Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Mr Speaker. I also would like to congratulate the member for having her bill drawn. And I mean this very sincerely but I do wonder if she missed the memo because there is nothing wrong with the logic of the intervention. Clearly there has been a need for professional advisers to not only to do the right thing to be honest and scrupulous and to being motivated for the right reasons but also the perceptions around that for an industry in a sector that sometimes has had a bit of a bad rap. So I do appreciate the logic. I just wonder about missing the memo because as we've heard this evening there is already legislation in place which achieves what this bill is trying to do. In fact this bill would reverse some of that impact.I also query the Green member suggesting that the likes of Russell McVeagh my old law firm want to entertain going through a select committee process. That's all very well and good because they're not resourcing it. But where there is no evidence that the current legislation is not being ineffective then there is no reason to involve taxpayer funding and resources to question whether that legislation is working. Should there be evidence then absolutely but there is no evidence as we heard tonight from my colleague Barbara Edmonds. So like my colleague I agree that on first blush this is a sensible piece of legislation it's requiring professional advisers to not deliver on the advice that they have given due to the possibility of a conflict of interest. So that's both a conflict of interest or even the perceptions or the questions that might arise in people's minds. I also agree that it's really important to have these kind of things in place to protect the transparency that we have in our democracy and perceptions of our transparency internationally—for all sorts of reasons around economic stability and so on. But the reason that I believe that Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association New Zealand (RITANZ) members are not supporting this bill is because they already know that we have laws in place and they don't want to reduce their credibility by supporting something which is going to duplicate something which is already in place.And that group of RITANZ is made up of professionals: it's academics judges bankers accountants. Their reputations are really important. And I'm sure that those members who are against this going to select committee would have considered what it might mean to support a piece of legislation that is in effect duplicating and actually reversing the impact of existing legislation. So the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Act came fully into force in September 2020 and that did seek to remedy some of the things that the member Barbara Kuriger has talked about around the reputation of the sector about the conduct of some of the practitioners about fairness for those who might be in business who might be facing financial difficulties and grappling with whether their business is going to be viable or not. But also what the legislation has done is it has also updated other Acts such as the Companies Act and the Receiverships Act to ensure that there is a coherence to the sector and to the way that the sector is regulated. So it was a thoughtful piece of legislation that did go through. Normally in the amount of time—2019 it's now 2022—we would have seen by now if there were defects in that legislation we would have evidence of that legislation not working. To date there hasn't been evidence of that.At a time when Kiwis are struggling with the cost of living and just getting through COVID and everything else we've got to be really responsible in how we use public resources to create laws and to review laws. And there are pieces of law that do need reviewing. Absolutely. My perspective though is that this is not one of them. There is not a shred of evidence that I've seen presented to this House that would suggest that the laws that we have thoughtfully enacted around the sector are not working and that is why RITANZ members don't want to support it. They too want to keep their professional reputations intact. They want to be seen as doing the right thing for their sector and they are doing the right thing if they don't support this legislation just as I won't be doing. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I've got him right tonight—I call Damien Smith.