Walters Vanushi; Dean JacquiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in relation to this bill. I'd also like to congratulate the member Barbara Kuriger for having her bill drawn from the ballot tin. But like my colleagues I won't be speaking in favour of this bill. It was heartening to see the enthusiasm on the other side of the House in terms of speaking about the ethics of decision making. This is something that actually quite excites me as well. Maybe not surprising I'm also excited by things like the Regulations Review Committee which I'm a part of.But I do want to talk about the complex nature of this bill. I think what struck me when I read the bill is that when you have a conflict of interest it's actually very rare for you to then exclude the decision maker in totality from the circumstances that you're considering which is what this bill is set out to do. And even if you look at the exclusions in the current 2019-20 legislation they're time-bound in terms of who they exclude from the bill so it's that two-year period that they look at. When you have other conflicts that arise there are often management techniques that you put over a conflict. Part of that could be looking at relevant practising standards it could be looking at the selection method of decision makers and it could be looking at the pool of decision makers who you have—if you have a limited pool available you might have looser measures of managing a conflict of interest.So I disagree with the assertion that this has nothing to do with the 2019-20 legislation; it does because that's part of looking at what the existing practising standards are. You can increase how stringent they are to protect responsible decision-making and that is essentially what a number of my colleagues have been referring to. There are extremely stringent measures in place to ensure that the people who hold those roles are held to a very high standard and that's included in the co-regulatory licensing regime which has actually quite a stringent accreditation system. And it allows complaints investigations and reporting on inadequacy in terms of the standards of those services provided but also in terms of the selection methods.A number of people have referenced the fact that there was cross-party support for the 2019-20 bill which there was. I think there were some interesting comments from many of the members in relation to that bill some of whom—I think Lawrence Yule a National Party member spoke about the—well he referenced the fact that actually there weren't a high number of practitioners in this area. He wasn't referencing this issue—he was referencing whether the industry could cover its costs in certain areas—but he made the comment which I thought was really useful to read that actually this isn't an area that has a lot of practitioners in it. That is important in terms of understanding the totality of regulation and whether you want to prohibit—which is unusual; it's actually unusual in the Act at the moment—or whether you want to regulate through using different standards like having stringent requirements which is what again the 2019-20 legislation did.So again there are a number of stringent requirements already there is a small pool of providers in this and then the third thing that we I think also should consider is the selection criteria of those who are in positions such as liquidators. I take the point from across the House that that's not the only position we're considering here but that is one. If you look at liquidation methods you would have things like voluntary liquidation where 75 percent of shareholders would have to make the decision to appoint a liquidator. So there are steps in place for those people with the best information to hand to make the most appropriate decision about who's going to perform that task. It's not that there's an absence in this area of protections; there are protections there.The final thing that I would say is that I agree with my colleagues that if these protections aren't working then absolutely we should relook at whether additional protections are needed. But we haven't yet seen that demonstrated. For the time being we have a robust set of protection mechanisms across the different categories that I've mentioned so I'm afraid I can't support this bill this evening.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Barbara Kuriger five minutes in reply.