TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe. I am not one to follow the finance sector. I am not an expert on this area, so I tried to do a bit of research. Apparently, just over 6 weeks ago the former bank president and senior loan officer of the FirstCity Bank of Georgia in the USA were charged with a variety of offences, including conspiracy to commit bank fraud and misconduct in the years before the bank’s seizure by state and federal authorities in 2009. At the time of reading the indictment the United States attorney Sally Quillian Yates said: “The entire country has felt the deep economic impact of failed banks. At the heart of this indictment is an abuse of power by key insiders, who are charged with tricking their own colleagues into approving millions of dollars in commercial loans to fund the defendants’ own personal business activities, and to enrich themselves at the bank’s expense.” It is scandals such as these that make Alan Bollard, Governor of the Reserve Bank, reach only the lowly spot of 64 in last year’s list of most trusted people in New Zealand, trailing behind a cast of movie stars, sports people, and celebrity chefs, but, I note, not one politician.
The recent volatility of financial markets internationally has had its own direct impact here in Aotearoa. I remember during the first reading of the Westpac New Zealand Bill that mention was made of the fact that the Westpac Chief Executive Officer, George Frazis, was rewarded with a $5 million pay package—over 100 times the income of some of the staff he represented. I know that the bill is not about cases of bank fraud offshore or even about the salary package of Westpac employees, but both of those factors contribute to a general context of some uncertainty in the banking industry and the financial sector. The truth is that the global recession has affected the whole of New Zealand, including the banking sector, so when we come to the bill, which is essentially to ensure the efficient conduct of Westpac New Zealand’s business, we cannot help but be influenced by the wider context I referred to.
However, we also acknowledge that nothing in the bill exempts Westpac from the provisions of any enactment relating to banks or banking—including the Reserve Bank Act and policies—and the banking code of conduct will still apply in order to protect customers and clients. By implication, the Māori Party supports compliance and accountability with legislation to monitor banks and services to customers, and we acknowledge too that the transfer will include and ensure protection of the rights of employees.
I do not want to go on for too long on this topic, but we do want to recognise that Westpac has a reputation for giving due and specific attention to Māori business and initiatives within the Māori community, such as the Westpac Māori scholarships and the financial education programme. Westpac also demonstrates a commitment to developing specific Māori products and services, such as papakāinga lending, tangihanga insurance, and iwisaver. To top it all off, Westpac is developing customer and product information in te reo Māori. Me mihi ki a rātou ka tika.
Banking, at its very essence, is all about balancing the ledger and measuring the values of assets against the costs of deficits. In this way, we recognise that the bill is fundamentally about the transfer of assets and liabilities from one banking entity to another, and in that respect is largely practical in nature.
Taking everything into account, we support the bill at its second reading with a genuine commitment to ensuring that a more efficient, transparent, and accountable banking service is in place for the betterment of all. Kia ora mai.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
I will take a short call on the Westpac New Zealand Bill. We are on the second reading of this bill. It has gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and members of the select committee have spoken earlier. We traversed the issues in the first reading debate.
Essentially, as speakers have said, the bill is about the transfer of assets so that Westpac can meet the regulatory obligations and the incorporation policy, which has some limits around the amount of funds—funds in excess of $15 billion trigger certain requirements. The Reserve Bank’s local incorporation rules are an important part of the triggers that can help to stop bank failure in New Zealand. This bill also transfers certain assets and liabilities to Westpac New Zealand. That transfer enables Westpac to carry on its activities in New Zealand in such a way that depositors and borrowers will find no difference. It will enable Westpac to meet the rules and regulations of the banking systems in New Zealand in a way that is suitable and easy for it to run its operations.
In that regard, this bill has found favour amongst all parties in this House. Everybody recognises that it is in the best interests of our banking sector—and especially Westpac, as one of the banks in that sector—and it has no effect on the ground, in the sense that depositors or lenders will find no difference in the way they conduct their activities going forward. They will still deal with Westpac in the sense that Westpac is the brand they will deal with.
I take this time to thank the big banks that we have had here from Australia. They have been instrumental in providing a lot of resources and stability to the New Zealand economy over the last few years. These have been difficult times around the world. The banking sector especially has been under tremendous pressure. If we as a country had had to experience bank failures of the size that many other countries have had to experience, I am sure that the pain that the New Zealand taxpayer and the New Zealand economy has had to face in the past year or two would have been much greater. The good management and the resilience of those banks and the support of their Australian colleagues has been instrumental in helping New Zealand get through this recession as quickly and as painlessly as possible. I think a point of gratitude needs to go to those banks for the way that they have managed themselves. Our system of rules and regulations has stood up in this period of time. The banks are very important in the sense that they make a contribution to our communities, as well.
