Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCredit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17782. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 8 May.Part 2 Amendments to Financial Services Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008(continued)CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): As the Chair has said we are in Part 2 of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. This is probably the smaller part of this bill. Part 1 included all of the new provisions around repossession enforcement and penalties as well as the responsible lending provisions and other changes that we support. This particular part includes provisions around the Financial Services Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act and requires that financial service providers including people providing credit under a credit contract be registered.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.CAROL BEAUMONT: We are speaking now on Part 2 of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. This part is the amendments to the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act. I am going to just talk specifically about the provisions in this part. I also note that in Part 1 there is a provision now around requiring registration so if a person is not registered as a financial service provider then they will be unable to collect fees or interest. That will potentially and hopefully improve the current situation where the level of registration is—and it certainly was in 2011 when people started looking into this—actually potentially pretty low particularly in the third-tier or fringe lending market that many of us are so concerned about.This part focuses really on the provisions around the reserve scheme. It removes the requirement for a Government-sponsored reserve scheme. Also and probably most significant in this part it also has clause 98 which provides for the jurisdiction of dispute resolution schemes to be increased so that they can deal with all of the matters under the legislation. Potentially if we had informed consumers that would mean that a number of the matters that are raised in the more substantive parts of this bill could be matters that are dealt with by the dispute resolution scheme which would be an improvement on the current situation. But of course like the other provisions in this bill my concern is that many consumers will still be unaware of their rights even though under responsible lending and all of the disclosure provisions they will potentially be aware of the dispute resolution scheme.We have got I think some way to go before we see fully informed consumers who will be willing and able to take up matters and there will no doubt be many many matters still left to take up because none of us I think would think that the passing of this bill by itself is actually in the short term and possibly even in the medium term going to change some of those dodgy practices that are out there. Of course when consumers have to enforce or take action themselves then it is necessary for that person to know their rights to have the confidence to take actions.I guess one of the things that would be very good to hear from the Minister of Consumer Affairs is that once this bill is passed and comes into effect—and there is a staggered process there which we will talk about later this evening—the Government will invest some money in ensuring that the legislation is understood and that there ismore information and support for consumers put in place. We all know—and I am sure many of us in this Chamber will have experienced directly—of the sorts of rip-offs and the shoddy treatment of many of our particularly vulnerable consumers by many dodgy lenders out there. So I do hope that the dispute resolution schemes are used well. It is good that they can cover the full range of issues in the legislation.Another area that is quite positive in this part is clause 100 where it is now a requirement for the dispute resolution schemes to communicate with the Commerce Commission if they are aware of a series of complaints about a particular creditor or type of creditor. I read that to mean that if there is a company called x y and z that comes to their attention on numerous occasions—or indeed if the whole category of say pay-day lenders truck shops or some of those other delightful creatures that are out there does—they can then pass on that information and in fact will be required to tell the Commerce Commission. This is where I think the rubber will really hit the road in some regards: whether the Commerce Commission itself is going to be resourced to really keep an eye on what is going on and to ensure that provisions that have been passed in this bill are in fact utilised effectively. I would like to see—and again I would like to ask the Minister about this—some sort of baseline if you like. In the very delayed passing of this legislation we should make sure that we have our baseline of how things look at the moment and that we actually do actively seek Commerce Commission monitoring of what happens out there. I think that also needs to include interest rates.The reason I say that is that the one area that this bill is particularly deficient in is the failure to cap interest rates and the failure to stop people lending money with really extremely high interest rates often in the hundreds and sometimes the thousands of percent. We know that most people try to pay back the loans that they take out including that interest. That is money they can ill afford to pay and yet that was not dealt with in this bill. So in having the dispute resolution schemes being required to inform the Commerce Commission my view is that the Commerce Commission should actually start with some baselines.To all of those who have argued including members opposite that the other provisions in this bill—the responsible lending requirements and the disclosure requirements—will start to drive down interest rates I say let us get our baseline now and let us actually measure that because that will be where we really see whether or not this is effective. It is a great disappointment that amendments that were put up to bring in interest rate caps and add them to the tool box of tools to try to control some of the things that go on in our consumer credit area particularly in that third tier have not been done. So I think that it is fair to say that the purpose clause for financial service providers inserted by clause 72 in this part new section 2A includes the