Power Simon: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Financial Advisers Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 September 2008. Volume:650;Page:18985. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 This is the part that attempts to deal with how to define authorised financial advisers and qualifying financial entities. I think that it is the most elegant part of the legislation but it is an extremely tricky thing to legislate for and the officials are to be congratulated on coming up with such a neat way of categorising advice in such a short period of time. This is essentially the part of the bill that creates the tiered approach if you like and National is supportive of that approach as we modestly suggested throughout the process that such an approach would be appropriate. 
One thing about institutional accreditation still sits in the back of my mind. I am pretty sure although I stand to be corrected by Charles Chauvel or any other member of the committee who was there at the time—in fact the officials might be able to correct me directly through the Minister—but I think it was Sam Stubbs from Tower who came before the committee and made a comment that went something like this. When it comes to dealing with a professional after something has gone wrong and what I think he termed the eye-to-eye conversation across the kitchen table has been had with that individual about the particular advice or product—in fact I think he drew a parallel with a dentist if I recall correctly—the responsibility should lie with that individual in the event that the financial advice has proved to be inadequate or inappropriate. That issue has sat for the last 2 or 3 months at the back of my mind—a reasonably crowded and cluttered place for it to sit over the last 7 or 8 weeks— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s such a small receptacle. 
SIMON POWER 
: I say thank you to Mr Burton. I will miss those sorts of comments after the election although I am sure it was meant in good humour as all of the member’s comments have been over the last 9 years. 
In the situation where that individual who sat across the kitchen table gave financial advice to the person concerned—after a level of trust was built between them and discussions occurred; it was that personal connection that saw the investment decision triggered—we do not want to create a regulatory framework that sees that individual escape responsibility or escape accountability because he or she happens to belong to a large organisation that is institutionally accredited for the range of advisers who come under its umbrella. I think the submitter who raised that issue raises a fair issue. We cannot afford to have a group of financial advisers structure themselves in a way that sees that grouping being given an accreditation at an institutional level and thereby inoculating its individual salespeople financial advisers representatives and financial planners from any direct accountability or responsibility for the very nature of the trusting relationship that that one-on-one discussion built. 
That is the only question the only comment and the only thing on which I seek feedback from the Minister in Part 3. Thank you.