member—and I have given plenty of leeway on this; there is about 2 minutes remaining—that when we are on a second reading speech there are a number of Speakers’ rulings that apply. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 106/1 and Speaker’s ruling 105/5 which are about the content of a second reading speech. To mention other things is fine and I allowed that but not continual straying even if it is responding to interjections. One must stay with the content of the bill as presented from the select committee. That is what a second reading debate is about. 
STUART NASH 
: As I was saying Labour supports this bill and the Reserve Bank also supports it. We also understand that it is very important that Westpac New Zealand has a very sound and stable New Zealand operation and enjoys the advantages and benefits of being linked to a trans-Tasman parent. For example it has to have access to capital so that it can lend to its business customers and if there is one thing we need at the moment if there is one thing this economy really really desires it is for banks to have the capital to lend to businesses. Goodness me no other plan is being shown by this Government to get business growth up and running so it needs the support of the banks. As mentioned the Reserve Bank backs this bill. It is a common-sense bill supported by everyone on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and by everyone in the House. 
But once again I will make the point that I made in the first reading. I say again that I think that Westpac should be aware that something that is demanded by the vast majority of New Zealanders—in fact by all New Zealanders—is the level of transparency that they like to see in their banks. We all understand—we all understand—the need for a strong banking sector; of that there is no doubt. Members on this side of the House understand that more than most and our banking system has held up very well. But we try to encourage the level of transparency in the banking sector such that everyday New Zealanders can have a level of confidence in banks. This bill is one thing that will help with that level of confidence. 
Another thing is the level of transparency which we tried to bring out in the banking inquiry. Labour held a banking inquiry just so that transparency could get out there and so ordinary New Zealanders absolutely knew what drove interest rates—why the Westpac bank did what it was doing with its interest rates around mortgages both fixed and floating. Unfortunately the Westpac bank did not support that inquiry. Kiwibank did and Kiwibank provided a level of transparency that all New Zealanders demanded. We are supporting this bill. It went to the select committee and had a very robust process. I think it is a very good bill. Thank you very much.