Woodhouse Michael: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4982] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to take just a quick call on Part 1 of the Securities Disclosure and Financial Advisers Amendment Bill. Before I do I feel the need to defend my colleague and the future member for Christchurch East Aaron Gilmore. He is one of the few members of this House who has actually had a little bit of experience in the issuing of securities. I find it quite extraordinary and rather sad that our friends on the other side see it as some sort of humorous joke that Mr Gilmore is prepared to share the benefit of that experience and the need to raise these securities and invite empathy with his past taking of the risk and somehow that is a bit funny. Well I find that particularly sad especially given the dearth of business experience on the other side of the Chamber. Yes the Opposition has a few lawyers which is always good. The world needs more lawyers I am sure the public will agree but really there is an absolute dearth of business experience among members opposite and I find it really sad that somehow that should be seen as a bit of a joke. 
I will also touch on the comments made by the soon-to-be former member for Christchurch East about her investing without proper advice being available. Let us bear in mind that the whole purpose of the amendment we are discussing is that the provision is for people who have already invested at least $500000 in the organisations that are issuing securities and have already gone through the necessary due diligence to assure themselves that they have all the information on which to base their initial investment decision. Yes we can talk about what other information they need and about the time frame between 12 and 18 months. I think that is probably semantic but it is an appropriate response given the select committee’s careful consideration of that issue. 
I also acknowledge Mr Chauvel’s contribution about this legislation being seen to broaden and deepen the financial market’s ability to raise cash. I think he said the bill is a small contribution to that goal and not ambitious. I find that somewhat disingenuous particularly in the light of the very deliberate but rather small steps the previous Minister of Commerce took in this regard. Of course every journey starts with an initial step and it is quite clear that these amendments will improve the ability not only of investors to invest easily but also there is the issuing of securities which is a significant burden on the issuer and we have not talked so much about the benefits of these changes on the issuer themselves. Obviously this is a less invasive regulation that they need to comply with and something they will benefit from. 
I applaud the Commerce Committee for the work it has done on this legislation. I am also interested in the comments made about whether there will be an inquiry into the failed finance companies. I am not sure whether that decision has been made and I will certainly defer to the chairperson of the Commerce Committee in that regard. What is certain and I understand the Minister has said this too is that we should not cut across the existing inquiries by the Commerce Commission and other authorities into that collapse. We need to tread carefully in that regard and I am sure the committee will. I support this bill. I think it will be extremely positive. It is a small but significant step in reducing the compliance for issuers and taking away some of the problems for experienced investors.