Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : I move, That the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill be now read a second time. This bill requires that all financial service providers must be registered with the New Zealand Companies Office, from banks right the way through to moneylenders, including the loan sharks that prey on vulnerable people. I know that in a previous debate we heard mention of a particular moneylender who was advertising rates at 8 percent, but only in the small print did we notice that that was 8 percent per week, not 8 percent per annum. These are the people who will now have the spotlight put upon them by the requirements to be registered. We will know who they are, we will know where they operate, and we will know what services they offer. The register will provide a very useful resource for consumers, the industry, and regulators, by providing a searchable access point for information on all financial service providers in New Zealand. The register will also enable New Zealand to meet certain of its anti - money-laundering obligations under the Financial Action Task Force’s requirements.

I am aware that the Opposition spokesperson on commerce may be somewhat surprised that we are dealing with this bill in the order that we are, so I think it is probably worthy of a slight diversion from my speech to say that one thing that had not been appreciated—something that I had overlooked myself—was that there are cross-references to the Financial Advisers Bill. For that bill to take effect in the time frame we want, we have to pass this bill pretty much at the same time, so that the cross referencing can take effect at the point that both bills are brought into—

Nathan Guy: It’s good you’ve got that organised.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I apologise to the House if that has caused a problem. The bill also requires all financial service providers who provide a service to the public to belong to an approved dispute resolution scheme. Approved dispute resolution schemes will, hopefully, build on the existing industry-led dispute resolution schemes in the financial sector. I pay particular tribute both to the Banking Ombudsman and Insurance and Savings Ombudsman schemes, and to the organisations that have established them, because the banking sector and the insurance and savings sector have set up schemes well ahead of the Government’s requiring such schemes to be set up. I think the Banking Ombudsman scheme has been in place for something like 13 or 14 years. It is a tremendous resource and support for consumers of the banking industry, and the level of work that is done is considerable, given the complexity of some of the issues that have to be dealt with. The bill provides that the Minister of Consumer Affairs may approve industry-led schemes that meet the principles of accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness, as well as fulfil a number of operational and capability requirements.

Simon Power: No—make the Minister of Commerce do it!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The very generous Opposition spokesperson on commerce suggests that it should be the Minister of Commerce who takes up that role, but in fact, the Banking Ombudsman and the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman, and the codes of practice they operate under, directly relate back to the Minister of Consumer Affairs, and it is the Minister of Consumer Affairs who has oversight in that area. Therefore it makes sense for consumer dispute resolutions services to sit with the Minister of Consumer Affairs—it just makes very good sense—and it enables the very good Minister of Commerce to get on with the job of dealing with the more detailed elements of the Review of Financial Products and Providers that are yet to come, because these bills are the first of several bills and maybe the member has forgotten that nine discussion documents resulted in the legislation we have now, and in future legislation to come.

The legislation will also establish a reserve scheme, so that financial service providers who are not members of an approved industry-led scheme will be able to meet registration requirements. One of the issues that came very, very clearly out of the Finance and Expenditure Committee was that there is very much a need for certainty for consumers, so that when they make an initial approach it is almost like a single entry point for any dispute resolution. I think we are going to be working very closely on the development of the regulations around the various schemes that will operate in this space, to make sure there are no wrong doors and that anyone who makes an inquiry in this area is able to get the assistance needed.

I will not go through the detail of the changes that were made at the select committee. Again, this select committee focused its attention very much on legislation that is detailed, but the committee probably did not have some of the more difficult elements of the preceding legislation. There was good support on both sides of the House to see this legislation pass through the House. I am not going to hold it up any further; I simply commend the bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : I was minding my own business in my office when I got the call that the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill would be proceeding a couple of days ahead of time. That means my evening has now been altered beyond recognition. Nevertheless, that is a small price to pay for the continuation of this suite of legislation, which is designed to deal effectively with what has happened. It was not the intention to do this when the review of financial products and providers was first undertaken, but since that time a range of finance companies have collapsed, tens of thousands—if not more—of New Zealanders have been affected by the collapse of those finance companies and mortgage trusts, and literally billions of dollars have been put at risk as a result.

