Ardern Jacinda: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17722] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to be the first speaker on Part 3 of the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. Unfortunately I did not have a chance to speak on Part 2 which was most disappointing for me because I had a number of matters that I wished to raise under Part 2. I may take a little bit of liberty and mix in my contribution on Part 2 into Part 3. I expect that Mr Chairperson will accept that. I have spoken only on Part 1 so he may allow me to move around the parts just a little bit. I am sure my colleagues will stick with me as I do that. 
The point I would like to raise is that there is an issue about the level to which this bill mixes up subjective and arbitrary judgments and the issuing and varying of licences. I think that probably some of the best examples of that sit in Part 2. But I am sure this is an issue that extends across the bill. If I were to draw the Committee’s attention to a couple of examples of that I think probably some of the best sit around the issue of looking at the competency the credibility or what is called the good character of applicants when applying for a licence or to vary a licence. I would be interested in the Minister’s view or any contribution from the members who sat on the Commerce Committee as to the amount of discussion on what kind of criteria would come under the idea of good character. When we look at other legislation often we will see that select committees or indeed Ministers themselves will set out in draft legislation other ways to measure this idea of good character that is relevant to the legislation. For instance for an alcohol licensing authority a measure of good character is whether one has had any alcohol-related offences. For the prostitution reform legislation where licences were issued the best way to measure good character was deemed to be whether one had committed any criminal offences in particular gang-related offences or violence-related offences because that was specific to the industry for which the individual was seeking a licence. 
However with this bill we see a mixture of measures between whether for instance individuals are registered under the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act or whether they are registered with the Registrar of Retirement Villages—those are very criteria-based judgments to be made. They are set out; they are clear. There are many more subjective ones which I do not think there is much of a steer on in the bill. I would be interested if the Minister has some views on what they might be and if he could put them on the record for the sake of  
Hansard 
. 
If other members of the Commerce Committee could give us a little bit of further background on this issue I would find that particularly helpful. 
There is one other issue that I wish to seek some clarity on and it sits around someone who seeks a review of a commission’s decision on an application. This is an important issue in the bill. What level of disclosure is expected to be given to an individual who is dissatisfied with the commission’s decision? This relates particularly to the issue that the decisions being made might be subjective. For instance is it expected that the commission would set out decisions on good character in writing to an applicant if a review of a decision is requested? Is it expected that the commission would disclose any information that might be provided by the Registrar of Retirement Villages? The legislation sets out that before issuing a licence the views of the Registrar of Retirement Villages would be taken into account. So would it be expected then that if there was a request for a decision to be reviewed that information would be disclosed? That might set out some issues going down the track for relationship reasons with the Registrar of Retirement Villages. That is an interesting point on which I would not mind hearing the views of the Minister and indeed others.