Little Andrew: Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9828. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Kia ora. I rise to once again pledge the Labour Party’s support for the bill the Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill but to also express our continuing concerns about it. The Minister of Justice says that there are 60 failed finance companies now that are known and recognised. Twenty-two of them had Perpetual Trust as their securities trustee Perpetual Trust being the trustee company that is presently before the High Court seeking to have Public Trust appointed as the trustee because of the conflict of interest that Perpetual Trust now has as a defendant in litigation by the receivers of Capital + Merchant Finance for which it was the trustee. If we can get our heads around that string of relationships life would be a lot easier.But the reality is that there is only one application before the court to appoint Public Trust as a securities trustee and that is the application by Perpetual Trust in relation to Capital + Merchant Finance. None of the 22 other finance companies also having Perpetual Trust as their trustee has any application and none of the other 38 of the 60 failed finance companies has any application before the court. So let us not overstate the risks and therefore justify urgency when urgency may not be justified.Putting aside the aspect of urgency we do accept that as a matter of good public policy protecting Public Trust in relation to these applications is a good idea. Trustee companies are the very ones that are quite happy to clip the ticket and watch the lucre rolling in during the good times and then when it gets too hard when the finance companies are up against it when the borrowers they have lent money to fail to repay their loans and when the depositors are demanding their capital back they are the first ones to try to get off the scene and absolve themselves of responsibility. If they find as a little trick they can now get Public Trust to step in and therefore the public purse and the State to step in and protect or shore up the failed private sector—which the private sector is notoriously good at doing—then I agree with the Minister that they will no doubt try to do so. But at this point in time given all the facts about litigation by Perpetual Trust we see no impending sign of that. Introducing this Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill with a specified date so that we could go through a proper process take advice talk to the professionals in the field and understand the true impact of what we are doing and the risk associated with it would be much more preferable.I would like to think that if the Minister or any member of this executive is in the same situation in the future when it comes to a choice between seeking the urgent attention of this House and looking for the alternatives that provide the sort of protection that could be given by specification of a date in this bill and allowing a proper process the executive and any Minister will always err on the side of a more open and fulsome process. That must be a driving principle when it comes to the management of legislation through this House. No matter how quickly it needs to pass no matter the issue and no matter the perceptions about the magnitude and the significance of the issue we must be assured and the public of New Zealand must be assured that the executive does not take for granted the time of this House our goodwill and our ability to provide proper and decent scrutiny of important legislation such as this.We understand the public policy and we hope that that will be translated into a more progressive view about regulation and intervention in the finance markets. The truth is that they have for a long time been the cowboys of our economy and many of them stillremain so. They were allowed to get away with it. We had the financial collapse in 2008. The risks that this bill is addressing have been known since then but we are still plunged into urgency to address that issue. We simply should not be put in that position. This is a bill funnily enough about last resort. It is appointing a trustee of last resort. Well when it comes to last resort urgency in this House should be an option of last resort for those who have the responsibility for managing legislation through it. We have to place that on record. That remains a very clear and unequivocal objection that we have that this House should be treated in that way on matters such as this.The risks that this bill is trying to manage and deal with can be mitigated in other processes that this House typically employs and could have employed in this particular case. We understand the issue about not wanting to expose Public Trust to having to pick up the tab for failing finance companies. The reality is that the very application that is on foot in the High Court presently will not be covered by this bill so Capital + Merchant Finance once again will find itself off the hook Perpetual Trust will find itself off the hook and Public Trust will no doubt be put to expense and inconvenience in picking up this role if indeed it is appointed by the court as the trustee for Capital + Merchant Finance. That is a cost that will be borne. That one has escaped the net. The public purse will be affected. We have not acted fast enough to prevent that from happening. But there is no evidence of any other proceedings on foot or that could be on foot. The regulatory impact statement acknowledges that it is inadequate but it also does not advert to any other proceedings on foot. So we simply do not accept that there is that level of risk there.We just want to make the message very clear. We understand the importance of this. We understand the importance of having good regulation around the finance markets. The last Minister of Justice shepherded through legislation in part to achieve that. This Minister of Justice is managing through the Financial Markets Conduct Bill. That will make a difference too. But the question remains whether this particular bill being dealt with under urgency is a matter that needs to be dealt with as urgently and as precipitously as it is being dealt with at the moment. That is what we object to. Good parliamentarians should always object to being put upon by the executive in this sort of way. Perhaps backbench members of the party opposite the party in Government will as good and honourable parliamentarians express the view that they also do not wish to be treated in that sort of way. Urgency I repeat ought to be a procedure of last resort and not a matter of first resort as it appears to be in this particular bill.We will support the bill. We support the underlying policy in the bill. But let us not again be put in the position of dealing with these issues when we have not had the benefit of hearing from others in the sector apart from Perpetual Trust even the receivers of the various finance companies others in the finance sector and indeed trustees who have been put in the position of being a trustee of a finance company on the implications for them. We have not had the benefit of their insights and their experience. That is a dangerous position for us to be in. So we underscore that clearly we highlight it with the biggest highlighters and we underscore it with red ink. Please ensure that this House and every member in it is not again put in this position because it is not good for Parliament it is not good for parliamentarianism and it is not good for New Zealand.