Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm always amused at my colleague Greg O'Connor's ability to go through such a speech to bring some of his police experience into this particular discussion. But I do agree with him on the importance of protection.Can I acknowledge Barbara Kuriger. It's always a privilege I think—I haven't had that privilege yet—to have a member's bill pulled from the ballot but fingers crossed I'll be able to—Chris Bishop: Oh one day—one day!SHANAN HALBERT: One day that's right. I hope—Chris Bishop: What's your bill?SHANAN HALBERT: I've got a great member's bill that you will love so watch out for that one.This bill would prevent financial advisers who recommend that a third party take over the management or disposal of a business or its assets from performing such a function themselves. I consider myself quite lucky this evening to speak on this very important kaupapa and we have had a number this evening and I go back to some of the thoughts of previous members that have spoken on this bill this evening.I'd like to think that I'm a pragmatic person and there is practical change that sits within this particular bill and that is that the prevention of financial advisers who recommend that a third party take over the management or disposal of the business or its assets from performing such functions themselves. It does look at what's reasonable to an extent and I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable person and Kuriger you probably are too. But there are some challenges that come with this particular bill and when it refers to the conflict management provisions I guess the question for us all is: are we saying that there's currently no regulations in place for conflict management? I don't think that that would be correct and that's the challenge with this particular bill.We have current provisions that manage such conflicts currently: the conflicts of interest on the part of the insolvency practitioners and when such conflicts that should prevent them from acting on a specific appointment have already been considered and enacted as part of the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Act in there.We do oppose this bill this evening and it is the second in train unfortunately that I've had to speak on this evening where it doesn't quite adequately or accurately address the issue. The Financial Professional Services Trading Advice Transparency Bill—this member's bill in front of us—would actually oppose the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Bill which this Government brought into effect back in September 2020. In the insolvency legislation we have addressed a couple of things in that particular work that introduces a robust regime including rigorous competence honesty integrity transparency in relation to obtaining and retaining a licence to act as an insolvency practitioner. We've provided effective ways of holding practitioners to account and this is a very important thing for me.The Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Bill makes other attempts to amend the Companies Act and the Receiverships Act and this bill is aimed at updating these pieces of legislation to make sure that they are still fit for purpose and reflect the new Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Bill.So there are some challenges in there that we have to work through. I wouldn't tend to work against legislation that we've already put through—in fact this one opposes that piece of legislation which wouldn't make sense to me. This side of the House believes that the Act created a robust occupational regulation regime and that is important in the way forward and to achieving the transparency that we wish to.So sadly this is my second round this evening of not being able to support a member's bill. They need a little bit more work a little bit more research but good on the member over there. I'm very pleased for you that you've managed to pull one out of the ballot out of the hat—good on you.