Dalziel Lianne: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18828] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to enter into the debate. I think one of the most important debates that we are having tonight on this bill is on Part 3 and the two clauses it represents. The reason I rise to speak on Part 3 is that it raises a question that has yet to be answered by the member in the chair Craig Foss.  
Clause 26 states: “Nothing in this Act exempts Westpac Banking Corporation or Westpac New Zealand from the provisions of any enactment relating to banks or banking.” That is an extremely wide clause one would assume but what about its application to the rules regarding financial advisers? Financial advisers are covered by a completely different regime that relates not only to banks.  
I wonder whether this clause is sufficient to encapsulate the requirements of an enactment that might pertain to banks in certain circumstances if they avail themselves of that particular legislation although they are not required to and the rather narrow—if one looks at it this way—terms of this clause which states: “Nothing in this Act exempts Westpac Banking Corporation or Westpac New Zealand from the provisions of any enactment relating to banks or banking.”  
Does the question that I raised in the previous part of the debate have relevance to this part? The member in the chair did not answer that question which was whether the New Zealand branch of Westpac Banking Corporation was registered in its own right as a qualifying financial entity under the financial advisers legislation or even whether under that provision it had certain members of staff who were already registered as authorised financial advisers. I think I can actually answer the second question myself. If those authorised financial advisers were independently registered then that registration will transfer over when the amalgamation is retained.  
I personally do not know whether either or both Westpac Banking Corporation and Westpac New Zealand were independently registered as qualifying financial entities. Maybe the member in the chair could assist in this debate by explaining to us whether Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand branch was registered as a qualifying financial entity. In fact I do not even know whether it could register as a qualifying financial entity if it is just a branch of an overseas-owned banking corporation. That is quite an interesting point. I think it probably was able to.  
The second question is whether Westpac New Zealand was registered as a qualifying financial entity. I would assume that it was. If they were both registered does that makes a difference in terms of the transfer from one to the other and if only one was registered does that make a difference in the transfer from one to the other? It raises a really serious issue about whether this matter is catered for in a clause that specifically refers to the enactment having to relate to banks or banking. As we know financial advisers do not exist only within the banking industry. A number of financial advisers work for so-called independent financial adviser institutions others operate independently and some of them work in a tied arrangement with a broker in the insurance industry or may be tied to one particular financial institution.  
There are lots of different areas that are not specific to banks or banking where one can find qualifying financial entity status and where one can find people who would be described as authorised financial advisers. I am asking a genuine question and it would be really helpful if the member in the chair could advise whether Westpac Banking Corporation the New Zealand branch thereof was registered as a qualifying financial entity and whether Westpac New Zealand was.