Bennett David: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4990] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on Part 2 of the Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill. Part 2 deals with some amendments to the Financial Advisers Act 2008. It seeks to correct some small errors in that legislation and to make sure that those minor and technical changes are made in a way that ensures the Financial Advisers Act is complete and effective. 
Some of those minor issues relate to bigger issues. I refer to some of the issues that were discussed in the last term of the previous Government in regard to financial advising. “Retirement villages disclosure statements” is one of the headings in the commentary. When we looked at retirement villages we saw that there was quite a bit of debate about retirement villages in the last term of the previous Government. Any constituent MP has probably dealt with retirement villages and the need for disclosure that came about in the last term of the previous Government. Some villages felt that they needed an exemption from that disclosure and felt that the rules were too onerous. This legislation inserts a new clause 16A “clarifying that the disclosure statement which operators of retirement villages must make under the Retirement Villages Act 2003 does not constitute financial advice for the purposes of the Financial Advisers Act.” This new clause just clarifies the requirements in respect of disclosure statements for retirement villages. 
Another minor change that Part 2 makes to the Financial Advisers Act covers some minor drafting errors. Clause 16B corrects a minor typographical error in section 17(1) of the Act and clause 16C amends section 18(1) of the Act to reflect that an agent is engaged rather than employed. That may seem like a very simple difference but it is reflective of the nature of Labour Party members. They could only ever expect somebody to be employed. They would never expect someone to be engaged because they do not have the level of understanding of business that National members have. I think that change is very symbolic as it shows the fundamental difference between the two political parties. One political party understands business and is doing what is in the best interests of New Zealand companies and New Zealand investors so that we have a strong investment climate in these economic times. Members on the other side of the House try to play on keeping people under the thumb of the Government and under too many rules and regulations. It does not like to see people succeed and make choices and make investments because it wants to be able to control those things. 
Todd McClay 
: They don’t trust New Zealanders. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: They do not trust New Zealanders as the member for Rotorua rightly points out. Although the change in that clause is a minor one it is actually quite a major shift in the sense that it shows the balance between the political parties and it reflects the nature of business. 
Another slight change is the alignment with the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008. It removes an unintended conflict between the registration requirements under the Financial Advisers Act and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Disputes Resolution) Act which stated that it did not apply to employees of financial service providers when operating in the capacity of employees. However the Financial Advisers Act generally requires individuals to be registered in their own right. It is a matter of dealing with that inconsistency and that is what the amendment does. It proposes that employees of financial service providers would not be required to register and belong to a dispute resolution scheme unless the individual were required to do so under the Financial Advisers Act. 
That is another very important change. It may seem minor in its effect but it is about balancing the equation and making sure the rules and regulations around financial disclosure and financial advisers are correct and are suitable for the economic environment we are facing. There is nothing worse than having technical errors in legislation that deals with quite important issues and with people’s money and the economic future of this country.