Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well there's the reason eh? How many transactions do you think banks alone process every year in New Zealand? What do you reckon Mr McClay? Four billion? Well I'll tell you what. There will be billions and billions of transactions that take place and actually unlike the Minister I was actually on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and the Reserve Bank's Adrian Orr presented to the Finance and Expenditure Committee about the review of findings and I think the Minister has very carefully taken snippets of billions of transactions that take place in New Zealand. He's quoted about four or five examples. The one thing he missed from what he was saying there is that the Reserve Bank and the FMA were clear to say they found no systemic issues of wrongdoing in New Zealand. They found isolated examples of cases unlike in Australia where they certainly found lots of cases. But the New Zealand review showed that there was no systemic issue. So to quote those and to say that is the excuse for how we're going to impose millions of dollars of additional compliance on top of all these financial institutions I think is a very poor excuse.The question is: why wouldn't you have made sure that you actually got the Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act legislation right rather than try and go and create a whole new plethora of legislation requirements under this and all the attendant costs? Because I think at the end of the day what we're going to end up with is competing jurisdictions that these institutions are going to have to be accountable to: FMA and then on the other side the Ministry of Business Innovation and the Employment and the Commerce Commission and out to the side the Reserve Bank. Who has priority? Who do I respond to? How do I make sure this code is not competing with another code and how do I know that the FMA is not going to reinterpret the code to suit their ends? That is the inherent conflict of what this legislation is about.So let's deal with a little bit of detail on the bill. So new subpart 446M Minimum requirements for fair conduct programmes"—there's a whole lot of clauses here under what the minimum requirement is. It is amazing: (a) (ab) (ac) (ad) (bb) (bc) (bd)—and there's subclauses under each of these—(bc) (be) (bf) (d) (e) (f) (1A) (1B). They just keep going right? Woah. So in the second one—this is (ab)—this is a new insertion the minimum requirements for a fair conduct programme that says "designing and [maintaining] the provision of the financial institution's relevant services and associated products including regularly reviewing". Well my first question is: how often is that going to be? Does the FMA tell them that or does the bank or the non-deposit taker? But it's not all non-bank deposit takers; they're actually big organisations."(i) the relevant services or associated products that are provided to consumers on an ongoing basis to determine whether they are likely to continue to meet the requirements and objectives of those consumers (when viewed as a group);". Wow. I'm the new recruit to one of the non-deposit takers and I've been asked to do the compliance on that. What in the dickens does that mean Minister? Because I can take a view from the non-bank deposit taker's view. I could take it from the view of a consumer. I can take it from the view of the FMA—that's the regulatory oversight. How do I justify that? Do I have to lay out all the different positions and then come to a view?The next point a subpoint on that same thing which we were referring regularly—I don't know what that means—"(ii) whether enhancements or improvements in the financial institution's relevant services or associated products should be made available to those consumers (when viewed as a group);". This is just the first one. Let's start with this Minister."