Kuriger Barbara; McKelvie IanFINANCIAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRADING ADVICE TRANSPARENCY BILLFirst ReadingBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That the Financial Professional Services Trading Advice Transparency Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. This bill is a bill that promotes openness and transparency. I'm really hoping tonight at least at first reading that this bill might get the ear of the Government. I know that openness and transparency are important to them and I have heard them often say that they are the most open and transparent Government ever.What I want to do before I start actually speaking about some of the details of the bill is acknowledge—because this is about businesses going into liquidation or having people appointed when a business is not succeeding—that over the last two years as we've experienced COVID I know that there are a lot of business in this country that have gone through a lot of pain. Often when businesses have to go into liquidation or receivership it is through things that are outside of the control of those businesses and there have certainly been a lot of things that are outside of the control of many businesses over the past couple of years. I think of businesses particularly in the tourism sector. I think about businesses in the hospitality sector. While it's not limited to those businesses there are a wide range of businesses in that category. Many times in the last couple of years I've felt lucky to belong to the agriculture industry which has actually been one of the industries that has been on the right side of the COVID experience and we've been very lucky.What this bill is intended to do is prevent financial advisers who recommend a third party takeover for the management or disposal of a business or its assets from performing such a function themselves. I'm pleased to note that the letter has come through from the Attorney-General who has considered this bill in terms of where it sits with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and has concluded that the bill appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That's always a good start when you put a member's bill forward—to have that sense of approval. I know Mr Penk is far more of an expert on those topics than I am but it's very good to have that from the Attorney-General's office.Really what it does is those very simple things. It prevents a person from being appointed as an administrator of a company if the person recommended the administration or is associated with the person who has recommended the administration and prevents a person from being appointed or acting as a liquidator of a company if the person recommended the liquidation or is associated with the person who recommended the liquidation.I think this is a bill—in my mind—that's very important to New Zealand. We have a good reputation in New Zealand for being a good place for doing business. We have a good reputation for being very strong in business ethics and this bill's intent is to enhance our reputation. We are not seen as a corrupt country; neither do we want to be seen as a corrupt country. But if you leave some gaps in the law at times then it leaves the opportunity for people to take advantage. The thing with this bill is it will remove any inherent conflict of interest that exists for those providing advice on the trading viability of troubled companies who would then go on to be appointed as the administrator liquidator or receiver of the company. While there may not be any actual intent with most of the people that would be carrying out these functions what it would do is remove any doubt if that opportunity wasn't allowed to prevail in this country. Often professional advisers such as accounting firms are called in by creditors like banks; trustees and business owners seeking advice on whether the company can manage its way through difficult times. The bill makes it very clear to individuals and financial service firms that they can give the advice that sees a company wound up but they can't then be appointed to wind up the company and then earn fees over the ensuing months or years winding that company up. Now I understand in terms of some of the conversations I've had around having this bill in the ballot and the conversations that I've had since it's been drawn out that there are a range of opinions. Informal feedback from insolvency practitioners suggest that the bill will have the support of a wide proportion of the sector but it may strike some opposition from a few but vocal practitioner firms. I know that not all of the members of RITANZ may agree with what's contained in this bill. For those who are listening outside of the House tonight—because those inside the House hopefully will know—RITANZ is a professional body for insolvency practitioners. It's actually the Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association New Zealand Incorporated which is quite a mouthful in itself which is probably why the initials RITANZ are used. But it is a professional body. I understand that there are some people in there that hold a differing view to what is contained in this bill. I would hope that if we can get support across the House to get first reading going and get it to a select committee then those people would be able to come in and have a discussion and also put their views on the table which would mean that we could come out with a good piece of legislation or potentially even a better piece of legislation. What I find is that when we're making laws in this country and we're moving through legislation most of the value of the process is when you open a process call the submitters in and hear all the points of view. We get a select committee that is usually put together—and hopefully in this case if it goes through the Finance and Expenditure Committee will have a look at it—and it will be able to assess the views that are being put forward and if there are some adjustments that need to be made to the piece of legislation then they could do it. None of us would be bold enough to stand up and say we were putting up a perfect piece of legislation at first reading. We start off with a good intent we make it as good as we possibly can and then we ask submitters and the people of New Zealand who often have more knowledge about these things than we do to come in and give their views so that we can make sure that we've got the best piece of legislation possible.The drawing of this bill from the ballot has coincided with changes to the New Zealand Insolvency Engagement Standard. The revised standard includes a new requirement to consider whether there are any reasons for not accepting an insolvency appointment or engagement. The matters which practitioners are required to consider do not appear to include a principle about not accepting appointments to execute actions which they themselves have recommended. It's my hope tonight that we can have other parties in the House supporting this piece of legislation. I know we want to keep New Zealand an open and transparent country and I just think if there's any opportunity in any of these transactions for any conflict of interest to be perceived—if you think about the worst case scenario: somebody actually being asked to transact this process may have an eye on purchasing the company themselves—let's remove all of those either perceived or real opportunities take this bill to the select committee and see if we can progress this through the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.