Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Madam Speaker. I have so looked forward to speaking on this nonsense bill. It's obvious to me that the Government have a very low legislative programme and they have thought What can we do to fill the Order Paper?" and here we are. We have a bill that's addressing a problem that has been predominantly in Australia that the Reserve Bank and the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) looked at in New Zealand and could not find anywhere near the same problem. They saw some areas that could need some work on but to bring a piece of legislation into the House to do that is I think essentially filibustering by this Government. Can I say one of the goals of this bill is to protect the interests of the consumer but it was probably less than two years ago that this House passed a bill called the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of that bill required all people who give regulated financial advice to comply with standards of ethical behaviour conduct and client care. So what we are doing today is Groundhog Day—we're doing the same thing two years later because this Government doesn't have a strong legislative programme. We are repeating what has already been achieved. It's quite interesting because one particular firm who I respect—Chapman Tripp—analysed this bill and they said this. They said that you have to be very careful regarding this bill because "The proposed legislation regulates the banks insurers and non-bank deposit takers which are already subject to registration and licensing regimes under [the Reserve Bank of New Zealand]. Care will need to be taken to ensure that the further licensing obligations under the FMCA are streamlined the licensors are co-ordinated and the obligations are consistent and not duplicated."So this bill that was passed within the last couple of years the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill was to bring those elements of care to clients regarding commission payments—that if somebody was going to receive a remuneration from selling a financial product they had to disclose it and they had a limitation to declare that there were other similar products out there in the market place. So somebody couldn't say "You've got to have this; this is the only product that you need to have and I'm here to sell it to you."So it's interesting that if you go to the FMA website—and they make this comment about the Financial Service Providers Register which the bill established two years ago—they said "All financial service providers in New Zealand must be registered on the Financial Service Providers Register to legally provide financial services. There is a requirement to also be licensed by the FMA or the Reserve Bank to provide some financial services. Financial service providers include financial advisers brokers building societies credit providers credit unions money changers finance companies foreign currency exchange dealers fund managers insurers investment portfolio managers issuers and registered banks." So there's already a regime in place put in by this Parliament to protect consumers and by law registered banks need to register as a financial service provider. When we look through this bill all it does is exactly the same thing. It's Groundhog Day.Chapman Tripp went on to say "However significant costs are expected to fall on banks insurers [and non-bank deposit takers] and their intermediaries selling products to retail customers. Compliance costs are expected to be moderate to high as noted by the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment in their Regulatory Impact Statement. Further administrative and enforcement costs to the Government and the FMA will be significant."Every head on the other side is looking down at their desk. Why? You should be embarrassed. Minister Faafoi you should be embarrassed. What you are doing is already being done. You're wasting this House's time. You're putting further expenses upon customers in New Zealand for elements of protection that are already being put in place and that the FMA and the Reserve Bank already have oversight over.I don't need to say anything else. I think I've said enough. I think that what we see here is a bill that is a duplication and that's why we don't support this bill."