Nash Stuart: Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill — Second Reading 
Nash Stuart: Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11945] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to correct one thing the previous speaker Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga mentioned. He said that the Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill is not legislating for or regulating risk. I disagree with that because the risk of dodgy incompetent negligent financial advisers is not a risk that anyone should have to factor in when considering the merits of an investment. However as the House is well aware and as New Zealanders are well aware it is a risk that has proven so deadly to thousands of ordinary New Zealanders. So in a way this bill is regulating risk and I am hoping that it is removing a risk that should not be part of any investment decision but has been. In that sense the bill is regulating risk. 
I rise in support of this bill. As Sam and all the other speakers have mentioned it has cross-party support. I support it for a number of reasons which I will outline in the next 5 or 6 minutes. The bill is designed to tighten the rules and regulations around the financial advisory sector. I congratulate the Hon Lianne Dalziel on her excellent work as Minister of Commerce in the last Labour Government and now as chair of the Commerce Committee. I also congratulate the Hon Simon Power who picked up on this legislation and made very very necessary changes to tighten even further the rules around this sector. The bill has cross-party support because it is sensible it is necessary and it is important for a number of reasons. 
The Act that this bill amends was way overdue. Many many ordinary Kiwis out there believed in those people; they trusted those who masqueraded as financial advisers and called themselves experts but in reality had no education no qualifications no experience no registration no checks or balances—nothing that a reasonable person would expect people who marketed themselves in such a way to have. We have all heard the sad sad stories of ordinary New Zealanders who have worked incredibly hard their whole lives only to wake up one morning and find that the savings they had put away have now disappeared. No one has been made accountable; no one has been held to account. Can we blame it on the financial crisis? Quite simply it is not good enough. I cannot imagine being in the situation where I had saved and planned for my twilight years—maybe my grandkids’ education; maybe a holiday away—only to find the money did not exist it had gone. I cannot imagine being in that situation and the fact that thousands of Kiwis have been is a real real travesty. That is why this sort of bill is absolutely necessary to ensure that that never happens again. 
To see the people who perpetrated these crimes against ordinary New Zealanders get off scot-free is a travesty. I am not so much talking about the Watsons the Bryers or the Hotchins. The latter I understand is holidaying in Hawaii for an obscene amount of money. I ask members to listen to this: his house is the house that the savings of thousands of New Zealanders built. It is a half-finished $30 million mansion. It is the size of 13 average houses just on its ground floor space. It has seven bedrooms a 25-metre swimming pool and a garage for 12 cars. Its study games room and home theatre alone are as big as the typical house—without counting any of its living space including seven bedrooms. This house is built on a graveyard of the broken promises and shattered dreams of ordinary New Zealanders. It is the house of a man who is holidaying in Hawaii. I think it is obscene and if the man had any sense left he would keep away from this country. We do not want that sort of person in our country at all. It makes me quite angry when I think of what he has done and that he is holidaying in Hawaii. I think it is obscene. 
I must admit that using New Zealand icons like Colin Meads and Richard Long as marketing tools was in my view unethical. There is no doubt that Colin Meads was a legendary All Black but what the hell did he know about finance companies and investment? Richard Long was the face of news for many years and was viewed as reliable and trustworthy—the type of image that a company would love to have. Well the company died and it took a whole lot of Kiwis with it. I suppose we cannot blame Colin Meads or Richard Long but hopefully this crisis will make iconic Kiwis a little more wary about how they use their own personal brands. In my view although their accomplishments in their respective fields can never be taken away the brands of Colin Meads— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.