requirement “to promote and facilitate the development of fair efficient and transparent financial markets.” I want to know what people think fair efficient and transparent financial markets are. I challenge anybody to stand up and say that interest rates of 50 percent 70 percent 100 percent or 200 percent are actually fair. They are not fair.I think that there is a real need and there is still an opportunity potentially for the Government to say that it wants the Commerce Commission to measure the whole playing field as we start down this track to particularly look at whether or not interest rates are affected by this legislation’s other provisions and if they are not to actually do something about it. We should have done it now; we have not. But there is still an opportunity for the Minister to say that he would expect that that is something that the Commerce Commission informed by the dispute resolution schemes could still do. Although it would not make us as happy as actually having interest rate caps in the legislation it would at least show some willingness on the part of the Government toactually deal with what we all know to be a real issue out there. So I hope the Minister will get to his feet. I hope the Minister will deal with those questions around how we are going to inform consumers and how we are going to make sure that the Commerce Commission is adequately funded to be actively out there looking at what is going on.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Consumer Affairs): It is a pleasure to continue speaking on this very very good bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. This once had cross-party support. I will be interested to see whether New Zealand First has come to its senses and will now be voting for the bill. We will wait and see.The member who spoke previously Carol Beaumont raised some interesting points. Part 2 really deals with the financial dispute resolution services even though she started to talk about some other matters that were in the earlier part. But she did raise a couple of points. It came out in a recent study that the awareness of dispute resolution schemes amongst the general public amongst users and even amongst suppliers actually was lower than desired. There is work going on by those various services and others to raise the profile of dispute resolution schemes because they do play a key part in consumer dispute resolution of course in the life cycle of a consumer credit contract.I just note that the bill deals with that kind of life cycle: the information disclosure the responsible principles that must be adhered to the stand-down period the signing of the contract and what can happen after that what can happen during the life of the contract if problems occur and of course what can happen if the borrower has some complaints or some issues. It is important to note I think that the financial dispute resolution services are paid for by the industry. They are very very low cost for the borrower or for the user. They are paid for for the good of the industry. As the member noted earlier if any entity that tries to engage in commercial ending activity is not a member of a dispute resolution scheme it cannot charge interest—it cannot charge interest. It is somewhat of a pretty good and sharp economic incentive for those organisations to belong to an accessible low-cost dispute resolution scheme that by and large does a very very good job. I agree that the awareness of them will increase.The member asked about the Commerce Commission’s information and the sending out of the changes and new obligations to the sector out there. I can assure the member as I did on Part 1 when I spoke that yes I have asked the Commerce Commission and it has assured me that it is taking this kind of new retail-facing part of its work very very seriously. It has already hired from the Māngere Budgeting Services Trust a person who is like a community liaison officer a community adviser. That is something that the Commerce Commission has never had before. As members noted in the previous part that adviser is on the ground gaining knowledge and raising awareness in community groups of what they can do if something goes wrong—such as talking to the financial dispute resolution services.This is a pretty confined part of this bill—clause 71 through to clause 90-odd I think. But there is just one quick point. There are some changes in the bill that the Financial Markets Authority can make changes to. Sadly—and this is why we have such complex legislation that goes across many pages as always—there are some people out there trying to exploit the holes in legislation. There have been some people within New Zealand and from afar who have tried to exploit the good reputation that New Zealand has as a fair and just place to do business backed up by robust regulation and a justice system that has integrity.Some of the changes in those clauses as you will note give powers to the Financial Markets Authority to deregister various people and to services to not accept registrations from particular individuals. Sadly some individuals with ulterior motives of essentially trying to rip New Zealanders and others off have actually tried to use thatstamp of approval of being a New Zealand financial services provider and belonging to one of these dispute resolution services and the procedures probably were not as good as they could have been as we have found out to disallow those people from exploiting New Zealand’s very very good name. It is very important that we maintain our reputation around the world as a good place to do business and domestically for New Zealanders—particularly for vulnerable New Zealanders but of course across the country.So this bill closes some of those opportunities that individuals could have used to exploit our regulatory environment for their own commercial gain where in fact they have no standing whatsoever to do that. As I said earlier often their motives were not good and they may have been convicted or have had actions taken against them in overseas jurisdictions and this part of the bill addresses those particular holes.