Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Chair thank you and thank you for allowing me to make a brief contribution this afternoon on Part 1 of the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill.My attention was brought to some of the more preliminary provisions in this bill—as you have just covered off some of the more substantive issues but I'm sure that many of my other colleagues will want to contribute on some of those at a further date and I myself actually might want to contribute to that debate. But just as a very brief matter Minister my mind was taken directly to the commencement provisions. What we do have is you've got a couple of provisions right there that—Brett Hudson: We're not on the commencement yet are we?KIRITAPU ALLAN: Oh I mean my mind was there but I'm happy to go into the more substantive part of the bill which of course is Part 1.So in terms of Part 1 of this bill my mind was drawn to I guess some of the definitions and how some of those definitions have evolved. I saw through some of the initial stages and deliberations of the bill and I noticed that those definitions had changed quite substantively from the initial proposed measures to the ones that we have before us. There were some quite substantive discussions around what is deemed as an authorised body. So I was wondering if you can perhaps just give us some of the considerations or help describe the way that this bill has determined that in relation to the market services licence. It's an entity that's authorised under section 400 in clause 22 to provide that market service under that licence. I did see that there had been some quite substantive discussion around that.In terms of what it means to be engaged in relationship to the financial advice provider again this is an area that I picked up that there'd been some discussion evolution over the preliminary courses of the bill coming into this committee stage this afternoon. At which particular stage is somebody deemed to have engaged the financial advice provider? I know that there had been a whole range of contributions in that respect. So if you could help I guess enlighten the committee this afternoon as to why you've landed on that definition there in section 431DA.Now if I turn to clause 20 the substance of the bill has been amended substantively. So I guess I just want to commend all of the officials that have been working studiously over a long period of time to get the bill to this stage.So if I just turn to the actual application for the licence for what the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) may determine that licence to be. The example there is provided in clause 20 inserting new section 395(1A). So it's that we (a) specify any of the matters referred to in section 548(1)(p)(i) to (iv);"—that they must be different matters for different classes of applicant or other circumstances and it has been included there in the bill that those time frames must be specified within which different classes of the applicant must make an application for the licence and then that the FMA may refuse to consider the application if the person does not apply for the licence in that specified manner and there is an example provided for. I guess that there has been some amendment from the previous draft and I was hoping that we might be able to just get some further considerations about why there needed to be this type of amendment for the application of the licence."