Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16343] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Let me say at the beginning that United Future will vote in favour of this bill being submitted to the Commerce Committee for due consideration. As I will say in the course of my remarks it is very important I believe that the select committee does give the bill as drafted very detailed consideration before bringing it back to the House for its second reading. On the face of it as Richard Worth and others have said this seems to be quite a simple matter: the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. has changed its parent from the Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Group to the Promina Group Ltd an Australian company whereby there is a switching of the parent from a British-based company to an Australian company. That seems to be a fairly straightforward matter. But in addition to the matters that have been drawn to the attention of the House by Stephen Franks the member who has just concluded his speech I would like to say too there are some other matters that I think the select committee should have regard to in relation to this bill. 
The first question is why we have an Act of Parliament to enable this particular company the Guardian Trust Co. to operate these transactions with its parent company and other entities within the group. Since we have a Companies Act surely it is unusual for a company to exist in New Zealand under its own special Act of Parliament. Now such things have happened in the mists of time—some companies have special Acts going right back to the 19th century and it actually becomes almost like a branding and marketing exercise for a company to be able to say that it was established under an Act of Parliament—in this case a 1982 Act of Parliament. 
So the first point we would like to make is to ask the select committee to re-examine whether a continuing need exists for this company to have its own Act. Should that position be able to be changed so that it just becomes a company like any other under the Companies Act? Why does it have to continue to have its own Act? 
The second point I raise relates somewhat to the first. As this bill is necessary because the parent company has changed does it mean that a new Act is required every time the parent company changes? Indeed there have been quite a number of changes in the parent company of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. over the years. It seems to me to be a somewhat flawed process. Linked to that point I ask whether it would be simpler to use some sort of delegated power—and there are instruments in a number of Acts to do that—so that the executive or for example the Government Administration Committee or the Regulations Review Committee one of those bodies without having to come back to the House could simply change or swap the parent company’s name when and if that happens. I think that needs to be looked at. 
The other concern I have about the way this bill is drafted is that it changes the interpretation so that for the first time a subsidiary includes an overseas company. I want to ask why that is being done. What is the commercial and economic rationale for that and furthermore is it something that should be done? I say that because it is quite clear of course that the Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Group was an overseas parent and as Richard Worth pointed out had a multiplicity of subsidiary companies right around the globe. It is a multinational company. So why are overseas subsidiaries being introduced into the bill for the first time? I think the select committee should have a serious look at that and just conclude that there is a valid reason because the explanatory note of the bill does not really explain it. It just states that we are doing this but it does not tell us why. I ask what the implications are and whether it is a good thing. With those remarks I once again signal that we will vote for this bill on its first reading.