This bill will be supported by all parties. It is partly a formality in the sense of providing the opportunity for Westpac to engage in its operations, but under rules and regulations that make it easier to do so at the size that it is. I recommend this bill to the House.
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) Link to this
It is a pleasure to take a call in the second reading of the Westpac New Zealand Bill. I will take the opportunity to congratulate Mr Craig Foss, the member who sponsors the bill. Mr Foss has been a very able and responsible chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I certainly had a great time in that busy committee. Labour will be supporting the bill to the Committee; it is important to ensure that New Zealand’s banks are strong and stable.
This bill was introduced for the transfer of certain assets and liabilities from Westpac’s Australian parent to its New Zealand subsidiary to bring it in line with Reserve Bank requirements that significant banks be incorporated in New Zealand. To that end, we note the success of the Reserve Bank’s local incorporation policy as one element in securing the stability of the New Zealand banking sector. It is critical we retain sovereign oversight of our banking regulations. The severity and speed of the 2008 financial crisis provides ample evidence to underline the importance of that. Legislation is the only means to provide for the vesting of certain assets and liabilities being transferred in such a manner as provided for in this bill. Legislation is the only means by which appropriate amendments to, and repeals of, existing legislation can be effected, as Westpac Banking Corporation currently operates under legislation in New Zealand through the Westpac Banking Corporation Act 1982. Westpac Banking Corporation was registered in New Zealand as an overseas company under the Companies Act 1993 and as a bank under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. In 2003 the Reserve Bank instituted a policy requiring systemically significant banks to be incorporated in New Zealand. Accordingly, Westpac Banking Corporation established Westpac New Zealand to assume and carry on the retail banking business in New Zealand.
The key provision of this bill is clause 6, providing for the transfer of assets and liabilities. On the advice of the Minister, as a result of a recommendation from the Reserve Bank, the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, approve a proposal for the transfer of assets and liabilities. The transfer will enable Westpac New Zealand Ltd to comply with the condition of registration that limits the parent bank’s liabilities to below $15 billion, as set by the Reserve Bank. Another key provision is clause 24. The assets and the liabilities to be transferred from Westpac’s parent company in Australia to Westpac New Zealand Ltd include assets and liabilities that are located in other countries. Typically, this may include a guarantee from an offshore parent company or a security given by a New Zealand company over an overseas asset. The extent of the foreign assets and the liabilities is more material than under the Westpac New Zealand Act 2006, because the assets and the liabilities concern institutional banking customers that contact the business internationally.
I note Westpac New Zealand Ltd’s intention to ensure that this legislation assists the transfer of foreign assets and liabilities by providing a clear direction to New Zealand courts that the legislation is the overriding legislation. The words “equivalent of an enactment in a country other than New Zealand,” were originally included in clause 24(4)(b) to ensure that a New Zealand court applying foreign law treated this legislation as paramount. The additional words were intended to assist a New Zealand court faced with a choice between conflicting systems of law to reach a conclusion that New Zealand law should be applied. This was seeking to utilise the principle that a New Zealand statute may accompany a substantive provision with an explicit or implicit conflict of laws rule and, therefore, override what would otherwise be the applicable conflict rule. Taking into account the points raised by the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the hearing, Westpac New Zealand Ltd has now reworded clause 24(4) and also clause 25. This amendment means that the wording of the relevant clauses reflect the wording in section 24(4) of the 2006 Act.
There are two other issues I wish to raise at this stage. Firstly, it is clearly important to ensure that Westpac New Zealand Ltd has a sound and stable New Zealand operation while being able to enjoy the benefits of having a trans-Tasman footprint and access to global capital through its Australian-based parent. Secondly, it is also true that on both sides of the Tasman the banking sector is again under close scrutiny. The Australian Parliament has a far-reaching inquiry under way, which brings to mind that Labour, the Greens, and the Progressive party held an inquiry into banking issues, too. I was very glad to have been involved in that banking inquiry. I can recall clearly that a familiar mood cropped up when I was out talking to members of the ethnic community on the street, at events, and in shops. The mood was one of anger and outrage at the reluctance of the National-led Government to support an inquiry into banking profits and at its failure to stand up on behalf of all hard-working New Zealand families. Many people I have spoken to believe they were paying higher interest rates than they should be paying. It seems to me that the best way to work out whether hard-working New Zealanders and businesses are getting a fair deal from banks is to hold an inquiry into the relationship between, for instance, the official cash rate and short-term interest rates. That way, all the facts would be put on the table and people could see whether they were being treated fairly by their banks.