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. Can I thank the Minister of Consumer Affairs for making a substantial contribution to the debate. Can I also take this opportunity—I did not get the chance during the debate on Part 1—to thank the officials who are in the Chamber tonight. This as the Minister said was—[Interruption] I will get to you soon. Do not worry. You will get your day in the sun.I thank the officials who helped us with this bill because as the Minister did say it is a complex bill but it is a bill that deals with the nitty-gritty of what a lot of our constituents face in our communities when they are dealing with the likes of second and third-tier lenders. So thank you very much because I think we have made some substantial changes that will help many people in communities right around New Zealand. Thank you because you made it into plain English for those who did not understand the legalese of it. There you go Jonathan.To the other members of the Commerce Committee there were a few points of difference around interest rate caps which I will get to in my contribution. But on the whole the length of time that we spent on this bill and the nature of the way in which we worked on it in the select committee meant that we have got a bill that we will support. We do have some concerns about the length of time that it took to get here and some things that have been omitted from the bill but on the whole it is a good piece of legislation that we will support. It will make a difference to people’s lives.The Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs did mention the Commerce Commission and certainly during the submissions process in Auckland we sensed some frustration that the Commerce Commission was not doing enough at the business end of the formation of credit contracts in terms of policing what was going on there. Certainly I think the Bankers’ Association in its submission sensed a level of frustration that the Commerce Commission was seen to be not doing enough to keep an eye on some of the behaviour of certainly the third-tier lenders who were giving the whole industry a pretty bad name.I do acknowledge that the Minister said that the Commerce Commission has taken on one employee from Māngere to assist in the understanding of what is going on at the grassroots level in the communities. But I would suggest that that is far from enough. Maybe the Minister could let us know as he has told us what has happened so far whether there are any more plans for the Commerce Commission to extend it well beyond Auckland because this is not just an Auckland issue. It needs to be spread right throughout the country and be resourced properly because this is a big issue and there are two very important Es that need to be considered here: education and enforcement. We need education so that everyone knows exactly what is happening in this bill and the rights that it gives to consumers and we need to make sure there is enforcement.There is no use in our passing this law if no one is going to police what is going on with our second and third-tier lenders.I hope that the Minister gets back on his feet and suggests whether there is a plan for the Commerce Commission to go beyond just the one person it has employed and to employ people right around the country in order to have enough resources to make sure that what we have done in this piece of legislation is effective. As he pointed out just with the financial disputes resolutions system there is not enough awareness of what you can do if you think you are being ripped off. Certainly we would want to make sure that there is enough education and enforcement out there so that this piece of legislation will be effective. It is good to put measures into law but it is another thing to make sure that the legislation is effective so that the families we are worried about the vulnerable families who do not have that information and do not know which avenue to go down can get the help they need. They are people whom this legislation is there to help.My colleague Carol Beaumont pointed to clause 100 in the bill which I think is a good one. It carries on a theme with the Commerce Commission because if through a number of complaints the dispute resolution scheme sees a trend with a particular type of borrower it is able to notify the Commerce Commission. I want to use the example of truck shops which certainly go about with their guerrilla tactics in my area of Mana. If they are out there trading in a way that is against what we have passed here and the dispute resolution scheme notices that trend it is able to pass those issues on to the Commerce Commission. I think that is a good thing. But again we need to make sure that the Commerce Commission moves away from the high-level thinking and enforcement that it does at the moment and gets down to the nitty-gritty of what is actually happening in the communities.I do not think that the likes of the budget support organisations in our communities have the support from the Commerce Commission to be able to enforce what we are passing here today.The people at the grassroots who are helping these families day to day—the likes of the Porirua Budget Service and the Kapiti Family Budgeting Service; we have all got budget advisory services in our communities—would certainly want to know that they have got support from the Commerce Commission to be able to put the kinds of powers and the advantages they get from clause 100 in this bill into practice. They want to be able to make sure that if they do see a trend developing with a particular type of borrower they can certainly crack down on that.The kind of instance I am talking about with the truck shops is the kind of what I would call dodgy behaviour where we have customers incurring a debt—say a credit of around $1000. The customer pays it off and instead of saying: “Your bill is paid.” the truck shop says: “Well you’ve got another $1000. Go for it.” I think that kind of behaviour is encouraging people into even more debt. I would hope that through the code we have in this legislation we will see much more responsible behaviour from the likes of those truck shops because I know that their behaviour has certainly not been responsible to date. That kind of behaviour is off. There are people who are working their guts out. Yes they got themselves into debt but they are working their guts out to make sure they can pay it off and the message they get back from the truck shops is: “Well you can spend up again because you’ve got $1000 because you’re back to zero.” I do not think that kind of behaviour is on. Hopefully that is the kind of thing that we will see the Commerce Commission cracking down on more if as the Minister says it is putting more resource and focus on dealing with grassroots issues that pertain to this bill.My colleague Carol Beaumont also talked about clause 72 in Part 2. In Part 2 we are dealing with amendments