Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. A previous contributor noticed that the debate had been so far mostly informative but perhaps not going so far as to say it was interesting. I don't know if I can lift the latter category of interest and hopefully I don't fall too much further behind in terms of the informative nature of a contribution either. So it does appear that the legislation is going to get the seal of approval of the House as it continues its passage through this place. I think we should talk in terms of declined" or "approved" in the nature of financial transactions—maybe more than "Ayes" and "Noes". But that voting will take place soon as we're nearly at the end of the second reading debate on it of course.I did want to touch on a couple of different areas in relation to the bill. My understanding has been informed somewhat by listening to other speeches but of course also looking at the bill itself and leaning on the excellent report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee of the previous Parliament. I didn't have any role in that. I just genuinely think that it appears certainly from the product that they've provided to us a pretty robust examination of a technical but none the less highly important area of the law. So I did want to talk a little bit about the history of the bill how it's come to us at this stage that we're at now and also its purpose examining that from a couple of different angles talking about the regulations aspect so the fact that obviously this bill will become an Act which in turn will allow regulations to be made under that—and then touching on a couple of the particular amendments that the select committee had recommended which I understand are going to be adopted and form part of the law flowing from this. So in terms of the history a couple of others have mentioned so I won't do so in great depth but the background to the legislation I understand hearkens back to 2015-2016 before my time in this House and that was with some policy proposals released by the Reserve Bank at the time—effectively recommending an update to the regulatory regime of financial market infrastructures (FMIs). That was endorsed by the Cabinet at the time—a National Government as it then was. It's been a framework being proposed out of that. That's continued forward. The current Government in its second term—or second term of some slightly different version from the last Parliament. But nevertheless we've had more or less a continuation of a work programme that I think's received bipartisan support not only in terms of its overall intent but very much in terms of the way that the system will operate the regulatory regime. I've got a feeling that's maybe a bit of a tautology. I sense those are possibly from the same derivation.But actually if you'll indulge me I'm quite touched that yesterday I was at a university and I introduced myself by my first name and they could see that I was connected with the National Party and they said "Finlayson?" In fact that's not my surname or indeed anywhere near my level of expertise. And if I were Christopher Finlayson QC—I'm going to claim it by the way if I'm going to assume that identity—then I would know the Latin derivation of "regulatory" and "regime" and I would know if it were a tautology or not. But I'm ashamed to say that I don't for sure. So I was probably silly to have mentioned it in the first place.Nevertheless the purpose of the bill—I will pass to that and move on from the history. I think it's worth actually reflecting on the purpose of the purpose—tautologies I genuinely didn't mean that one but a number of purposes in the Act. Actually these are really important because they not only are going to set out sort of the rationale of course of why we have this legislation in the first place but can be meaningful for people wanting to navigate the bill and understand what it's looking to achieve provide a starting point; also they will produce a yardstick against which the policy aims can be measured later. It does also have a significance in the sense that the purpose of a piece of legislation is again a yardstick against which the regulations that flow from it can be measured. So that's one of the things that can be considered later on: the secondary legislation that flows from it—is that legitimate or not? Well there are a number of different grounds on which we can consider that and one of them is whether it's consistent with the purpose of the bill.Others have mentioned the fact that the purpose has been added to through the select committee process. So it seems I suppose something of a "motherhood and apple pie" statement that the purpose of the Act should include such things as promoting the maintenance of a sound and efficient financial system avoiding significant damage promoting confident and informed participation and so on. But actually it is quite significant or potentially significant that the legislation now has a mandate essentially to respond to threats to the stability of or confidence in the financial system. So that allows it authorises actions to be taken subsequently if we were to have such extreme circumstances as that and such action would be legitimate because the purpose of the bill includes that. So that's pretty helpful I think. Again I think that the process of the bill as well as the substance of it has been pretty constructive and I think we're going to get a pretty good result at the end of it for that.A couple of other notes if I may just in relation to the work of the select committee. One aspect of their consideration seemed to be that it was important to them that the regime be sufficiently flexible to manage different types of FMIs. Again that might sound really obvious but that means inserting an extra provision in there that would recognise that there are different sizes and shapes of FMIs if I can put it like that and that these should be taken into account when a regulator is exercising their power.Regulator speaking of which: the Reserve Bank and/or the Financial Markets Authority. So I understand the original intent was to have joint regulators but within the bill now as amended or proposed to be amended by the select committee is the ability for one or the other to be essentially ceded all that power by the other in an expanded set of circumstances.My final note—there's no need particularly for me to use all my time I don't think—is just giving a highlight to the stability and confidence provision. Again I've mentioned that in relation to the purpose of the bill and it probably goes without saying how reliant we all are in our modern society and economy and the way those two fit together for all the reasons that others have given—and by way of example whether that's purchasing a home or something much more modest. But of course it is so important that we have a stable system that we have the confidence for example in the finality of settlements and so forth.So it seems to me really good work. I've had nothing to do with it but I do commend those who have and I look forward to the continuation of its passage throughout the House in due course."