Leary Ingrid; Dean JacquiINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Apologies Madam Speaker I was waiting to see if ACT were going to speak. But I must apologise for my enthusiasm for this bill. With the fervour of a new MP and a new member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I have read the bill and independent commentary—quite a lot of it—and while it is technical it does make perfect sense to me because really it speaks to three things: first risk management; secondly proportionality; and thirdly integrity and coherence of our financial systems. So it is of course a Financial Market Infrastructures Bill (FMIs) I'm referring to although we could possibly call them FMIs: fairly mundane instruments. But I'm aware as I listen to the debate that there are probably two audiences to speak to. The first of those who really don't have much to do with the financial markets and then there are probably some people who are very involved with this legislation who have made submissions and who may be listening for some of the minutiae or the more granular things that have happened. So I would like to speak to both those audiences in turn.At the risk of revisiting the finance Minister's analogy about plumbing this bill really is a bit like upgrading the plumbing. There are in points for the money to go in there are out points for the money to come out. And what we really want to see are pipes that are clear with no blocks and no leaks. Now that's not the sort of thing that you would talk about in a dinner conversation and in the same way it's not the sort of legislation that normally gets bandied around in the media or is the subject of intense discussion. But it certainly does get attention when it doesn't work and if it was a dinner conversation you wouldn't be eating dinner any more you'd be running across the road and out of the house. So the financial plumbing system has not changed actually since the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act of 1989 yet now we have more pipes we have different sized pipes we need different tools to fix them and we do need proportionality. In other words you don't want to be opening up a small pipe with a sledgehammer. So this bill does recognise that it upgrades the plumbing and it makes it fit for purpose in a digital world. And as one of the previous speakers has quite rightly said it involves derivatives and it looks particularly at over-the-counter transactions.But I turn now to those who might be seeking some more technical contribution just to mention specifically the contribution that the Finance and Expenditure Committee made around changes and they fall into three categories. The first was around decision-making processes the second was really around the new arrangements for transitioning designated settlement systems under Part 5C across to the new designation regime in the bill and then the third one was the really really really technical stuff. Depending on how much time I have left we might get to that third bit.But if I go to the decision-making processes. To summarise really the contribution that the select committee made—and this was going through it with a fine-tooth comb listening to the excellent submissions as I understand them to be from the small number of people and organisations who submitted. They broadly came up with these changes. First they broadened the circumstances to where the regulators may agree that one of them can act as the sole regulator in a particular case. They also simplified the thresholds for when Ministers must grant approval or consent to decisions made by the regulator and that has got to be really around transparency and clarity for operators. They also clarified the relationship between the general purposes and principles of the bill and the specific purposes and principles relating to crisis management powers. We have heard a little bit about crisis management today and certainly after the financial market crash that was less hypothetical. I think that COVID has made us all realise how perilous all our systems are at any given time and how important it is to have integrity in the underlying systems that enable our society and our economies to continue to work. There's also the removing the requirement for ministerial consent which has already been discussed and removing the requirement for ministerial consent to a new operator scheme.The second group of changes as I mentioned were about transitioning. This again has got to be about clarity and certainty for those operating in the system to make sure that as we transition from a less regulated system to a more regulated one that it is a smooth transition that it is fair and that it keeps the integrity of the system.Then finally there are the really more technical amendments. Again just wanting to thank those who submitted to the select committee as no doubt many of these very technical points would've come from those submitters. So what they did do is they wanted to clarify how the concept of stability and confidence referred to at various points in the bill interrelated with the bill's purposes. We've just heard very clearly from my colleague Barbara Edmonds about how that was able to be brought to bear. They were also looking to bring into force certain additional provisions of the bill at the day after the Royal assent. They wanted to adjust the circumstances where derivatives counterparties can exercise certain close-out rights against an FMI operator in statutory management and again that is for protection of those working in the markets to make sure that there is an equal weighting and balance of power so that we don't have a change where some of those working in the system are able to be exploited. They also wanted to clarify that security interests in the assets of an FMI operator in statutory management continue in existence if those assets are transferred to a new operator under a new operating scheme. They wanted to provide a Crown indemnity for the statutory manager of an FMI operator. Again that's around providing confidence to the market more generally. They wanted to enhance the rules around confidentiality notices issued by the regulator and my colleague Duncan Webb has spoken to that. They also wanted to adjust the rules around the confidentiality of information held by the regulator so that the relevant confidentiality rules in the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011 apply to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA)—that's obviously about consistency of legislation—and to make a technical amendment to the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011 to ensure that the FMA can also make use of its powers under that Act in respect of FMIs.So you can see why I may refer to these FMIs as fairly mundane instruments but to summarise: it is really important. We've heard across-the-House support for this bill which really brings more cohesion to a rapidly changing market one that is operating in the digital space one that has been lightly regulated. It brings it into line with best practice overseas and in that way adds coherence and integrity to our financial systems. We've heard about the proportionality that it brings in terms of making sure that we are not requiring ministerial intervention when in fact what is required is a technical response from technicians with specialised knowledge—and again my colleague has very clearly pointed out that that was clearly debated so that we could make sure that we didn't overstep the mark when it came to democratic principles. But probably most importantly this is about risk management. So we've heard about the risks that can happen that did happen after the financial market crash. We have seen the risks to the financial system and in fact very good responses through COVID. But what we did see a lot of was a lot of transactions happening going through different pipes than they normally would. What we have chosen to do across the House is to recognise that that plumbing system needs to be fit for purpose needs a bit of upgrading and a bit of tinkering to ensure that should we go through another situation like that or even if there are just more calls on certain parts of the system that we have plumbing that is fit for purpose that we can sit around at the dinner table or indeed in this House talk about matters that perhaps seem a bit sexier or more interesting knowing that the plumbing is not going to break down and we are not going to have to run out in the middle of dinner or in the middle of the debate because the system doesn't work. So on that note I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This is a split call five minutes. I call Nicola Willis.