to theFinancial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act. Clause 72 inserts into the principal Act a new section 2A about thepurposes of the Act. If I can take the opportunity to read it: “The purposes of this Act are—(a) to promote the confident and informed participation of businesses investors and consumers in the financial markets; and (b) to promote and facilitate the development of fair efficient and transparent financial markets.” Basically it is marrying up the financial service providers purpose of that Act with the bill we are dealing with tonight.I think that one of the disappointments with Part 1 of the bill now that we have got that Act and this bill married up is that we have not been able to pass Carol Beaumont’s Supplementary Order Paper 430 in terms of interest rate caps. I think that that Supplementary Order Paper would have made a huge difference and sent a message to those third-tier lenders that they cannot get away with offering those ridiculous exorbitant interest rates. This Committee had the opportunity to do that.I know that there are arguments across the Chamber but I think we have missed an opportunity to send a message to those vulnerable families that it is not OK to charge 100 200 or 700 percent interest on loans. That is just outrageous and we needed as a House to take steps to make sure we stop that kind of behaviour. That was a missed opportunity. There was a degree of bipartisanship around this bill but I think that in a political way that side of the House missed an opportunity to help those vulnerable families who are getting absolutely ripped off by those sharks in our community. It was something simple—it was something simple. It was something that would have just capped the interest rates but that side of the House—and unfortunately Peter Dunne who said he would support such a move 3 years ago—decided not to support that and that is a disappointment. Maybe in this part of the debate the Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs could explain why that was not taken up.Part 2 does deal with those dispute resolution schemes. On the whole they are good changes. As the Minister said we are preventing overseas organisations from coming over here and joining this to take the good name of our dispute resolution schemes around the world and trade on that. I also think that it is a good change. To make sure that the dispute resolution scheme extends out for everyone is a good thing but again I would hope that the Government would back it up with resources and educated enforcement to make sure that this piece of legislation is not something that is just going to hold the door back but is going to be effective.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It is good to be able to speak again in this debate on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging and thanking two very special people in Dunedin who work at the coalface of people who are low-paid vulnerable and dealing with huge budgetary issues in their lives. Their names are Shirley Woodrow who is the front-person for the budget advisory service in Dunedin and Ngaire Duke who fronts the team at the Dunedin Citizens Advice Bureau. There are other people who work with both those services but they are both really tiny little teams that make a huge difference in our community. It is one of the many communities throughout New Zealand that are grappling every day with the effects of bad practices on the part of organisations that are lending money and charging exorbitant interest rates and undertaking very dodgy practices that are having huge ramifications. Yes there is a responsibility on the people who are taking out these loans and who get themselves into these situations but to be frank I think that everybody across the Chamber tonight would acknowledge that there are very very strong reasons for the terrible situations in which people find themselves in this country.As the Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs himself acknowledged before New Zealand does have a reputation for being a good place to do business a transparent place to do business and in general a corruption-free place todo business but if you scratch the surface of that reputation underneath you do find practices that are not good that have been endemic in this country and that need to be sorted. Labour is supporting this legislation though we believe there is a really key part missing and I am sure you will not have missed that message tonight. We support it because it has to get passed. I am acknowledging tonight the efforts and the daily grind of these small organisations which are underfunded and that struggle but carry on because they know that the work they do is really important. Alongside them in Dunedin is the community law centre and also the Dunedin Council of Social Service. I could go on and on about these small organisations which often are staffed partly by volunteers because they are people who care enough about their communities to do this sort of work.I would like to make the point to the Minister tonight about the words he used about the work that is being done to raise awareness of financial literacy. I would like to see the facts and figures around how that is being increased and where that is being increased because we are not seeing any increase in Dunedin. I would imagine that a number of my colleagues who have spoken tonight and who will be speaking on this bill would say that they do not see any increase in the resources that are being put into improving financial literacy and upskilling people in knowing how to manage the small amounts of money that they are then forced to live on and to be able to make the choices that are going to enable them to carry on without having to apply for these loans and find themselves in this downward spiral of despair which is one of the reasons we have got this bill in front of us tonight.If we want to talk about resources we have talked about the resourcing for the Commerce Commission. Well having one person in Māngere is not going to solve this issue and it is not going to help with the enforcement of this issue. I would like to ask the Minister respectfully when he says that he has been given guarantees by the Commerce Commission—which as I understand it is already fairly stretched—whether there are any further guarantees that it is going to be looking at how the enforcement and the monitoring of this law is going to be carried out in other parts of the country. Are we looking at extra resources