Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21162] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on behalf of United Future on the second reading of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill. Let me say at the outset that there was no United Future member on the Commerce Committee which considered this bill but had any United Future members been there I am sure we would have sided with National New Zealand First—as it now appears—and also ACT in preferring to make this change in the future by following the Order in Council route although on this occasion it will be done by an Act of Parliament. It seems to us to be an absolute nonsense that every time the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. changes its parent company which happens with increasing frequency in these days of mergers acquisitions and so on it has to come back to Parliament to undertake what as everybody has said so far is purely a technical matter. 
I find the logic that the committee has followed in deciding not to adopt that course of action quite troubling. Let me quote the committee’s decision on the Order in Council proposal: “While we feel this proposal has merit most of us believe that the ability of a trust company to transact business with its parent company is such a significant departure from the general rule against trustees taking profit from their administration of a trust that approval to allow this should remain in Parliament’s hands.” Members should note that last part very carefully. If I take those words literally the committee is saying that by this legislation Parliament is allowing Promina Group Ltd to take profit from its administration of the trust managed by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. I sincerely hope that is not the case because if it is the case then Parliament should not pass this bill. 
Subclause (5) of the preamble simply states: “The company wishes—(a) to be able to transact business with its current parent company and with its current parent company’s subsidiaries and associate companies … and (b) to validate business transacted with its various parent companies or subsidiary or associate companies …”. The bill actually says nothing about Promina Group the new parent company being able to take profit from its administration of its trusts. 
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Committee stage of this bill will follow later this evening and I for one will ask the committee members to clarify exactly what they are saying there. I do not see anything in the bill that authorises Promina Group to take a profit from the administration of trusts that are under the supervision of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. If that is in the bill then I want somebody on the committee to point it out to me because it would certainly affect how United Future will vote on the remaining stages of this bill. 
With that caveat I signal however that United Future will vote for this second reading. 
Amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.