In 2009 the Reserve Bank cut the official cash rate by 575 basis points, but business lending rates have fallen by only 243 points, and the floating first mortgage rate has fallen by only 446 points. I am very glad Labour, the Greens, and the Progressive party successfully held the equivalent of a parliamentary select committee inquiry into banking profits. I should also emphasise that the inquiry in Australia is much more broadly based than being a simple matter of interest rate pass-through. It is also looking at a whole range of issues that are, to a lesser or greater extent, also important here. The New Zealand Banking Ombudsman has said there were a record number of complaints to her office over the last 12 months. There is growing public concern about the banking sector. Thank you.
AARON GILMORE (National) Link to this
It is a pleasure to rise and talk on the Westpac New Zealand Bill. In particular, I will talk about a couple of things about Westpac and this bill’s application, particularly for Christchurch. Not many people know that the Westpac building in Christchurch was one of the most heavily damaged buildings in the recent earthquake. Many of the staff were very much traumatised and worried about the result of that in terms of what it meant for their jobs. This bill has some really interesting things in it related to those people’s employment. All the people who were previously employed by Westpac Banking Corporation will be transferred through to Westpac New Zealand. That might not seem to be a big deal, but I was talking to somebody who was in the Westpac building during the earthquake. That person knew about this bill and asked me that question, so it was a pleasure to know a little bit about what this bill will mean for that person and to know that that person’s job will be retained.
This is one of those neat little bills that tidy up things and put in place improvements to the fiduciary management of our assets in New Zealand. In New Zealand Westpac has been around for a very long time. It is a good corporate citizen. In my community on the east coast of Christchurch it does a very good job. It put in place a thing called the Care for our Coasts programme, and it has to be a good thing to help clean up our beaches, particularly given what we have been through.
There has been a little bit of comment on the changes made by the Finance and Expenditure Committee during the select committee process. We received only one submission at the select committee, and that was from the promoter of the bill. That seems to be a bit of a surprise. Given the number of customers that Westpac has, there might have been thousands of submissions and worries for people, but there were not. There was just the one submission, from the promoter. That is a very strange circumstance, I am told. That submission led to two very small technical changes to the bill, which improved things a little bit, I think.
Westpac has a very long and proud tradition, as I have pointed out. It is my own personal bank, and it is the one I have had since I was 5 years old.
Grant RobertsonI was very pleased, when I was 5 years old, to open my first bank account with Westpac. I must admit that—unlike Mr Robertson—this bill does not deal just with personal retail banking; it also deals with corporate banking on a large scale.
In terms of people’s assets, they are completely protected and large assets are being transferred through. A cap of $15 billion is being put in place. That has to be a really good thing. It will make sure that no concerns or worries exist.
Given the lack of real interest in this bill—which I was surprised about—and the uncontroversial nature of this bill before Parliament, it just shows us what a good job people have done on it. That also shows us what a good job Craig Foss, the member who brought this bill to the House, has done as well. It shows us that he is very good as a select committee chair, as is the deputy chair, Ms Adams, who also does a good job. Our whole select committee has done a wonderful job in bringing this bill through the select committee process. From many perspectives, we have made a good team effort, and that does not happen very often in our select committee. We are often at loggerheads when debating some of the technicalities of finance. Here is a good finance bill that everybody was in agreement on, and that does not happen very often. I think we should be commended for that. I will sit down.
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
I wish to alert listeners that I am not Aaron Gilmore, the member who was speaking prior to the dinner break, and I have no wish to be Aaron Gilmore. I do not hold the range of professional qualifications, experience, or high diplomatic posts that my colleague from across the Chamber holds.
But I would like to speak on the Westpac New Zealand Bill, and to talk for a moment about the salary paid to the chief executive of Westpac. This bill relates to some technical changes that will allow the Westpac Banking Corporation branch in New Zealand to comply with its condition of registration, which includes the limitation of the bank’s liability to below $15 billion, as set by the Reserve Bank. Obviously, the chief executive runs Westpac here in New Zealand, and one would expect that gentleman to be a well-paid person. But I looked at a table of executive pay summaries in the weekend’s New Zealand Herald and saw that the chief executive of Westpac here in New Zealand, George Frazis, is the highest paid chief executive in the country. It might be argued that that is appropriate for a bank the size of Westpac. It is a big and major financial institution, and it is appropriate that the chief executive is well remunerated. But then I looked at the pay that George Frazis earned in 2009. At that point he was earning the modest salary of $3.5 million—plus another thousand, or two. But by last year his salary had risen some 67 percent to $5,848,411.