I have to concede to the House and to the Minister of Commerce that my attention over the last 12 months has been very much on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Financial Advisers Bill. It is really Craig Foss who is the expert on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. I myself was involved with another committee for much of the time that this bill was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I was effectively drafted on to the committee to deal with other bills, but I have to concede that this was not one of them. Having said that, I can say that this bill falls within my area of responsibility, and it is one of those bills that seeks to regulate the financial service providers in the same way that the Financial Advisers Bill does. I am sure that the Minister Lianne Dalziel is right when she says the two bills are joined at the hip, as it were, and that one cannot proceed effectively without the other. Therefore, being the flexible party that we are, here we stand ready to debate this legislation through all its stages—for the rest of the evening, I imagine.

This bill seeks to reinforce that suite of legislation that Doug Woolerton spoke about so eloquently during the day. It seeks to establish a registration system for those service providers. It requires—and that is an important word—them to join an approved industry-led dispute resolution scheme, or what the legislation and the Minister describe as the reserve scheme. As the Minister alluded to, we have already dealt with the Financial Advisers Bill and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3), which dealt with the regulatory framework on—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): You have 2 minutes.

SIMON POWER: How can that be possible? I have just started. Madam Assistant Speaker, are you sure that you did not start me at the end of the Minister’s time?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): That is exactly what has happened. I duly apologise.

SIMON POWER: The Minister Lianne Dalziel and I have got on well in recent months, but this is getting ridiculous; I am not sharing a call with her!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): I apologise to you, profusely.

SIMON POWER: There is an election coming up—we have to differentiate on some issues! There are some things that the Minister and I do not agree on, and sharing calls in this House is probably one of them, unless the Minister wants me to answer the questions—but there are no question times left, so I cannot do that!

Clauses 5 and 6 determine the application of the legislation that defines those activities considered to be financial services. I presume that that is consistent with the suite of definitions that were offered in the financial advisers legislation considered earlier today. Importantly, clause 13 sets out the matters that disqualify a person from registering as a financial service provider, and is amended to specify the types of offences that would count as fraudulent or dishonest. That is an important qualification because it sets the legislation up in a way that makes it clear that there are legislative parameters rather than codes of conduct or industry understandings that relate to the registration process. I think that that degree of statutory rigour is required in this industry, given the recent events we have seen.

We know that the bill covers things like the deregistration of financial service providers and, indeed, the reregistration of financial providers. The bill establishes the register itself and outlines access rights to that register. The dispute resolution regime and scheme is also outlined. Interestingly, in the same way that the Commerce Amendment Bill did for decisions of the Commerce Commission on price setting, any decision of the registrar that is subject to an appeal remains in force. That brings some clarity to the process, and it provides some consistency with other legislation in this area that we have debated in recent days. The bill also sets out the number of schemes that are available for registration, the public access to information, and the rules of those schemes. It imposes duties to cooperate and to communicate in certain circumstances, and, of course, it requires the appointment of a reserve scheme from an established recognised dispute resolution service. I imagine there are good reasons for that requirement.

I believe that the House is unanimously supportive of the passage of this legislation—certainly, I have not had any indication up to this point that any party present intends to vote against it. Any legislation that is put in place to add rigour to the financial advice industry should be welcomed, but with the following rider—and it is the same qualification that I put forward in my third reading speech on the Financial Advisers Bill.

People who choose to invest their money in New Zealand should not form the view from the passing of this legislation that no risk accrues to those investment decisions. Ultimately, the Government has a role in providing a safer environment for investment by way of a sturdy, transparent, and accountable regulatory framework around those investment protocols. In the end, Governments cannot be vicariously liable in many situations, but they have a responsibility to provide mechanisms to people who wish to invest their moneys in order to ensure that those people are as safe as they possibly can be.

I probably have 4 minutes left on my call—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): You have 2 minutes left.

