Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's very good to be able to rise and speak on this bill the Deposit Takers Bill. As some of my colleagues have already noted we will be cautiously supporting this bill and look forward to it being discussed further at the select committee stage.There some key aspects of this obviously as our friends over the way have just noted in respect to $100000 the key protections there—yes we can do that too [Mimics Dr Evil]. I think that's important because it does afford mums and dads and other deposit takers quite a lot of assurity that in the case of financial instability or a possible run on banks their nest egg and everything that they've worked hard and saved for will be protected. There's also some key expansion of powers for the Reserve Bank (RB) in there to step in in the case of a severe or significant situation—they can get in there and they can carve bits off and transfer or sell out viable parts—which does give them an increased amount of power. That is noted but there is the potential that that could be used for good as well. So we do encourage further investigation of that.We all want a stable and efficient financial system. You know that is very true. And as we've seen over the past 15 years when the system hasn't been so stable it is very important that that stability is there. We do note the steps that reserve banks took not just in New Zealand but internationally to shore up the system and to shore up deposit holders after the global financial crisis. But we would want this to see further scrutiny because we note that there has been discussion here around risk and there are concerns that this removes the risk. It removes it on the financial institutions be they first tier be they second tier. It also removes the risk obligation or personal responsibility on the person that is making the deposit.Now if I know that my deposit is going to be backed up and looked after by whoever I deposit it with why would I go along and give it to a first-tier lender such as Westpac or ASB and get a small percentage when I can go and take it to a much higher-risk deposit taker and get a significantly enhanced rate? I think that has the potential to create some issues in the system because the risk isn't really owned by the players; the risk is effectively absorbed by the Reserve Bank. And I think we already have a pretty stable system in that regard. We do have quite a well-protected system. We do have capital holding requirements and these have been enhanced. I think New Zealand stands out quite well as a country whose financial system is quite well protected in that regard.A lot of people say What happens if the Australian banks collapse?" I fortunately or unfortunately had the pleasure of working for Australian banks for about a dozen years and they always looked down on their New Zealand cousins which annoyed me tremendously. But we did have a very good thing in that the Reserve Bank New Zealand had required that New Zealand banks have a carve-off and had to stand on their own two feet. So in the case of things going extremely pear shaped in Sydney or Melbourne and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia or Westpac or ANZ falling over the New Zealand equivalents the New Zealand subs would be able to stand on their own two feet. So I think that's important to take into account.I would also be concerned because I know that there will be—at some stage the RB or someone else will have to determine what levies are paid. If you're determining that it doesn't make sense for a very safe deposit holder to pay the same levy as a much riskier deposit holder. Do you get into the situation there where the RB or the Government or whoever it may be is effectively picking winners and losers in this game? I think that's an important consideration to note.We cautiously support the bill on this side of the House. We note that it has some good points. We note that mum and dad deposit takers will be very happy to see some safety—up to $100000 in their deposits—but we would also want it to be rigorously scrutinised. I know my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse noted there were 240-odd pages to be combed through and we hope that is done very rigorously at the select committee stage. Thank you."