Westpac is a good bank, and its call centre for the nation operates out of Christchurch—or it certainly did until the 22 February quake. But I have to say that if I was a member of the Westpac staff—and the average salary is of the order of $45,000 for the people who take the calls from bank customers wanting to know about issues with their bank deposits and transactions—I would feel somewhat perplexed to know that the bank’s chief executive was earning 100-plus times what I was earning on the front line, on the counters. I am sure that some people might think that this is about the politics of envy, but if we look at the facts we see that the chief executive of the ANZ banking group, Jenny Fagg, in 2009 received a salary of $1.2 million for running a similarly sized operation. That was about a third of George Frazis’ salary, but I do have to acknowledge that her salary increased quite considerably last year. In fact, it more than doubled to $2.84 million.
We are seeing the sort of game that goes on in some industries in this country, the parallel game: “My competitor is earning an amount; therefore, I deserve to earn that amount.” The amount does not have any relationship, sometimes, back to the share price. It certainly does not have any relationship back to a comparison with what the average company worker is earning. Some people might dismiss that as being an invalid comparison, but I think there is a deserved agreement for some form of relativity. There was an early American banker—Rockefeller, I think, or it might have been Morgan—who said that no manager should earn more than 20 times what his staff were earning.
Jo GoodhewI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether, given that this is a second reading, you could draw the member back to the bill. I have just not heard him mention it.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Thank you for that. The issue is that the debate is rather wide-ranging, but I ask the member to bring it back and focus on the bill.
Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. We are, of course, debating tonight the issue of the Westpac Bank and the technical changes to it for incorporation in New Zealand. I think that the legislation is good, it is appropriate, and Labour is not opposing it. But the chief executive is the person who is in charge of Westpac New Zealand, and it is important that we note that the chief executive takes responsibility. Once this legislation is passed through the House the chief executive is effectively in charge of it. He will be running the organisation and incurring the responsibilities of running it. He is responsible for managing the staff and outcomes of that organisation, and he deserves to be well remunerated. But I think it is obscene to see that someone who earns an amount in the order of $5.8 million has awarded himself a 67 percent increase, when the average rate of wage increase in this country during that same time frame has been 1.7 percent.
Banks have some responsibility to this nation because they are sometimes amongst the cheerleaders who call for fiscal restraint and financial responsibility, but this is a case of “Do as we say rather than as we do.” This is a situation where the Westpac staff, some of whom I am sure will be watching the progress and passage of this bill tonight, have every reason to be discouraged by the fact that their chief executive is earning such a disparate amount. He is the highest earning executive of any organisation in New Zealand, and has had a 67 percent pay rise as this bill, which presumably was originated by him and his head office, has come through to Parliament and is now being considered tonight.
This bill is about a change in the ownership structure, if you like, of the Westpac bank. We know that Westpac is a very sound and stable bank. It is acknowledged that the bank has operated well in this country for a long, long time. Of course, the Reserve Bank has a track record of having had a policy of local incorporation as one of its key planks in ensuring the stability of the New Zealand banking sector, which one has to acknowledge did hold up well through the course of the tumult that emerged in late 2008 and into 2009. I acknowledge that the New Zealand banks remained stable and sovereign and were able to endure the storms, and that has to be reflected in wage packages, but I still come back to my point about the size and scale of the increase with which that chief executive has rewarded himself.
We also have to say, in respect of Westpac, that in 2009 we as a party, with the support of the Greens, thought it important to look at the performance of the banks throughout the financial crisis and the recession, and we were very disappointed that Westpac did not take the opportunity to support that inquiry, which was blocked, effectively, by the Government. However, we still held an inquiry, as we felt it was important that New Zealanders were able to look through the role of banks in the financial collapse as it happened. The banks came through the 2008 tumult pretty darn well, but we thought it was unfortunate that Westpac did not support that inquiry.
I will now turn to some of the key elements of the bill. Obviously, it is transferring assets and liabilities of the Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand branch to Westpac New Zealand Ltd to comply with its conditions of registration in limiting the bank’s liabilities to below $15 billion, as set out by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. Some of the history to this is that the Westpac Banking Corporation was registered in New Zealand as a bank under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989, and then as an overseas company under the Companies Act 1993. But from 2003 onwards the Reserve Bank began instituting a policy that required significant systemically banks to be incorporated in New Zealand. Initially the Westpac Banking Corporation established Westpac New Zealand to assume and carry on the retail banking business in New Zealand, and this bill is bringing that process to finality. Legislation is of course the only means by which the assets of the Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand retail business can be vested in Westpac New Zealand, and that is what this legislation is about.