SIMON POWER: OK. I do not intend to labour this matter any further, other than to say that Craig Foss will also be taking a call on this bill. He is, as I said, the expert from the Opposition side of the House on the technical aspects of this legislation. He will have some comprehensive views to share with the House on the matter of the registration and the reserve schemes as they relate to the provisions of the legislation dealing with the registration, dispute resolution, and appeal processes. I will certainly be hanging around to listen to that discussion.

As we head into the Committee stage I suspect we will hear from a range of other members of Parliament on this side of the House. As I said during the debate on the Financial Advisers Bill, we are in no way attempting to delay or slow up the passage of this legislation. In fact, as I said endlessly during the debate on that bill, the Opposition has worked cooperatively with the Government on this suite of legislation and will continue to do so—although in a slightly surprised way—throughout the remaining stages of this legislation, which has come up a little earlier than we thought it would.

On that basis I will resume my seat and say to the House that no doubt Doug Woolerton will have plenty to offer on this subject matter. As a permanent member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—which I am not—he has taken some interest in this issue. I am sure that Lindsay Tisch, although he is not on the select committee, will make a contribution that is worth listening to. But it is really Craig Foss whom we are looking to on the more complex and technical matters contained in this bill.

Hon Shane Jones: They want to hear from him in Flaxmere!

SIMON POWER: That is the former chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee yelling out from over there. Perhaps he would like to take a call and express a view on these matters. I am waiting with some interest for Mr Foss to cover the technical aspects of clause 10, particularly in respect of the provisions relating to the licensed service offence. National will support the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill through its second reading.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : New Zealand First is supporting the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolutions) Bill, which, I guess, is the disciplinary side of the Financial Advisers Bill. I will not be taking a long call. In fact, it will be for only a couple of minutes, because we have other business to get through before the House rises. Like all my New Zealand First colleagues, I am looking forward to fighting an exceptionally good election campaign, and to New Zealand First returning with increased numbers. We are keen to get on and not hold up the process.

I think we cannot have a registration process, as proposed in the Financial Advisers Bill, without some disciplinary procedures to go with it. This bill provides that. There is a fairly decent amount of industry involvement, so that these people will not be judged just by some cold, harsh people. They will have an involvement in the disciplining themselves. This legislation was intended to be light-handed so that we do not stifle entrepreneurial activity altogether in this country, and to give some surety to the public so they can have some confidence in the people who are giving them advice. For them to know that the advisers are subject to some disciplinary action just adds to that surety. That is all I want to say. We intend to sit here and support the bill to its conclusion, and to listen to the contributions of my colleagues. Thank you.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I take this opportunity to speak in the second reading debate of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. In doing so, I want to highlight some of the benefits for consumers that will occur following its enactment. The introduction of freely accessible dispute resolution for all consumers is not only something that is based on a moral principle; it is also a practical initiative that will increase confidence in the financial sector.

Currently, there are a large number of consumers who are using financial advisers and non-bank credit providers and who cannot access consumer dispute resolution. When consumers are in dispute with their financial provider, be it a mainstream bank or a local service, they can feel quite powerless and not sure where to turn. Under this bill, consumers who have a grievance with their financial service provider will always have somewhere they can go to get a fair hearing. The framework established by the bill supports the formation of industry-based dispute resolution schemes. These will be approved if they meet the benchmarks of accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness. Experience suggests that industry-led schemes are particularly flexible and responsive in addressing consumer complaints.

This bill represents a win-win situation for consumers. It provides a free service to assist with the resolution of disputes against financial service providers, and it incentivises providers to put in place good complaint resolution processes and to be more responsive to consumers. Consumers will be able to confront any unethical or sub-standard dealings from a provider, through challenging behaviours that do not meet acceptable practice. Consumers will help to raise the quality of financial services in New Zealand, and to that end I stand in support of the bill.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) : Like earlier speakers and colleagues, I say the debate on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill is like déjà vu all over again. We debated the Financial Advisers Bill this morning, and, for the record, it was debated under urgency. It surprises me that we are under urgency on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill and that it is deemed to be more urgent than other bills. But I noted in the Minister’s speech the reason for moving this bill further up the Order Paper. She spoke about the cross-references between this bill and the Financial Advisers Bill, which we passed a few hours ago. When I was looking through the Financial Advisers Bill it occurred to me that there are a lot of cross-references, and in fact all the way through the process we have dealt with these bills in partnership. Anyway, we are now debating the second reading of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill.

