Dalziel Lianne: Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:11967. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Unfortunately the Minister in the chair the Hon Georgina te Heuheu did not answer the question I had asked which was whether the Government will put on the record that it intends to regulate to allow the Securities Commission to have authorised financial advisers in the mortgage broking space. That is the question we have been asked and I would like the Minister to put the answer on the record. I assume that the answer is yes that the Government is writing in a regulation-making power so that regulations will be passed. I honestly think that we have had such a good process up until now that it would be a shame to ruin it by Ministers being inadequately briefed to contribute to the Committee stage debate. 
The second question I asked in relation to the question of regulating out or regulating in was not answered at all unless the Minister was answering it by reference to some element of Supplementary Order Paper 146. I tried to capture her attention by asking what clause she was referring to but I cannot see which clause it was. I think that if the marketing law people who represent these businesses have gone to the trouble of providing us with their concerns in writing they deserve to have an answer in the House. 
The final point that I was coming to but was unable to address was the question about the binding rulings of the dispute resolution scheme. It is in section 49D in clause 38B of the Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill. I have gone through the Supplementary Order Paper and it looks like the complainant has been taken out so just the person responsible for the scheme can apply to the District Court to make an order requiring a member of the scheme to do either or both of the following: comply with the rules of the scheme or comply with a resolution of a complaint that constitutes a binding resolution under those rules. The point that was being made was that there was concern that that conflicted with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because there was no mutuality of rights. Has taking out the complainant resolved that problem or does it make it worse? The question we were being asked was whether people should be able to apply for a review of the final settlement. I cannot find out who has the ability to apply for a review of the final settlement and whether the financial service provider has been given that particular authority to apply for a review. 
The trouble is that we have only just received this letter. I thought we would get a more detailed response from the Minister in the chair. Agreeing to have the Committee stage done in an across-the-board way enables us to focus on the different elements of the bill. It is the technical debate. It is where we try to make sure that we have got things right. If we do not have them right in this stage—and I do not want the Committee stage to run into the lunch break—and we move to the third reading we will end up not being able to fix things. Even though there is a regulation-making power in order to resolve things that come up afterwards it will not look very good if we have not addressed these technical matters in the Committee stage. People have gone to the trouble of providing us with some feedback post the report back of the bill. It is not unreasonable that we put on record a response to the concerns they have raised. 
The other matter that I would really like the Minister to address in her comments on behalf of the Minister of Commerce is that at all stages we gave the officials the ability to go back to the stakeholders to get feedback from them and on this technical part of the bill I would like to know whether any other matters raised by key stakeholders are outstanding. Apart from the three that I have raised have any other outstanding matters raised by those important stakeholders whom we have engaged with in a very positive way been addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper? Have issues raised by outside stakeholders been addressed and are there any gaps? Were any other things raised by major stakeholders? I think knowing that would assist the process of this bill.