I will just finish with a comment about the issue of the chief executive. It is still, in my view, inappropriate in hard times, when people are being told to tighten their belts, when we are seeing the prospect of a savage Budget in just a couple of weeks’ time, when New Zealanders are bracing themselves for further restraint, and when they have had a wage increase in the past year of 1.7 percent on average, for the chief executive of one of the leading banks of this country to be rewarded with a salary package rise of 67 percent to $5.8 million, at a time when the rest of the nation is being told to do it tough. I think most particularly of the staff of Westpac in Christchurch, who are doing it extraordinarily tough at the moment. There are big questions about the Westpac call centre building in the centre of my central business district in Christchurch. Those people earn, on average, $45,000 a year. They have every reason to feel very disgruntled at the fact that their chief executive has awarded himself a 67 percent pay rise.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this
Malo le soifua. It is a privilege to speak on the Westpac New Zealand Bill, and to be the final Government speaker in this second reading. I will take just a short call. This bill is about reinforcing the strong banking system we have in this country. It is a system that has weathered the storm of the global financial crisis. The bill is about supporting what is already a strong bank in New Zealand, and supporting the importance of adhering to regulatory policy. The bill transfers assets and liabilities from the Westpac Banking Corporation, New Zealand branch, to Westpac New Zealand Ltd, and it ensures that regulatory thresholds can always be met, irrespective of the volatility in our financial markets. We know that in the last 3 years we have had some of the most volatile financial and capital markets, in terms of the performance of those markets. We have seen how volatile they can be.
The legislation is really about allowing Westpac’s large corporate customers to bank with a different legal entity—that is, with Westpac New Zealand Ltd rather than the banking corporation branch. It provides the means by which assets can be vested in that company efficiently and economically, and without disrupting the conduct and the continuity of Westpac’s businesses. It should have no real impact on any of its customers, which is a really important point.
I will touch on the last speaker’s obsession, the politics of envy, in relation to the remuneration of the chief executive of Westpac. I do not think it is fit for Government members or members of Parliament to dictate the way in which private businesses and private organisations should run their operations. But we heard from the last speaker just a tirade of unwanted advice to a private organisation that is in the market to provide jobs and opportunities, and to provide capital to our businesses, in order for them to operate on a daily basis. It really was an unwanted, uninformed delivery of advice to one of our largest corporations in this country.
Just to finalise my contribution, I tell the House that the Inland Revenue Department, Treasury, and the Reserve Bank were all consulted during the select committee deliberations, and no concerns were raised in terms of the financial stability of our banking system or this financial institution. I certainly support the bill and look forward to the Committee stage discussion. Thank you.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
I say with regret that I was disappointed in the contribution from Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, the member who has just resumed his seat. I understand he is a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which has considered the Westpac New Zealand Bill, but he really had very little to add to the parliamentary debate. This is the time in the debate on the bill when we want to hear back from the select committee members about the point of the bill and about the submissions that they heard: perhaps whom they heard from, and what they thought about it. A lot of thinking can go on during this stage of the bill. That member stood up, said he supported the bill, had a swipe at the Opposition, and then sat down. I think he short-changed Parliament. He has been short-changing his constituents since the election day in 2008, and I am pleased that his tenure in this building is about to come to an end in a little while.
I do not have the privilege of being a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and that is why I was keen to hear from another member of that committee. My colleague Brendon Burns made a good contribution in which he explained some of the consideration that had gone on in the committee, but the National member did not take the opportunity to do that. I was keen to hear from him because, as I mentioned, I am not a member of that select committee.
This bill is in the name of one of that member’s colleagues. It is in the name of Craig Foss, who is also the chair of the select committee that considered the bill. That is interesting. I am sure that because of his personal integrity, he was able to distance himself from any potential conflict in that regard arising from his being both the proponent of the bill and the chairperson of the select committee. But I am a bit surprised as to why the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee had this bill in his name. Generally the practice has been—and it is not without exception—that a private bill that is promoted in respect of a specific organisation is introduced to the House and followed through by the member in whose electorate the organisation is based. For example, if Independent Fisheries wanted the introduction of the “Independent Fishery Amendment Bill” it would be in my name, because that organisation is in my electorate.
