Clark David; McKelvie Ian; Bayly AndrewHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Indeed as the member Andrew Bayly intimated in his first question before he got carried into the flow of the argument indeed that matter is dealt with in the Supplementary Order Paper. The bill previously treated agents the same way as employees being subject to prescriptive control from financial institutions. However through discussions with industry we identified a number of concerns with that position such as uncertainty over who would even be covered by the term agent". So retaining that approach would also have undermined Cabinet's policy decision to take a less prescriptive approach. In relation to intermediaries some intermediaries act as agents for financial institutions almost directly while others are more fully independent. So I consider a less prescriptive and more flexible approach is appropriate in relation to agents and that's consistent with the principles-based nature of the regime generally.If I can also just cover off the point raised by the member Damien Smith it was something I covered off in my initial contribution but it's an important question so I'm happy to repeat around non-bank deposit takers being included in the scope—you know the community institutions that people attach value to and are using as alternatives to the big banks: credit unions and so on. The suggestion that non-bank deposit takers should be excluded from the regime—it's the Government's view that non-bank deposit takers offer a range of bank-like services to consumers and face similar governance and conduct risks and therefore it's my view that they should remain subject to the same requirements in the bill. Their inclusion in the regime is also consistent with the Government's June 2019 decision to bring prudential regulation of banks and non-bank deposit takers within a single deposit-taker regime. I would add that I expect this to be policed effectively in a proportionate way—proportionate to the risk and taking into consideration the size and nature of the risk. If they're smaller institutions that's a smaller risk presented overall. But the risks are ultimately the same and if harm is identified as a particular risk it should be investigated in the same way in my view.CHAIRPERSON(Ian McKelvie): I call Andrew Bayly.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Oh good! Thank you to the Minister for referring to the new definition of intermediary in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 173. I was looking at that Minister. It states in the new section 446SA "Meaning of intermediary" that a person is an intermediary if that person is involved in the provision of a relevant service or associated product to a consumer; a person is paid or provided with a commission; or the commission or consideration is paid or provided directly or indirectly on behalf of a financial institution. That sounds pretty cool. But then the definition of what is not an intermediary—this is what I'm just trying to get my mind around. A person is not an intermediary—this is 446SA(2) Minister; just to help you—if the person is involved only as an employee of a financial institution or an employee of an intermediary.Well I struggled a little bit with that. But you are involved if you arrange a contract—presumably you can still be an employee and arrange a contract and therefore you're captured by being an intermediary—or you give regulated financial advice. But you're not involved if you're distributing an advertisement of promotional materials or you're carrying out a prescribed occupation—maybe the Minister could tell us what a prescribed occupation is—in relation to their service or carrying out a prescribed activity. It would be maybe quite useful given these are quite new clauses knowing what a prescribed occupation and prescribed activity are. Maybe the Minister could give us a very clear synopsis of who within an intermediary is actually captured under these rules because presumably if you're providing the service and getting paid for it you are but you're not if you're doing promotional activity and you're not if you're an employee—apparently. So can I just ask the Minister to clarify that aspect given it's his SOP?"