Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my first opportunity to speak in the House this year as well; so can I just welcome everyone back. It's wonderful to be here. I will just be taking a reasonably short call this evening though for two reasons: first of all because I think my colleagues over this side of the House have laid out very well the reasons that we won't be supporting the bill and secondly because I'm conscious that Mr Ian McKelvie is due to speak after me and I'm sure everyone will be looking forward to that. So I'll just take a very short call.I am quite interested in this bill though and particularly the history of it because prior to coming to Parliament for a short time I did work in banking and so I am aware of some of the history behind the bill and certainly what happened in Australia. So what interests me is that obviously the Australians went off and did their royal commission found a large number of systemic problems in the Australian banking system and so following on from that New Zealand regulators and agencies went off and did their own review. And what they found actually was that there wasn't this level of problems—anywhere near the level of problems—that exists in Australia.So it was quite interesting to hear from Minister Eugenie Sage earlier saying that this bill builds on the review that was done in Australia. This intrigues me because what they're essentially doing is saying there's a problem in Australia; therefore we need to legislate in New Zealand. That to me really is suggesting that we're creating a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist in New Zealand because what they found was that they said there's a small number of conduct issues related to poor conduct by bank staff but not widespread misconduct or culture issues like in Australia. So again nowhere near the level of problems that they see in Australia.We do support some of the aspects of this bill. There are some important issues in it and we do support of course a strong banking conduct framework but where I think they go too far is in relation to setting rules for sales incentives by regulation. There's two important parts to that and the first one of those is that we said it's heavy and disproportionate to essentially hand a power to Government to say that there could be a blanket ban on any sort of sales incentives and in particular my colleague Melissa Lee has laid out the concerns that we have in relation to that. The second important point is actually that it's taking away the power of Parliament to do that and giving it to a Minister to set by regulation and so there'll be no scrutiny of that decision by Parliament and that is pretty concerning to me.I do want to just touch on what the effects of that will be and actually that's laid out quite well in the regulatory impact statement which talks about the fact that the bill could lead to more expensive financial products and services for instance if costs are passed through to customers. My concern around that—and to me it really sums up what this Government does actually—is they come in and they think Oh well look here's potentially a problem that we need to fix."—or in this case probably not a problem at all—"So what we'll do is we'll put a whole bunch of new costs on to businesses or on to farmers or on to landlords whoever it might be whatever industry they decide to pick on. They think to themselves "OK well this of course will have no effect. There'll be no effect of doing this." But of course as we know there is an effect because all of those costs just end up getting passed on to the end-user—in this case the customer or the consumer. So when Eugenie Sage earlier today said that we are siding with the big guys siding with the big guys by not voting for this bill well actually Ms Sage we're not siding with the big guys; we're siding with the customers. We are siding with the consumers who ultimately have to pay more as a result of this bill."