Westpac is actually in central Auckland, but the member for Auckland Central does not seem to have had any input into this bill at all. I do not think she is on the select committee. If she did serve on the select committee as the current member for that electorate, and therefore the member who is responsible for the head office of Westpac New Zealand, she has not taken the opportunity to have a call in this debate. So I am a bit puzzled about the origins of this bill. I am a bit puzzled about why it is in the name of Craig Foss.
Leaving that aside, I am supportive of the bill. I think it is really important that we have a robust and accountable banking sector in New Zealand, and this bill adds to that. It adds to a spectrum of measures we have in place to ensure that we can have confidence in the sector. Basically, the bill provides for the vesting of certain assets and liabilities of Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand institutional business in Westpac New Zealand. I agree with the proponents of the bill that the only way that can be achieved is through legislation.
I want to raise another point, and again I am frustrated by the contributions from the National members on the select committee. I have not heard from them as to whether there was any discussion at the select committee about the fact that Westpac, the bank that is the point of this legislation, is the Government’s bank. I am not sure whether there was any discussion about whether that should continue to be the case, without any competitive tender at all, and without any process for reviewing whether taxpayers—
Shane ArdernThe National Government is always going on about value for money and fairness for taxpayers. While Shane Ardern is a member of this House, he should take up the mantle of responsibility that he has been given, and not hark back to history. He has been given the position of being a member of the party that is in Government, and therefore he should take the opportunity associated with that responsibility and privilege to look at all the issues that are before him.
Westpac is the Government’s primary bank. Is that still the best idea? More important, from my perspective, is whether the select committee thought about that as part of its consideration of this legislation. Well, we would not know from the contributions of the National members. The member who resumed his seat prior to my seeking the call said he was the last Government speaker in this debate. I am not sure about his ability to add up, and I hope he is not in charge of any of the finances of anything other than his own money. He said he was the last speaker, but there are 12 speakers in a second reading debate, and he was the 10th speaker according to my count. So we still have my call and yet another one to follow it. I hope the National Party takes that opportunity to say exactly whether that issue was considered.
The other issue that I want to express some disappointment in was that in the inquiry into banking, which the Opposition parties set up because the National Government blocked the banking inquiry in 2009, Westpac did not make a submission. As a major bank in New Zealand, and particularly as the bank that holds the Government’s accounts—all the Government’s banking business is done through Westpac—I would have thought that it would improve Westpac’s standing in the community and the perception of its responsibility if it had taken up the opportunity to make a submission to that Opposition parties’ inquiry into banking. Perhaps the Government leaned on the bank, perhaps the Minister of Finance gave it same veiled threats about not appearing before the Opposition parties’ inquiry into banking, or maybe the bank just did not bother. I am not sure why that was the case, but it is certainly a disappointment to me that the bank did not take part in the inquiry.
I will just mention another issue a little outside the ambit of this bill. I think it is appropriate for me to raise it, given that we are talking about Westpac. Everyone in this House understands that we have had a major and significant series of earthquakes in Christchurch, the most recent being on 22 February. One of my constituents raised an issue with me in relation to banks and their behaviour towards people who had been affected by the earthquakes. One bank had sent out an overdue penalty notice to one of my constituents who had been evacuated from her home, had not been able to access her mail, and was finding it very difficult to get through day-to-day living. That bank had sent her a penalty payment notice. I contacted the bank and said that was very disappointing, and it agreed to remove the penalty payment and make sure that no other Christchurch residents were liable for such a payment, if they had not met their dues in time because of the earthquakes. I place it on record that Westpac voluntarily did that. It contacted me and said it would make sure that none of its customers would be liable for penalty payments if they had been unable to pay whatever their due payment was because of earthquake-related circumstances.
So I am disappointed that Westpac did not appear before the Opposition parties’ inquiry into banking, and I am puzzled that this bill is in the name of Craig Foss and not that of the member for Auckland Central. I am gobsmacked, as was my colleague the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central, about the 67 percent pay increase that the chief executive of Westpac was awarded. At a time when so many people are losing their jobs, having to reduce their hours, and facing zero pay increases, a 67 percent pay rise is quite gobsmacking. Leaving to one side those concerns and my disappointment in the contributions from the National members in not robustly reporting back to the House about the findings of the select committee on this bill, I am pleased to support the progress of the bill. I think it is a bill that is considered. Its provisions are required in legislation. The bill will do more to support and protect New Zealanders, and I am pleased to support its progress. Thank you.