An earlier speaker raised a concern that this legislation will come under the portfolio of the Minister of Consumer Affairs rather than that of the Minister of Commerce, and I missed the bit about the Banking Ombudsman’s recommendation. I think it was that it be put under consumer affairs and not commerce.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It was preferred that it went under consumer affairs rather than commerce.

CRAIG FOSS: I thank the Minister for clarifying that point. I realise this is not the Committee stage of the bill, but it is all very friendly in here at the moment.

On looking through the bill I see some issues that I started to raise in the debate on the Financial Advisers Bill are also pertinent to this bill. There was a part in that bill where we talked about information sharing, and, of course, as the Minister earlier noted, this bill forms a suite of measures—not only the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3), the Financial Advisers Bill, and this Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill but also a raft of other bills. I think there were nine papers in total, all around money-laundering, etc. and a total review of all things financial in New Zealand. I think there are a few more discussion papers out there. That is good policy development, and we are happy about that. We have enjoyed being part of the process around this bill and helping to make it better legislation.

Earlier speakers have noted the events that have occurred subsequent to this bill appearing before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I think was on 9 February this year. The financial crisis around the world has become much tougher. It has hit home here in New Zealand much deeper and quicker than many people thought it would, but as we are part of the global financial system we will always be impacted on by what happens around the globe. The sad fact is that New Zealand, as a debtor nation, faces an increased interest premium that we have to pay, and as we are No. 22 in the OECD we are at the back of the queue, so any impacts and effects on economies around the world will be felt exponentially down here. Hopefully, a change of direction—a change of Government—will start to address that position.

I will look at just a few issues in the bill. There is a Supplementary Order Paper with this bill: Supplementary Order Paper 254 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Again I give my apologies for missing this in my first speech, but around the not-for-profit organisations in the Financial Advisers Bill there was a bit of sneaking in the door, in that the only not-for-profit organisations that were originally to be covered were those that already had some contractual obligations or arrangements with the Ministry of Social Development. The Finance and Expenditure Committee in its wisdom did very well and turned that round, talking about not-for-profit budgetary advice institutions, etc. We had many, many submissions from such groups, and sometimes there were conflicting views, which we found somewhat curious at the time. The core argument was about the cost of compliance for those organisations, which may have annual budgets of only $25,000 or so. The cost of initial set-up here would have been quite onerous for them.

But I did note that the Minister had an amendment to the definition of a not-for-profit organisation in the Financial Advisers Bill. I have just glanced through Supplementary Order Paper 254, and although I may have missed something, I do not see any new change there to the definition of a not-for-profit organisation. Perhaps I am missing something, because, like previous speakers, I fully expected to debate this bill not tonight but perhaps tomorrow, so I have not gone through that Supplementary Order Paper. I am quite happy to be corrected, but I cannot see an amendment to that definition at the moment. Perhaps that issue may be addressed by officials or the Minister later on.

There is good consistency between the two bills, and again I say it would have been more consistent if we had debated this bill in conjunction with debating the Financial Advisers Bill earlier today. But much of the select committee’s work was about the consistency of definition and of process, given what I have just said about not-for-profit organisations, just to make sure the terminology we used was the same, there was no arbitrage between the two bills, and there was no opportunity for either bill to be exploited. Wherever possible across the select committee we did use the same definitions. We had the same discussions, and, in fact, submitters spoke to both bills. As my colleague Simon Power noted earlier, most of their energy was spent on the Financial Advisers Bill, and this service providers bill was just sitting to one side, important and pertinent though it is.

