Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for allowing me to make another contribution to this Part 1. I must say Part 1 is a very substantive provision in this bill stretching approximately 46 pages long. So I know that a number of my colleagues will be eager to address a range of the amendments it made. As my colleague Deborah Russell said before she's not on the select committee that did have the opportunity to consider this bill. Neither am I but I am on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we did recently have the banking inquiry before us. There are a lot of themes that I guess are aligned and my colleague Tamati Coffey just touched on some of those. I think for me it was really interesting because when we went through the banking inquiry one of the areas that we didn't have an opportunity to turn our mind to or that I recall in a substantive way was the issue of offences that arise and of course penalties that arise. Now I guess my considerations here just with regards to the substantive amendments that you've made in new sections 431E through to—well they're pages long they go right through to 431Q I think or further set out in clause 27. But you've really stretched out and perhaps amended the position under the previous bill. I was thinking in terms of the intentions of the original bill it was effectively to bring in legislation that regulated what could have been called cowboys' territory" a little bit because the financial markets and the provision of financial information at that time were completely unregulated. So it was good to see that there were a range of different mechanisms put in place but I guess—without having had the opportunity to go through the substantive submissions—what I was really interested in is there have been substantive amendments to these provisions here in this offences component. We've got everything from things as small as terminology that deletes the word—for example in new section 431K "Duty to exercise care diligence and skill" there is "prudent person engaged in the business". You've deleted the word "business" and amended it to "profession". I understand what the intention is to do there; it's to place a higher onus on those that are in this line or in this sector giving this advice. But I want to know what the actual substantive implications of those types of amendments are. That was one minor amendment I was interested in. Then I looked at new section 431G "Liability for [those] duties" set out in clause 27. Now what we've got there is you've really got the separation between who is civilly liable and who isn't. Now those that are in the provision of the advice—so there you've got the financial adviser; they're not deemed to be civilly liable for contravention. But if we skip down to new section 431G(4)(c) the entity "may be civilly liable for the contravention". So it seems to be that the adviser they have been let off the hook a little bit in terms of what they are liable for but the institution and the organisation bear the burden. I understand that in terms of the fact that the organisation I guess has a higher onus of responsibility. They're the ones that have to employ and I guess they have the insurances and so on and so forth. But if you have somebody within the organisation that's undertaking a practice which intentionally is undermining what we think a prudent and responsible professional would provide as their advice I just wanted to understand whether there was another ability to be able to ensure that they were held liable to the extent possible. So if you would be able to enlighten the committee through this phase about that distinction between those standards of liability that would be most pleasing."