Sio Hon Aupito WilliamAUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Let me comment on the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and say to the House that from the RIS we know that in 2008 the officials provided to this Government information—and I would say quality information—that there was a real need for us to strengthen our anti - money-laundering regime. It was important for us to take note of that information—2008 this is—in terms of the changes in the global setting of the way money was being moved around by those who are into the promotion of terrorism. In 2008 that information was given to this Government. In 2008 also our officials gave this Government information that it was important to stop our domestic criminals taking advantage of our regime at times through organised crime and through laundering money that was gathered through drug offending. That information was made available to this Government.The Government then decided that it would do something about it but it would do it in two phases—phase one and phase two. I do not know why it sort of did not act quickly on that information. In 2010 the police intelligence unit that gathers intelligence in the financial sector from all over the globe again highlighted to this Government with a sense of urgency that we must increase our anti - money-laundering regime because of what was happening in the criminal arena in a global setting. But the Government did not act on it and then when it did act on it in 2013 when our first phase came into force the Government had given the non-financial sector an exemption. So the first phase in 2013 would only include the banks the money transfer units and the casinos. I would say that with the money transfer units there was quite a bit of rumbling because these are small units that send money mainly to the Pacific region from New Zealand and suddenly they were caught up in this. But none the less they adhered to the Government law at the time. In 2013 this came into force. In 2016 we then found out that the Panama Papers had been leaked to the media and we learnt that New Zealand was being used by international trusts almost to launder money. We know that those reports highlighted that there was a need for our Government to act quickly and to act early. That information was provided by officials as early as 2008. The police financial intelligence unit provided further information in 2010. We did not act on it until 2013 and when we did act on it we exempted a very important sector. That sector the non-financial sector was considered by the police to be a gatekeeper to the financial system. In other words the police said that that sector provided an impression of respectability an impression of legitimacy and an impression of normalcy particularly where large transactions or large sums of money were involved.To this day I do not know whether we will ever be clearer as to why that information—despite being provided to the Government and provided to the Minister as early as 2008 and reiterated in 2010—was not taken into consideration until the first phase in 2013. And then we allowed it to drag on until this point here.I will tell you why Labour is supporting this bill. I know that the other Opposition parties that are on the Law and Order Committee also had a sense of urgency that we needed to act on it and act quickly on it. There was a bit of debate about whether to push out when the implementation of this regime should take place. I think it was generally the Opposition parties that urged that we needed to act quickly for a number of reasons. (1) we have international obligations to the international organisations that are charged with protecting our economies protecting the integrity of financial systems. (2) it was also about for New Zealand—we needed to put a stake strongly in the ground and dispel what the Panama Papers revealed. We are strongly in favour of supporting the strength of our reputation particularly in the international arena of trade. That is really fundamental to why this regime is so important—it is about us protecting our reputation in the international arena.But I also want to say that New Zealand also plays a leading role in the Asia-Pacific region. We provide technical advice to a lot of the countries in the Pacific. I know that more recently New Zealand has offered advice to Samoa in terms of upgrading its anti - money-laundering regime. This is important because if we are not seen to be following international best standards if we are not seen to be plugging the gaps then our integrity in terms of us trying to give advice to other countries in the region just will not shine. Any weaknesses in our own system risk us losing not only our credibility but also our influence in the regions. This legislation is about us protecting our reputation as a corruption-free society. I remember vividly Transparency International holding up a report in one of the submissions and saying that New Zealand has so much to lose if we do not act quickly on this. For many many years our economy the way that we do our business was generally seen as corruption-free. For many many years we held the No. 1 spot in the Transparency International reporting.I want to come back to the New Zealand Racing Board and its request to push out the implementation of this regime. I sympathise with the board because not too long ago we passed new laws for the need to earthquake strengthen many of the buildings. The board has a lot of structures and it has been a very costly exercise for it. I am sympathetic to its need that it is having to pay for significant compliance costs not only for the earthquake strengthening of buildings but also in this. So I support the fact that we are pushing the Racing Board to be last in terms of implementing this regime. Can I say that when the Minister began this debate he looked deflated. He looked down. I just want to say to the Minister: Cheer up. Change is the air." I know that one week in politics is a long long time and as my colleague Stuart Nash said change is in the air. In 7 weeks we will be able to relieve you of your responsibilities. So without further ado this party does support this regime. It should have been passed some time ago but we are at this stage because of the way that this Government instead of acting quickly on the information dragged its feet. That is why we have been slow in passing this legislation."