for financial literacy in schools throughout tertiary education and throughout other parts of the community where we need this to be embedded in our culture in terms of how we manage our money? Especially if you are on a very low wage and especially if you find yourself in circumstances not of your own choosing where you have lost your job you have got a mortgage and you find yourself ending up needing to get access to money and then finding yourself again in this downward spiral of despair and debt with high interest rates.There is a financial literacy and financial awareness gap in this country. I have sat on the Commerce Committee for nearly 6 years and I have heard countless submissions from individuals from organisations and from Government-attached organisations saying that what lies beneath the reform in this area in terms of financial regulation whether it is for mum and dad investors or people taking out loans is financial literacy. That is one of the issues in our country that is at the heart of these problems. We can as a Parliament introduce laws like this bill which we are passing through the Committee stage tonight but we need to address the underlying issues.The financial issues do not just stop there either; the resourcing issues also go to the regulations how the regulations are developed and how quickly they are able to be developed to enact this bill. It is my understanding that this bill even though it may get passed in the next short while may not come into effect for 12 months. It may not come into effect for 12 months if the regulations have not been developed or have not been developed in a way that is robust. In order for that to happen there needs to be adequate resourcing within the ministry. Mr Chair through you I would also respectfully ask theMinister to address those issues and to give an indication of the expectation of how long it is going to take for those regulations to be developed so that the country can be reassured tonight that we are not going to have to wait another 12 months before this legislation can be enacted and actually be law. We have waited for years. Before this Government came into office at the end of 2008 this legislation was in development. The bill comes out of very good work that was being done by the previous Minister of Commerce—or one of the previous Ministers of Commerce; there have been a few in the last 6 years—the Hon Lianne Dalziel who should also get a mention tonight with regard to this bill.I said in the first part of this Committee stage debate that the Government has a number of levers it can use in this area. In this bill it has introduced a number of those levers which include the Responsible Lending Code the disclosure requirements the clearer tests for unreasonable credit fees and the licensing of repossession agents etc. But the missing link—the absolute missing link—is the cap on interest rates. We are seeing that being introduced in other jurisdictions throughout the world but is New Zealand doing it? No. Why is New Zealand not doing it? Well it appears either for ideological reasons because perhaps the Government could not have got the support if the ACT Party had not supported it—and we certainly know that one of the previous Ministers of Commerce Heather Roy was opposed to interest rate caps—or there could be other reasons that perhaps involve lobbying from organisations. The fact is though that interest rate caps have been introduced in many other jurisdictions. They have been named. They include Canada Mexico Japan Singapore most African countries most South American countries most European countries South Africa and Australia. They all have interest rate caps and they have all done a substantial amount of work in this area. Why can New Zealand not do that too?ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. I understand that before I came into this Chamber the Minister of Consumer Affairs Craig Foss questioned why New Zealand First is not supporting this bill although other parties are. We have already spoken in this Chamber in the last week on this particular bill at the previous Committee stage debate and said that yes it had great purpose it was an opportunity to rectify some serious situations with credit and loans of money in this country and it had significant potential. However what it did fall short on badly was the opportunity to put caps on interest rates from loan sharks and lenders who operate in an unscrupulous manner. I will repeat that: this bill had the opportunity to put a limit put a cap on interest rates from unscrupulous lenders and loan sharks and this Government has chosen not to do that. This Government has chosen to block any of the Supplementary Order Papers and any attempts by the Opposition to put in place such caps.We simply ask the question why. Why would any responsible Government looking to protect its citizens looking to protect the most vulnerable people in society and looking to protect those who are borrowing money not protect them by putting in some form of protection in the form of caps on interest rates when other jurisdictions as we have heard such as the UK the United States Canada Japan Australia and most European Union countries have? Why would New Zealand know so much more than these other developed countries? Why would we think we are so smart? When all these other countries can put caps in place why would we not do so? So New Zealand First will not do this—we will not support a bill that leaves New Zealanders vulnerable in this manner.It does boil down to the fact that this bill will be passed and New Zealand First will be the only party voting against it but those Supplementary Order Papers could have brought that protection about. They were lost 61 to 60 on the one vote of the Hon PeterDunne the former Minister of Revenue. We again ask the question: why did the Minister not vote so that his one casting vote would have allowed those caps to be put on interest rates? The fact is that this bill emanated from 2010 in the days of the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill a member’s bill from Carol Beaumont which was originally put together by Charles Chauvel of the Labour Party and which back then was requiring caps on interest rates. Back then the Minister Peter Dunne voted in favour of those caps. In fact not only did he vote in favour of them but one of the people responsible for devising the bill the Hon Peter Dunne—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Can the member talk about Part 2.ANDREW WILLIAMS: No I am talking about the whole bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No well we are on Part 2.