There is a reserve scheme for disputes resolution, which I find quite interesting. Basically, that is the backdrop scheme if organisations have not found themselves the time or got themselves organised to do it, but there is a very good point on page 11 of the commentary on the bill. It is again a credit to the select committee that the commentary notes that the disputes resolution body does not necessarily have to be a financial disputes resolution body, because the issues are about resolving and mediating disputes rather than financial disputes. That is a small and subtle change, and we took out just a couple of words along the way, but none the less it is a good change, because many people help to mediate or solve disputes in many fields. That is what they do, and a dispute is a dispute is a dispute, I would argue.

There is a very good clause in this bill—and again there is a similar provision in the Financial Advisers Bill and in the Reserve Bank Amendment Bill (No 3)—which is the 5-yearly review clause. Again I highlight the consistency and tie-up between those bills, and I presume any other bills that the next Government brings in will also be aligned to that time frame. I think that is very, very healthy. Again, that is because this bill and the Financial Advisers Bill are joined at the hip, and then I guess holding hands with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3). But also I say it is not a bad process to bring in for all bills that they have an ongoing review clause in them, because, particularly in the area of financial markets, things change rapidly. What is being talked about in the headlines today was probably not even contemplated 4 or 5 years ago, or even 3 years ago. So who knows what will be happening in 5 years’ time, particularly with the globalisation of the financial markets, etc.?

I highlighted another point as to who must register. I spoke about the cost to the not-for-profit organisations, so I will probably just end on that note. Again, I say that we just found the amendment quite curious, and I understood the Minister’s explanation earlier as to why it happened. But I would be intrigued to have it pointed out to me where the amendment or definition of a not-for-profit in Supplementary Order Paper 254 is the same as, or aligns this bill with, the amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of the Financial Advisers Bill that we saw earlier on this morning. Thank you very much.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou i te Whare. On behalf of the Māori Party I am happy to take a short call today on this “Let Us Nail Those Filthy Bloody Loan Sharks and Try To Stop Them From Ripping Off All The Poor People by Making Them Go Through Registration and Dispute Resolution Protocols Bill”, because I see the level of poverty being exacerbated by some of these vultures preying on poor Māori communities right throughout the country and, in particular, in my own area. I see that these companies are charging upwards of 450 percent for finance. I see families that are so pushed to the wall that they are taking out these quick loans just to pay for kai, and already, by the very next week, they are behind the eight ball. I see the way that these companies come into my home town of Kaitāia at Christmas time because they know of the massive pressure put on people to try to buy things for their families, and already those families do not have money. I see people coming out of pokie parlours, busted for the week, and trying to get some money so that they can go home and make out like they still have their benefit. I see these sorts of things happening and I am glad that somebody is at least trying to propose some kinds of protocols to keep these guys in line. I am glad, because poor people do not have the money—if they did, they would spend it on something else—to pay for lawyers to try to deal with some of these rip-off merchants that are preying on our communities.

I would like to see other things like being able to ensure that any time a loan shark company tried to come swinging through a town, it would have to ensure that there was sign-off from a budgeting service before a family was able to get access to that kind of money. I would like to see those people being banned from decile 1 communities, because those are the places they prey on. I would like to see a whole range of things, including some of these buggers being strung up. I would like to see them not getting on the front page of the Times of Tonga in South Auckland. I would like to see them not taking up the centre spread in some of the community newspapers in some of the poorer South Auckland communities, where they are ripping people off. I hope that some of them have gone to the wall over this financial crisis, and that the people who have loans out to them can just move a few houses down the road and get out of having to repay those loans.

