Mallard Trevor: Non-bank Deposit Takers Bill — Second Reading 
Text is subject to correction 
Mallard Trevor: Non-bank Deposit Takers Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4262. Text is subject to correction.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the previous speaker John Hayes and say that generally like members on this side of the House—list members and constituency members—we are supportive of this bill the Non-bank Deposit Takers Bill. I was pleased to see that he did not repeat in his speech the comments that he made about the $700 million or $1 billion of taxpayers’ funds that was lost as being small change as he did by way of interjection. I am not one of the people who think that that unnecessary loss is a matter of small change.  
I do want to refer to the speech made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Nick Smith. I wonder why he did not quote that financial expert whom he appointed as chair of the ACC board John Judge. We disagree with many of the things that John Judge did but he is a person of impeccable integrity. He achieved the financial turn-round for ACC and someone of his financial expertise was necessary if the Government was to do what it was going to do and of course we disagree with it. But he has integrity and he did a very good job. I want to quote from Mr Judge’s comments on this ministry. He has called this ministry “pathetic” today. He has said that one of the Ministers needs to become acquainted with the truth. He has said that one of the Ministers just tries to go and blacken good people’s names. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who is that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is John Judge. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! The member must come back to the purpose in the content of a second reading speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I am getting to is that the purpose of this bill is to provide integrity within the financial markets. John Judge is someone who is I think universally accepted as having integrity and he is commenting that this ministry does not. You just then wonder what right what moral authority the Government has to bring in this sort of legislation and to promote it when the very Ministers who are in charge of it are being questioned as to their own integrity. I just say that when it comes to a question of Judith Collins or John Judge on a question of truthfulness I will go with John Judge. He is the person whom I believe in that circumstance. I am very surprised that Nick Smith who was the Minister who appointed Mr Judge to ACC has not suggested that he be used further given his integrity and given his expertise in this financial markets area where his expertise is absolutely clear.  
I would now like to go to the list of contents of the bill and look at some of the headings. It is called the Non-bank Deposit Takers Bill. It is a bill that I have not been involved in a lot and I will be happy if the National Party speaker who follows me wants to elucidate on some of the questions. I am just looking around. Is there a Minister of Finance who is able to answer the questions? No but I will put the questions down and I am sure that the Minister when the Minister becomes available will answer them.  
Where there is a non-bank deposit taker does that include people who get brown paper bags or plain envelopes from Dotcom or Skycity? Are they a non-bank deposit taker if there are large cheques that are either anonymous or not anonymous you know? They apparently had the name on them. They were not bank cheques. I wonder whether a non-bank deposit taker could take anonymous deposits or not and if there was a name on a cheque whether for this purpose that would be anonymous or not. And if it was put into a non-bank account—a “John Banks account” might be a good description or a “John Banks account”—would there be a requirement to record the source of the deposit or not? It is a relatively simple question about the purpose there. In fact there are probably some interpretation issues around that as well.  
Clause 4 is the interpretation clause and the question I want to ask members opposite is whether within the clause there is anything that will clarify whether John Banks is included as a non-bank deposit taker at the point he receives the plain envelopes—or even the addressed envelopes—with the large tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of cheques. If in that case he is a non-bank deposit taker is he also a non-bank deposit taker when he receives brown paper bags stuffed with cash? If he receives a brown paper bag stuffed with cash is he a non-bank deposit taker?  
I want to refer the Chair and the members opposite to clause 6 “Related party defined” which is within Part 1 “Preliminary provisions”. I want to ask in this particular circumstance whether if the ACT Party gets a brown paper bag full of money and it discusses it at a tea party with the National Party in front of a whole pile of cameras that makes the National Party a related party to the ACT Party for the purposes of this legislation. I do not know. I mean the National Party is clearly a related party now. I think it is fair to say that the National Party—I do not think I can use the expression—is having something done to it by the ACT Party at the moment that is normally seen to be done within a marriage. It is basically being rooted is it not? I mean it is being stuffed. The National Party— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! I think that word is completely unparliamentary and I ask the member to withdraw it.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. My question is whether John Banks should have at some stage. So there is a related party question. The next question is whether clause 9 applies in this. Clause 9 in this particular bill states: “This Act binds the Crown.” Well again it is clearly a case—well there is a bit of S and M involved in this particular case. I think it could well be that John Banks is putting the National Party in handcuffs for part of this relationship. Certainly there appears to be a binding of the Crown on the part of John Banks in this legislation. Money is being transacted a non-bank deposit has been made and the Crown is being bound by ACT. That is exactly what it says in here; that is exactly the heading of the clause: “Act binds the Crown.” 
If I was John Key I would not want to be bound up by John Banks. If I was John Key I would not submit to the handcuffing on the part of John Banks. The way that he is at the moment I think I would be cutting the links—I would be cutting the links. I would be undoing the chains that are binding the National Party the Government the Crown to ACT. I think the classic is clause 11. That is the clause that is headed “No holding out”—no holding out. It is clear that John Key has not been holding out on John Banks.