Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I just take the opportunity to invite members from the Labour Party to stand up and particularly some of the members who contributed fulsomely during the select committee process. I'm looking at the Hon Phil Twyford and Ingrid Leary over there and Mr Halbert over there wants to continuously close down this debate. I'm not sure what his problem is. He should leave if he's in a hurry. But the issue I want to just raise with this—because I think it's important and unfortunately the member wasn't a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for most of it but he was for some of it so maybe he could make a good contribution.Simon Watts: A bit restless today.ANDREW BAYLY: Yes I noticed that; very restless. The issue I want to just talk about which I seem to have lost is the issue around the duties of directors. Of course what I'm referring to is clause 92. As a select committee we were concerned that directors couldn't rely on professional managers. The reason why we were concerned was if you take very large organisations with many thousands of employees it would be impossible to expect board members or even a CEO to have a really good in-depth requirement to make sure that the entity was complying with the Reserve Bank requirements. There's a duty of care which is set out in clause 92 and related to that is a due diligence requirement.So I think the first thing I want to just note and I hope the Minister is in agreement with this but the committee removed the requirement for anti-money laundering requirements because with discussion with the officials it was viewed that anti-money laundering has its own separate piece of legislation and for that reason we did not need to capture it in this bill and that is why it was removed.But the issues in clause 93A about allowing directors and senior managers to have reliance—and obviously there is a requirement certainly in clause 93A(3) that you not act in poor faith and have made proper inquiries and have no knowledge that such reliance is unwarranted. But I think this is a very important part of this bill to make sure that in those large organisations there should be an ability to be able to rely on other members of the team and not necessarily require directors and CEOs to actually avail themselves of all and every piece of information that they would otherwise be required to.The second thing is that we talked about making the rules about the guidelines—and there's a requirement on the bank in clause 94 to prepare guidance on due diligence duties. One of the big things we talked about—and I know Ingrid Leary across the House here is deeply involved in this—is whether in fact the Institute of Directors (IOD) should be the party that provides that because of course they're in the business of providing guidance and support to directors. We thought they were most likely to be the best entity to help the bank in preparing its guidelines. Where we've ended up is issuing guidance or training in relation to directors' duties but actually requiring the bank to go and consult with such entities. In fact we've obliquely referred to the IOD by saying to those entities who are in the business of providing that type of guidance.So again I suppose it's a question of just putting this on record but it is really important that we get adequate due diligence. I don't know whether the Minister wants to make any comments around that but I think the importance of—in some situations it will be important for a CEO or whatever to have a very close understanding of this issue but in much larger organisations that's probably impractical and unwarranted. I think my view is that where we ended up is we struck a balance on that but again of course I'd welcome the input from the Minister because he's such a knowledgeable person about these aspects.