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Well yes but the Minister referred to us—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No look we are on Part 2.ANDREW WILLIAMS: Sure but the Minister made criticism of New Zealand First in terms of Part 2.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): This speech is terminated. Is anybody else seeking a call?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I moveThat the question be now put.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Minister is going to criticise New Zealand First—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I have already ruled on that and I made it quite clear that the member should be speaking about Part 2. [Interruption] I have ruled on the point of order. If the member is seeking to redress that he is on dangerous ground.Andrew Williams: I do not like threats thank you Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member will now leave the Chamber.Andrew Williams withdrew from the Chamber.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes78New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes41New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 79 Noes 41.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 442 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Amendments agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 113 Noes 7.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 442 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Amendments agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 113 Noes 7.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 442 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to schedule 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Amendments agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 113 Noes 7.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 3The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 442 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to schedule 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Amendments agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 113 Noes 7.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 4A party vote was called for on the questionThat schedule 4 be agreed to.Ayes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Schedule 4 agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 113 Noes 7.Clauses 1 and 2Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Clare Beaumont.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Carol.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry. I keep doing that—my apologies.CAROL BEAUMONT: You do. You are kind of merging us.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You should not sit together! Carol Beaumont my apologies.CAROL BEAUMONT: That is all right. Speaking on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill I want to talk about the missed opportunity here—the missed opportunity we had to get cross-party consensus as others have talked about in this Chamber and to put in place a really strong bill that actually would have seriously amended legislation in this area and reformed it properly to give us a full range of tools that we could have used to deal with some of the practices that happen in consumer credit. That is not to say that there are not many good features in this bill and we have worked constructively as the Commerce Committee to improve the bill as introduced into the House—and as others have noted and I noted in earlier contributions with really solid assistance from officials; thank you again for that.We have improved the bill over what was introduced into the House and yet we have failed to make a particularly important addition to this bill. To me that has been driven solely by ideology. In the end right across a number of years now we have had the same tired old reasons trotted out as to why we cannot have interest rate caps: because of potentially unintended consequences because it will drive some of these third-tier lenders out of business potentially and because it will become the target rather than a cap. These are the same tired old reasons trotted out year after year and actually it is not good enough. We have not had a robust analysis of what happens in other jurisdictions where in fact increasingly those jurisdictions are adding interest rate caps. They are saying that this is the only way.The UK is the classic example where the Tory Government there was vehemently opposed to interest rate caps—vehemently opposed—and had to do a U-turn at the end of last year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer I think it was actually said: “We have come to the realisation that this is the only way to deal with the problem of interest rates being charged by pay-day lenders.” Here we think that we can just trot out the same tired old reasons and not put something into this bill alongside the other provisions. Alongside the responsible lending principles; alongside the responsible lending code; alongside the disclosure provisions and the controls of fees or the clarification at least on fees charged; alongside improving the hardship provisions; and alongside all of the other positive elements of this bill we could have put another tool in that toolbox.We are meant to take it as a matter of faith almost from some across the Chamber anyway and from the Minister of Consumer Affairs that interest rates will be dealtwith as a consequence of these other provisions and as a consequence of the responsible lending provisions—that this will suddenly mean that the lenders in this third tier will suddenly realise that the types of abhorrent interest rates the sorts of rates that the community finds offensive are no longer suitable. Actually I think that this is going to be a fallacy. The Minister did not in the last part answer my question about getting information now as a baseline and getting the Commerce Commission to actually measure and then reflect as this legislation comes into effect whether or not interest rates are being reduced.That is what we are being told—that these other provisions will have a downward pressure on interest rates. Well let us actually measure it then. Let us actually put that to the test. Because otherwise what will continue to happen are the sorts of examples that I gave the House in my contribution last week and those were examples that I had got that very week in Palmerston