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:9822. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I appreciate the opportunity to take another call on the Trustee (Public Trust) Amendment Bill. I want to take issue with some of the points made by the Hon Judith Collins in her last address and simply say that I am afraid that what was news in Ms Collins’ presentation was that the application by Perpetual Trust to the High Court has been in court for some time because that undermines the case for urgency. We know that the application is there we know that it has been prompted by the challenge that Perpetual Trust faces from the receivers and that is entirely appropriate. Hopefully that piece of litigation will be a trendsetter because for far too long we have had trustees of finance companies who have been quite happy to clip the ticket and earn their fees but when everything turns to custard they are nowhere to be seen. So I congratulate the receiver certainly on challenging the trustees because hopefully it is litigation like that that will start to lift the standard of those trustees.But that litigation as the Minister of Justice has said has been on foot for some time. So why has her ministry or why has she not taken action before now? Suddenly we are presented with this impending crisis because we are 4 weeks out from the actual trial and the application being heard in the High Court. Why has not action been taken before now? I think the fact that that application and those proceedings have been on foot for some time illustrates the point that we are making that urgency is not justified. Those proceedings have been on foot for some time in relation to a trustee company that is the trustee for 22 other failed companies about which no proceedings have been issued. So where is the urgency? There is only one case and had this legislation proceeded in the proper way with a date in it from which its jurisdiction would take effect then we would have had the benefit of a proper process proper scrutiny and most important the input of those in the sector—those experts the professionals who are routinely dealing with this—so that we could fully understand the risks. Even the Ministry of Justice in its regulatory impact statement cannot tell us what the full risks are. It has not had time. It has not had time to engage with the professionals it has not had time to talk to others so we simply do not know.The Minister is entitled to credit for taking an approach on the issue that is at least from our point of view a good approach. It is fair it is proper and it mitigates the risk for the Public Trust and therefore for the public purse and the public interest. It seeks to impose the cost where it properly belongs and that is on the periphery of the finance sector. That is quite correct; that is proper. But our job when we stand here and the Crown’s job when Government members sit over there is to protect the public purse to the best extent. Our job as a Parliament is to protect the public interest to the best extent. But we cannot properly do that until we hear from those who have an interest in this legislation—those who have a stake in it.That is the reason we have the sorts of processes and procedures that we do. That is the reason we claim to be democratic when we have select committees and we have input. Even in truncated select committee processes where we might invite just a select few who the parties can agree might have something useful to say over a couple of weeks—even a truncated select committee process would be of some benefit and of some help to us. But that is not what we have got. We have got panic reaction knee-jerk reaction and the claim that the floodgates will open when there is no evidence of that happening at all—and when there are other means to mitigate the floodgate argument—but we are rushed into a panic action and we have no means of knowing whether what we are doing is proper or fair or whether indeed we have taken account of all the risks.This is the problem. This is the problem that we face and that is the reason why notwithstanding that we support the policy of the bill and we will support it we do not wish to let it go by without putting firmly and squarely on the record our concern and our objection to the process that is being followed. It is simply unnecessary—it is simply unnecessary. We do not want to be faced with this again when there is some other unforeseen litigation happening in that sector and a Minister gets panicked and the whole House is thrown into urgency and rushed into this and we do not have the benefit of full and proper and considered scrutiny which is our job which is our duty as public servants to the nation. We have considerable anxiety about that and we received no assurance in the words of the Minister and the explanations such as she has given that this is necessary because of present circumstances.The circumstances as we see them are not as drastic as she makes out. There is one case one piece of litigation which has been on foot for some time against a company that is the trustee for 22 other failed finance companies; no evidence or indication that there are 22 other proceedings in the wings or indeed have been filed; and no indication that of the other 38 failed finance companies and their trustees there is litigation pending in relation to them. So we do not buy the argument that this is time for panic. To the contrary even if this is a stopgap measure even if we still have the Financial Markets Conduct Bill to come this is not a reason not to give proper and due consideration to the full circumstances and the full issues surrounding this bill and what it is trying to address. It is important that we get that on the record.Perhaps this can be a plea a public plea to this Minister—and frankly unfortunately and regrettably most that she touches tends to turn to custard—to let us not be put in this position again. It is not good for Parliament and its standing and the public respect—or the respect that the public ought to have of it although of course that has been sorely tested because of members on that side of the House in the last couple of days anyway. Let us not be put in the position where we are compelled because of the power of the Government of the day to have to rush through legislation without full consideration of its implications and ramifications. That is our issue. Perpetual Trust is the only trustee company facing litigation. It is in relation to one failed finance company—a finance company clearly well-known to the Minister because she knows at least one of its directors because she keeps appointing him to things. But no othertrustee company appears to be caught up in the same net so we do not see the need for urgency and we think that considering this under urgency all stages within a matter of hours is a highly improper use of that procedure of this House of the members of this House and of the reputation of this House to act properly and democratically.