Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I've been looking at the commentary that's come back from the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee in particular one of the changes that they've recommended because if the committee's recommended a change that always says they've examined that particular clause particularly well.The clause that caught my eye is clause 27 of the bill. It introduces—well actually—a whole lot of new sections. But the particular one that I'm interested in is new section—gosh this is long—431J(2) which imposes a duty on financial advice providers to take all reasonable steps to put the clients' interests first. Now obviously that's ideal. We do want financial advisers to put the clients' interests first. I guess in the ordinary course of events a financial adviser who has no particular financial stake in the products or the services that they're reviewing for their client that's not going to be an issue for them because they haven't got a financial stake in it themselves. That would be a simple protection there but what I'm puzzled by is really just how realistic it is to expect a financial adviser to put someone else's interests first. That's what we're trying to do that's the objective but I do want to understand it and—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I just want to apologise to the member. We have started to stray into areas we've traversed before. There is plenty in this part to discuss but we have talked about this particular area several times already in this part of the debate. So I'd be encouraging members to find other areas of discussion.Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you Madam Chair. The particular reason this caught my eye was that there was a change at select committee which is what I want to have a look at in new section 431J(2). That made me go and read the section very very closely—so it's not just part of the code; it's a particular section. And what was going on was that the committee felt that was a very broad obligation imposed on the financial adviser. So they wanted to make it a little less broad.I've been looking at the drafting of it and I can't quite see how that makes it less broad. It's still quite a broad duty for the financial adviser to make sure that they place the client's interests first and the particular way that the select committee has come back is they've changed (B)" to "(C)"—so that was a particular change. I can see why they've done that and they've added a bit of a discussion about a person who is connected with the giving of the advice as a change from someone who is "associated with" the advice giver or the person's own interest and things like that to the connection with the giving of the advice. It's just a slight change in the drafting there and what I'm hoping to understand from the Minister possibly is just how that I guess makes life a little bit easier for the financial adviser. So that's a particular change that I'm interested in.I can see the various steps that it goes through there—"person associated with A"; you know the financial advice provider and so on—and it talks about "interposed" persons and "a person associated with an interposed person." But why exactly those particular changes? If I could just have a little bit of enlightenment on that and in particular as I said how it makes life easier for the financial advisers without actually also removing the duty of care and just how it was that that particular change came about. So it's not an urgent request—if you've got time to answer it Minister I'd be happy to hear some views on that."