O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Mr Speaker. Often in this House when we're confronted with a piece of legislation that's dealing with what is essentially introducing another layer of bureaucracy we sit here and think—and none of us ever come to this House thinking that that's our place in life: to add another layer of bureaucracy.However what we very quickly find is that where we are confronted with an issue—and there are many issues that we come here that we've known about or we learn about when we're here—ultimately to do something about it we need to actually add another layer of bureaucracy.To give an example of why we do need bureaucracy: bureaucracy's a thing that's sort of got a bit of a bad rep over the years but I always challenge people to if they don't like bureaucracy have a look at a place where there isn't any. I'm looking at perhaps the organised crime gang scene in New Zealand of which I have a little bit of knowledge. Of course when there is—in this case I'm bringing it down to the bill we're discussing of course Madam Speaker as I know you want to have us do as speakers.The Financial Professional Services Trading Advice Transparency Bill which of course is about how we deal with receiverships. Well of course how we deal with receiverships and issues like this in an unregulated environment is where you'll suddenly see an individual who may have been driving around in a $50000 or $60000 vehicle as part of their own enterprise—criminal enterprise whatever enterprise it was. All of a sudden that vehicle will be in the hands of another person because the receivership—or whatever name you will put on it—has taken place in a very informal manner.But other than those of us who were around and saw how business was done in the mid-1980s leading up to the financial crash in 1987—perhaps showing our age a little then. That was very much a cowboy period. That wasn't in that part of the environment or business that we recognised immediately as criminal.But as we had what could only be described—we went from a highly regulated environment to a deregulated environment overnight. Some of the practices—and many books have been written about it—that took place and how people who apparently ended up broke ended up completely holding on to all their possessions through their relationships often with people who had been appointed as liquidators or receivers.So anyone who thinks you don't need good regulation in this area there's plenty of evidence that would suggest otherwise.So that comes to the bill before us today. Again like everyone here I congratulate the member. No doubt she has come here like many of us do; she's seen probably from personal experience or certainly one of her maybe constituents has come to her and probably has had a very bad experience where they have—and I see the member nodding; that's probably why it came here—and so very legitimate reason to bring it.But that experience is not confined to that member's constituent or any of our constituents. It is a common practice. So that is why—and I must admit when I first picked up this bill Hmm that makes a bit of sense." Then I read further and actually looked at how we'd arrived at this place and I see that actually it has been addressed. Some of the other speakers tonight have talked about the fact that this was addressed in a piece of legislation the Insolvency Practitioners Bill. Before coming here tonight I just took the time to find the commentary on that bill which actually does address this very issue: part six where it actually talks about who can act as a solvent company liquidator.So the very issues that we have spoken about tonight I think if you have a look through this commentary you will find that those issues have been well addressed. Many submitters commenting that limiting who was eligible to undertake a solvent liquidation would prevent competent people from undertaking the work and I think that's really at the base of this.I see my time is coming to an end and I just feel like I'm just winding up on this. So in summary I'd say this is a world that does require the bureaucracy that often gets a bad name. But we need the protection for everyone involved because this is something that happens in people's lives that does actually create a lot of problems. Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!"