Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5475] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I would like to continue the debate surrounding disclosure by investment advisers because I was very disappointed that the Minister in the chair Lianne Dalziel who had been very good in taking the call suddenly stopped doing so. I am still wondering why this bill which was reported back to the House late last year is still only at the Committee stage. People would really benefit from this additional disclosure and we can share with them piles of information about what happens in Australia. The chairman of one failed financial company Provincial Finance went over to Australia and started a finance company to try to raise funds over there. The Australian agency the Australian Securities and Investment Commission is right up with the task. Its spokeswoman says that it is chasing disclosure in relation to that company. She said: “I can say that we are concerned to ensure that investors are provided with all the information required to make an informed decision.” So the Australians are very effective in trying to protect their investors. 
I think the Minister should take a call and explain to the Committee why provision for disclosure by investment advisers took 1 whole year to get to this stage. I would also like her to share with us how quickly the second part of the regulation relating to investment advisers will take place. My colleague Brian Connell has just been saying that disclosure is fine and that a lot of people disclose their information. But the public has a right to know that people calling themselves investment advisers do actually belong to a professional body—that there are regulations and that somebody is checking their qualifications—to ensure a level of comfort. 
Or does the delay have something to do with the extension of the definition of what constitutes insider trading? I understand that the definition of “information insider” has now been extended to: “A person is an information insider of a public issuer if that person—(a) has material information relating to the public issuer that is not generally available to the market; and (b) knows or ought reasonably to know that the information is material information;”. There was some speculation about whether the Hon David Cunliffe when he was under investigation by the Securities Commission for speculating about the future dividend policy of Telecom would be caught under this new extended definition of “information insider”. Now that his case has been closed we have suddenly seen this bill find its way into the Committee stage. If that is the case it is not fair. 
The public has a right to get protection as soon as a problem is detected. There have been three very high-profile collapses of finance companies and we are being told there are still more on the way. A lot of finance companies engage in the financing of second-hand cars and with the economy starting to slow down—we are now looking at 2 percent growth—people are suddenly finding themselves unable to meet their payments. So I think there are more collapses of finance companies under way. 
Personally I would like to see this bill pass through all its stages a.s.a.p. but we also urge the Minister to fast-track the regulation of investment advisers because unless we can instil public confidence then our capital market will not thrive.