North where we got given examples of interest rates of 552 percent or for a pay-day lender 1080 percent. Those are two real-life examples from Palmerston North a week or so ago. They will continue without actively seeking to reduce them which is what an interest rate cap would have done. So I urge the Minister to say: “OK we will put this to the test. We will look at what’s out there now. We will measure it in a year. We will measure it in 18 months. We will measure it in 2 years and see whether it does make a blind bit of difference to this really serious issue.”The fact of the matter is that if you ask budget services they will tell you that these extremely high interest rates are very commonplace and people are doing their best to pay them back and often do. So it is a question of whether that is fair and reasonable. We talked in Part 2 about the purpose provision around financial services providers registration and disputes resolution schemes and so on and it says in new section 2A that the purpose of the Act is “to promote and facilitate the development of fair efficient and transparent financial markets.” How can interest rates like those I have just given examples of—552 percent or 1080 percent—be claimed by anybody to be fair? They are not fair. We all know that they are not fair. So why as a Committee are we not addressing this issue? Why is it that the Government has been just so ideologically opposed to this question that it has turned down an opportunity for us to pass a piece of legislation that we have all wanted unanimously to see for a very long time? We could have had a piece of legislation passed unanimously. The Government has failed to do that. It seems to me that it would have been a very very strong message indeed to those that behave badly in the consumer credit area if they knew that Parliament was unanimous about dealing to their issues.We are supporting this bill without question because as I said at the start of this contribution there are many good features to it. But it is with a great deal of anger really that we are having to accept that at this stage there will not be interest rate caps put in place when they should be. It is certainly something that Labour has a policy in favour of doing and we would do it because we do not think that those interest rates are fair. We do not think that it is right that the most vulnerable—the families that are struggling the most—should pay excessive interest rates and pay them at the cost to their own families and to the cost of their own children often in terms of other things that they cannot spend that money on.This is a very serious matter and I think that perhaps this legislation should be called something different. Maybe this bill should be the “Credit Contracts (Opposition to Interest Rates) Reform Bill” or the “Credit Contracts (Ideologically Opposed to Interest Rate Caps) Bill” or the “Credit Contracts (New Zealand Obviously Does Not Have a Problem Compared With the Rest of the World) Law Reform Bill”. Why is it—and we have not had this answered and the Minister has not even attempted to address the question—that elsewhere countries have recognised this need and have put in placeprovisions for interest rates caps but here we say: “No we will do all these other things but that’s the thing we’re not going to touch.”? What is different about our markets? Why is it that the Government is so totally opposed to this question? It still does not make any sense to me. It would have been a sensible thing to align all of those different tools in fact and to actually address the various concerns at the same time.I ask the Minister to get up and answer those questions. What is different in this market from overseas jurisdictions? If it had been so bad and if it had become the target rather than a cap why is it that Canada has not repealed its legislation in over 8 years? Why is it that a Tory Government in the UK vehemently opposed to interest rate caps has accepted that it is the only option that it has got to control interest rates? What is different here? I urge the Minister to get up and answer that question. I also remind him of the question I asked in Part 2 around actually taking some baseline measures and effectively putting the Government’s money where its mouth is in terms of actually seeing whether all of the other provisions of this legislation do have the effect that the Government is saying which is that the bill will drive down interest rates through things like the responsible lending provisions. I urge the Minister to get up and address those questions. Thank you.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I apologise for the interruption to this debate but I have just become aware of an email that was sent late in the dinner adjournment as a result of which I seek leave for all the votes that I have cast since the dinner adjournment on behalf of the Māori Party to be adjusted from three to two.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. The record will show that.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): There is no doubt that the majority of this debate has focused on what is missing in this bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. Mark my words and my prediction tonight to everyone in this House is that we will be back in this House within a short time in the next Parliament revising this bill to include caps on interest rates.There is well-documented evidence of the importance of an interest rate cap in legislation such as this. There is well-documented evidence of the extent of the issue in New Zealand. I would just like to quote some research tonight that revealed that between 2006 and 2011 there had been a 60 percent growth in the number of third-tier lending outlets up to 40 percent of them were flouting the law by not registering as financial service providers and 127 new lenders had entered the market. In July 2013 which was just last year a new law took effect in Australia that capped interest rates at a maximum of 48 percent. The lending sums in the US of between $100 and $4000 for short terms at high interest rates have been regulated in 37 American States.This is not us making it up. This is a real issue. My fear is that this otherwise pretty reasonable piece of law will be flawed—deeply flawed—without that extra important control and extra important lever. I think we are doing a disservice tonight to the people of New Zealand by not including it. I also feel I guess disheartened really given the extent of the work that has been