Jones Shane: General Debate 
Jones Shane: General Debate 
[Volume:666;Page:13785] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Along with the Hon Peter Dunne I acknowledge the contribution made by Amy Adams. As our leader articulated yesterday everyone in the House is conscious of the stress and concern that families in Canterbury feel especially where the elderly or children are concerned. 
I want to follow on from my senior colleagues in relation to South Canterbury Finance. Today we have seen yet another example of corporate failure turning to the taxpayer to be bailed out and this measure is from a party that has for a long time accused members on this side of the House of being too socialist. 
Let it not go unnoticed that there was an opportunity for the Minister of Finance the Reserve Bank and indeed the Prime Minister during his secret meeting with “Mother Hubbard” to have alerted the regulators and alerted themselves that to continue the opportunity in an indiscriminate fashion for South Canterbury Finance to continue lending in dangerous speculative ways and to free depositors—fresh ones—from the obligation of due diligence meant that this was a train wreck waiting to happen. 
Every time members on this side of the House are warned that there is no money I will take great relish in reminding Government members about the chance they squandered. They had an opportunity to pursue other options to shore up the position or to minimise the exposure of the taxpayer to this huge catastrophic bail-out but that opportunity was not taken. Fortunately the people who put their money in South Canterbury Finance can sleep a little easier tonight because no doubt they are living close to where there has been a natural earthquake. 
The deposit guarantee scheme started in response to the global financial crisis. It started as a consequence of Ireland Australia and a variety of other international jurisdictions deciding to shore up their banks in a fairly unfettered fashion. Then our Reserve Bank along with the Government of the day adopted a similar course of action. But members opposite enabled fringe operators such as South Canterbury Finance to hop on board. When South Canterbury Finance hopped on board inadequate conditions were placed upon that organisation. I suspect that the auditors the valuers the managers and the relevant regulators were asleep or were told to look the other way. 
The reality is that there were always other options rather than the New Zealand taxpayer being expected to continually bail out these companies where we find egregious examples of wrongdoing. I am told that the former chief executive officer of that organisation—and I do not refer to the redoubtable Sandy Maier but to his predecessor—is in distant climes. The name Mexico comes to mind although I have just come back from the Pacific and I could recommend that he be sent to clean the sewerage in Tarawa in Kiribati. 
The key point is that the organisations that offer mezzanine finance perform a valuable function in the economy but not when we the taxpayers are expected to bail them out in the face of existing irregularities and no doubt mounting evidence that people were either delinquent or chose to take a political route. The political route—and I am sure that the facts will eventually bear this out—was that the current Government did not want to see a commercial option pursued. It did not want to deal with people who were having to deal with the consequences of their own poor judgment. This is a case where political triumphalism has overridden corporate discipline. 
This is a massive bail-out. It is very important—and we are insistent—that the real masters and not just the receivers act with haste to minimise our losses.