Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you for your note. The Financial Professional Services Trading Advice Transparency Bill was something we would like to have supported through to the select committee. I think that Labour have used the insolvency angle to sort of flatten the spirit of this bill. It was an excellent technical presentation by Barbara Kuriger but in terms of how the Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association New Zealand works—and they've obviously managed to influence that—but there are still other categories of financial adviser that can recommend various routes of when a troubled company is required to enact these serious provisions of receivership or liquidation.If you look at this logically this could have been a bill going on top of a bill and it could have been done in the spirit of investigating how those people carry out that role. As an example with PricewaterhouseCoopers somebody in the accounting team can be sent in to audit a business that's in trouble. Then with the Chinese wall put up their mergers and acquisitions team could actually come and sell it and they're still part of the same organisation and this could have been an opportunity to clean things like that up. On the balance the bill would have provided more confidence that financial advisers were given sound advice and there are examples apart from what Ingrid Leary said where there have been people who have taken hold of companies and shaken them up and undersold their value and have actually ended up with a beneficial interest at a financial level. This has occurred quite a lot of times in the New Zealand market place. So there could have been a spirit here which would have allowed us to take those particular functions themselves and to run a figure of eight around the insolvency aspect because there's more to this than just insolvency practice.So the bill was supposed to clarify that a financial adviser could recommend and then they would have to go away and not carry out any further role and I don't think that's contemplated in Barbara Edmonds' definition and explanation tonight of what financial advisers can conduct. She was speaking specifically about the insolvency advisers.The other thing that I think would have been good in the select committee to talk about is who actually pays the bills for this. It probably gets into trouble. When you own the company you're the one who's going to pay the bill and so then you've got a choice of a professional adviser that you choose or an insolvency firm. You may even decide to continue with another member of their team in another part of the business to either extract value for you or to sell what the bones of the business are and one of the things that's easy for a liquidator and an insolvency expert is they get brought in really fast. They have a matter of days to turn the business around or they have to recommend to the shareholder to creditors what should be its destiny and therefore the person that pays the bill should be the one that gets to make the decisions within the framework that Barbara Edmonds was proposing. There appear to be no significant costs to actually doing this and to drafting a hybrid piece of legislation which would have covered this area so I think it's a bit of a wasted opportunity. The person that is employed or otherwise engaged would probably have accepted these rules really easily. So receiverships and insolvencies are just one part of this and I hope there's an opportunity for the bill to come back in a different form at some stage to address these issues.The whole idea was not about remuneration or the firm. It was about the confidence in the advice and getting that correct so that the person advised knew that as the third party they had specific responsibilities and I don't think that's contemplated in the existing legislation. So I'm disappointed that it's not going to go forward but the ACT Party would have supported it at the next stage. Thank you.