Cosgrove Clayton: Non-bank Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Non-bank Deposit Takers Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15037. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I have got to say that whilst I share the sentiments of Mr Goldsmith’s speech it was disappointing in one particular way. Members on this side have raised a number of key questions. I do not think the Minister of Finance took a call at all throughout the debate on the Non-bank Deposit Takers Bill. One of the concerns that both Mr Parker and I raised were issues around credit unions and compliance costs around credit unions. No Minister decided to take a call at all on the differentiating factors and different strictures around credit unions the legislative framework and how they operate in a completely different way—a different model; a cooperative model. These are pretty venerable institutions. I am sure we all have people in our respective patches and constituencies who are members of these institutions who have invested wisely. Also I should say that these credit unions do a lot for their communities.What we simply asked for on this side was some rationale and some assurance around why these credit unions and friendly societies would be placed within this legislation. I do not think that is too much to ask of highly paid Ministers with highly professional and knowledgable officials behind them. But it got to the point where the Minister could not even sort of turn round and ask his officials for the answer and give us some assurance and nor could the now chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Paul Goldsmith—rather than stand up run through a few cursory items sit down and raise the white flag. So it is disappointing because I know that some of thesubmissions from the New Zealand Association of Credit Unions on behalf of its members and others raised some very valid points and would have appreciated I think as we go forward and process this legislation some sort of assurance or rationale for the record. But no one including Mr Hayes who I think is a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee still Ms Barry Mr Goldsmith or others—but more especially the ultimate responsibility is with the Minister in the chair—was prepared to even give lip service to that request and just provide some background for the record in the Committee stage or the third reading. I have got to say that that is disappointing.Mr Goldsmith is right. There is widespread support across the House for this bill. But if we are at a stage where when we raise valid questions without politics to simply try to secure some level of confidence for various entities in the community and the Ministers simply sit there at 10 past 11 and just read their papers and do not even bother to seek the information even if they are not the Minister with portfolio responsibility then you have got to say that that is a bit rough. It is not too rough on us because we are not the ones with our backsides on the line; the credit unions and friendly societies are. Their members will be looking at changes that are made. Their members will actually be saying: “What does this mean for us? Are we going to have to change? What will these prudential requirements mean for us in terms of our investment structure in terms of our appointments in terms of how we manage funds and take deposits?”. As my colleague Clare Curran says obviously the Government over there does not really care about that end of town even though that end of town—credit unions and friendly societies—are a bit bigger and they have more substantial funds under management than many other entities in our community.So I would have thought that in the spirit of bipartisanship or non-partisanship that this bill has engendered Ministers or members of the select committee would get up and simply put on the record the rationale for this. It would have been helpful. Maybe it is going to happen when I sit down and a Government speaker takes the next call. That would be helpful. I make this genuine plea to the next Government speaker: could they provide that advice on the record? Mr Hayes Ms Barry or—well Mr Goldsmith has already spoken. Could somebody who is on the select committee take some advice from the Minister’s officials? I am sure Mr Hayes will because he is a reasonably responsible joker. Could he actually in his speech if he is allowed to get up and give that rationale as to why these credit unions are going to be lumped into this? It is a pretty simple request. There is no politics in it. We will accept the nature of it and take the information. We are all supporting it—I do not think there is anybody in this House who is not supporting this bill—but it would be a courtesy to those credit unions which will be the ones—Dr David Clark: To the listeners at home.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —and to the listeners—that have to implement this legislation.I think it was the credit unions that rightly said in one of their submissions or perhaps to the media that it will be the entities that did not collapse as I said in the Committee stage that pay for this not the bad guys who did collapse. It will be survivors—including the credit unions which acted appropriately and were fiscally conservative and guard with a great deal of pride their members’ investments and money—who are going to have to bite the bullet on this. Even if it is appropriate and it may well be I think they are owed a duty of care from this Parliament and this Government to ascertain why they are lumped in. They raised some very very solid points—different model different membership structure different investment structure cooperative model different priorities and fiscally conservative with the investments. They are all the things that you would have to say that some in the big end of town areactually lacking especially those who came a gutser through their own lack of financial foresight.So I will conclude by simply making the request again for about the third time that some narrative be put down in a third reading speech from the Government to answer the points raised legitimately and professionally by credit unions. We will support this bill but I think that as we are doing this—I know some want to get home over the side—it is appropriate that proper information is put on the record of this House so that entities know what is going to happen and what they are up against and why they are caught by the sort of catch-all bill that this is. So I look forward to the next Finance and Expenditure Committee member taking a call.