Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I do not think there is any doubt that the framework that underpins credit unions and friendly societies is out of date and needs a good look taken at it. I do not think there is any doubt that the Labour Party supports the removal of unnecessary regulatory burdens—red tape that sort of thing. The member Stuart Nash has covered that ground. What we do have a problem with though is when a 35-page bill is presented to this House in the name of a member who gets up and gives a technical written speech on it when it is actually presented to the House as a member's bill and when it is actually acknowledged that it was meant to be in a previous piece of legislation called the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill which has gone before select committee and has been through all stages in the House. That bill was one of three omnibus amendment bills that all went through their stages yet this part of it was somehow left out. We do not know why and clearly that will be a question for the select committee.I am a bit sad that the bill is not going to the Commerce Committee for two reasons. The first is that there are no bills before the Commerce Committee at the moment and it could do with a bit of work being done from a Government that clearly does not have any legislation in that area. The second reason is that it should have been a part of the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill which went through all its stages in the Commerce Committee. It could have been already dealt with so it is wasting the time of the House for the bill to be considered as a member's bill. It has already been drafted. It has clearly had input from officials. In fact a good question to ask the member Stuart Smith is who actually wrote his speech because I am sure he did not write it. I am sure it has come from officials. It was not part of the original bill that went to first reading and I know this because I checked the initial report to the Commerce Committee the second departmental report and the third departmental report.Although I can find a reference in subpart 9 in Part 1 of the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 where there were two proposed changes—actually there were three proposed changes I beg your pardon. There were minor changes to that Act. Why was this bill not considered to be a part of that legislation then? Those are questions that need to be asked at select committee and I am in fact keen to sub on to the Finance and Expenditure Committee if I can to ask some of those questions. I think they are really valid questions that should be asked as to what the genesis of this bill was and how it has got to this point.The three matters that it is concerned with—the inability of credit unions to incorporate their inability to lend to small to medium sized enterprises that are related to members and the reduction in the number of credit union members needed to form an association—all on the face of it look quite sensible and valid. But we have heard this before in first readings from this Government when on the face of it the legislation looks quite straightforward but there is an underlying reason for a delay and for opposition or for concern about the way it has been written. I hope that is not the case with this bill. I think it is also timely to have a good look at credit unions and friendly societies and their structures and how fit for purpose they are in this modern age. They have an underlying reason as good societies rather than moneymaking profit-making entities but there are lots of questions to be asked at select committee about this bill.