If I speak with passion about this issue it is because if there is anything we can do in this country to help poor people get by, particularly at this time when money is so short and prices are rising so much and at such a rate, then the Māori Party, as members know, is a fan of it. That includes taking GST off food—we are just so surprised that the rest of the House does not go along with that great idea—raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and ensuring that anyone on an income of less than $25,000 does not need to be stung with tax. But if I bring it back to the bill, mihi atu ki te Minita e whakatakoto nei i tēnei kaupapa. I thank the Minister for laying down this first step in a long, long process of reining in some of these loan sharks. We look forward to doing better in future to ensure that people in desperate need will not be preyed on by these vultures in the years to come. Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora katoa.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : I just pick up where my colleague Hone Harawira left off, and I say to him that one does not have to be in Kaitāia to experience loan sharks. Electorate offices around this country, across the spectrum, have constituents coming in to see MPs, from both sides of the House, with regard to the issues they face with various loan-related difficulties they get themselves into.

It is interesting to note that it is probably not the loan sharks that Mr Harawira speaks about but more the actions of some of the high-profile companies that have brought about the legislative changes that are being proposed today. We were talking about a number of high-profile businesses that many people around this country have been on the tough end of. They are businesses like Provincial Finance, which has gone to the wall with some $300 million outstanding; Bridgecorp, at $459 million, which I spoke about earlier today; Nathans Finance, with $149 million; Capital + Merchant, at $187 million; Lombard Finance, at $127 million; Geneva, at $141 million; and MFS Boston, at $319 million.

These are huge dollars that we are talking about here—some $1.925 billion. I believe that it is not just the poor people of New Zealand who are suffering because of these finance companies but that a lot of people in middle New Zealand have also been in the gun in this respect. I am the first to stand up and say that not all these companies have gone to the wall for fraudulent activities—though some of them have and are still under investigation for matters before the courts in that regard. A number of them have gone to the wall due to the credit crunch and the difficulties they have found as their balance sheets have not been able to handle the run on funds, and they have had to close down the funds in the short term to protect other investors’ money.

The point I make is that there will always be risk in this market place. Business is about taking some risks and investing money is about taking risks. We will not get rid of risk entirely from the business scene, nor should we; that would be crazy. If we were to do that, then we would put a lid on our economy, and we would stop economic growth entirely, and without economic growth, none of us could stand on the rostrum and say that we will be able to put more money into certain areas. Economic growth is a driver, and finance companies are a key part of doing that.

Hon Darren Hughes: You’d borrow for tax cuts.

CHRIS TREMAIN: In fact, I have talked to a number of constituents, and I was out at Upper Hutt the other day—close to the member’s electorate of Ōtaki; across the road there. I was speaking to some property developers who have been big developers in Upper Hutt and have been big drivers of the economic growth in the community there. They have borrowed money largely from the banks, at about 65 percent, and second-tier finance companies, at about 30 percent to 35 percent, and they have put in maybe 10 percent of their own equity. The second-tier finance company has gone out of the mix now, so it is very difficult for these investors to get that second-tier finance. That is why we are seeing quite a slow down in investment in new property investments. That is a major issue for us.

In talking about the wider finance industry and the suite of bills we have seen before the House, I also mention the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3), which approves the prudential requirements around finance companies, making sure that their balance sheets are stronger and not leveraged as high, ensuring better control over second-tier, non-bank deposit takers, and giving the Reserve Bank the authority to get down to that second tier of finance companies as opposed to where it would normally regulate, with the banks at the top tier.

The second part of the suite of financial service bills is the Financial Advisers Bill, which we have debated at some length this morning. That has now passed through the House, bringing more regulation around those who seek to be financial advisers and lifting the benchmark there, and I think that that is definitely a good thing. Thirdly, today, we stand here now to debate the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. It requires all providers of finance services to be registered, and in order to be registered they have to be part of a dispute resolution service.

The Māori Party asked earlier why the two bills were not merged together. The key thing to note is that this bill has a much wider scope in that it requires a wider section of finance companies and banks to be registered under the public register, and to also be registered with a dispute resolution service in order for them to be registered.

I think that this suite of bills is a good step in the right direction. Once again, as my colleague Simon Power has said, we know that we will not take the risk out of the equation of investment in New Zealand, nor should we. That would be crazy. However, we must provide regulation at a level where consumers understand what they are letting themselves in for. We will put a high bar there, which is what we must do, and I think it is good to provide better consumer protection.

• Bill read a second time.