Katene Rahui: Financial Advisers Amendment Bill (No 2) Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Katene Rahui: Financial Advisers Amendment Bill (No 2) Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:11986. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 E te Rangatu pai mua o te Reo o te Whare tena koe. We all agree that things must change in terms of creating an environment where integrity accountability and transparency actually count for something. One of the clearest indications that things are changing is that we are able to link to the Ministry of Economic Development website—I pick up on what Charles Chauvel said: the site is down at the moment but normally we can do that—and have immediate access to the papers that are on there. I refer in particular to the Cabinet paper that proposed the Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation) Adjustments Bill a mere 6 weeks ago. There is no need to apply for material under the Official Information Act or to make panicked calls to the Minister and the Minister’s officials for a briefing; it is all there on the website as clear as day. 
I like the sound of the proposals in the paper dated 3 May 2010. They tell me that under the Financial Advisers Act advisers will now have to register obtain authorisation comply with the competency and conduct obligations and make a full disclosure before providing advice to a client. The paper goes further and promotes the establishment of a regulatory framework that is designed to encourage public confidence in the integrity and professionalism of financial advisers. 
As every member of this House knows the issues of integrity and accountability in the finance sector are absolutely pivotal. Given this fact I was somewhat surprised that out of the 93 submissions received on this bill only one submission came from Maori. Mind you the Maori submission was fairly substantial and came from the Maori Trustee. The Maori Trustee wanted amendments to the bill to clarify and limit the scope of an estate or interest in land and to provide an express exclusion for the Maori Trustee in respect of the Maori Trustee’s core statutory functions. It recommended that in order to limit the uncertainty in respect of an estate and interest in land—and subsequently to lessen the impact this uncertainty has in respect of leases licences and mortgages—section 5 of the Financial Advisors Act should be amended. That amendment would insert a definition for “estate” and “interest in land” that provides that an estate or interest in land does not include advice guidance or recommendations relating to the granting of any leasehold interest or licence right or any form of easement or mortgage in respect of land. That all sounds pretty technical to me but I have it on pretty strong authority—the authority of the Maori Trustee—that such a definition would be a key way of protecting the interest of Maori landowners in respect of estates and interest in land and we therefore want to promote it. 
The other key amendment put forward by the Maori Trustee is to exempt the Maori Trustee in line with its previously accepted statutory functions. These include obligations under the Maori Trustee Act 1953 and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in respect of interests in Maori land and the holding and investing of money on behalf of the beneficial owners of such land. The reason put forward by the Maori Trustee is that there is already significant transparency control and oversight of the operations of the Maori Trustee. This is by virtue of the Maori Trustee being a Crown entity for the purposes of reporting. It is also demonstrated through the Maori Land Court’s oversight role in respect of the various trusts for which the Maori Trustee is responsible. Another means of ensuring that there is sufficient transparency control and oversight is through the funding arrangements and reporting requirements with the Crown. I am not an expert on the Maori Trustee by any means but I believe that the issues raised in these submissions are worthy of further consideration by the House. 
Finally I note the concerns that have been raised about some of the changes in the legislation in terms of the impact they will have on consumer protection. Some key stakeholders have been concerned about the flexibility that has crept in through the exemption of financial advice. This would have the effect of excluding a large number of organisations in which financial advice can be justified as incidental rather than core to their business; this could mean anything from a car rental company to a retail firm discussing hire purchase requirements. I think the hub of their concerns rest around what the term “incidental” means and how it is interpreted. In a worst-case scenario that might mean that people can have a tutu with financial advice and get away with shoddy advice on the flawed basis that it is not a central component of their business meaning they do not have to comply with the registration or authorisation process. The last thing we want to see is the very people we are seeking to protect unwittingly being exposed to yet another level of risk without the protection we envisaged would be possible in the legislation. 
Finally I remind the House that Maori-generated economic development will play a significant role in the future of our nation. The last thing any Maori shareholder or businessperson wants to see is another Blue Chip disaster blighting our financial horizons. The Maori Party supports this bill and encourages further debate on and consideration of the range of issues that clearly still require further thought.