done in the Commerce Committee on this and the work that has been done by the officials who should be acknowledged again tonight and all the members on that select committee which was chaired by Jonathan Young over there. But yet where is the debate? Where is the discussion? Where are the explanations? Where is the argument that is the counterargument which is to put the other point of view rather than to have speaker after speaker on this side of the Chamber getting up and saying what is wrong with the bill and what it is missing out? Instead we just have this deathly silence. I think we do a disservice to the people ofNew Zealand by not having that discussion and by not having that debate so that people can actually hear what the counterargument is. Instead it is just deathly silence.All too often in this House this is what happens. Through really important pieces of legislation where there has been a big point of contention instead of having an actual debate and a discussion of ideas—which is what I thought this Parliament was supposed to be about—we end up having a string of speakers putting a point of view and a deathly silence from the Government which can pass the legislation because it has got the numbers. Well that is not good governance. It is not good governance and it is not what I came to Parliament to be part of and I doubt that many other people on this side of the Chamber particularly came to be part of that either.There are some very good parts to this legislation. I do want to mention some of them because there has been so much work put in to try to get good law coming before this Committee tonight. The introduction of the Responsible Lending Code I know is going to take some months to be developed and that will be done through regulations. I have already mentioned tonight that we hope that it can be done as quickly as possible but in order for that to be done as quickly as possible the ministry needs to be well resourced to do it. In order for that to be enacted so that there can be a good communication of such a code out to the community—because it is all very well developing a Responsible Lending Code but if it is actually not being communicated and if there is not that interface for people who are looking for ways to get access to extra money and who also need the good advice about how they could be borrowing in a more responsible way and how they could ensure that they can pay the money back.That exchange of information before the lending takes place is incredibly important. We have heard in debates on other legislation that has come before the House around investment and around mum and dad investors about the importance of being fully informed about the investments that you are making so it is sort of looking at it from the other perspective. The key to it is good financial literacy and the ability that is being put in place for that financial literacy to take place. So the mark of good governance around the implementation of the bill that we are discussing tonight in its Committee stage will be how it is communicated to people; how the codes are developed how they are communicated and how they are enacted; whether the Commerce Commission is actually going to be able to do the monitoring and enforcement that is required and that is needed across the whole of New Zealand—not just in Auckland with one extra staff member but across the whole of New Zealand—and how that monitoring will be reported; whether there will be a review done within a shortish period of time or certainly within the next couple of years I would assume it would be needed to see whether it is actually making any difference; and whether or not the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is adequately resourced to develop what is needed to be done to make sure that this law comes into practice responsibly.Once again and I just reiterate I predict that we will be back in this House within 2 years introducing interest rate caps. Would that not have been a good thing to include in this bill tonight? Would there not have been the ability for all the budget advisory centres across New Zealand all the citizens advice bureaux and all those other small organisations staffed by those really dedicated people—many of whom are actually doing voluntary work—to actually see that there is a whole suite of levers that are going to be used to stop this irresponsible loan shark behaviour which is causing a cancer throughout our low-income communities? So we will support this bill but we reiterate how important it is for those interest rate caps to be introduced.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Consumer Affairs): This will be the final time that I rise in the Committee stage on this bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. Members have asked a few questions. I think it is importantto note that in addition to the National Government targeting dodgy behaviour and targeting loan sharks as we are in this bill and in other consumer affairs bills actually just in the last couple of weeks we have announced microfinancing under the Hon Paula Bennett’s portfolio. That is about bringing in good shepherds—the Bank of New Zealand—to offer very very very low-interest loans to those who are stuck in a spiral of debt and whom the Ministry of Social Development is working very hard with to assist them out of those circumstances.Members have also asked about the resources for budgetary services around the country in addition to those in Auckland. That is a fair question and I am sure that they will be pleased to know that Minister Bennett recently announced that an increase from $13 million per annum to $22 million per annum will be going in to assist those same budgetary services.Interest rate caps have been mentioned a few times in this last part and I will address those because something demonstrates how hard and complex they can be. No one has actually talked about the total cost of finance caps; they have talked about interest rate caps. Yes there were two Supplementary Order Papers in that space. Well one of them would have given the humble Minister of Consumer Affairs more power than the Minister of Finance and it would probably be up there with Dr Bollard essentially setting interest rates. Another one actually had the totally unintended consequence I am sure of totally contradicting itself and basically giving second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers absolutely unlimited fees charges interest rates—you name it. So that was the consequence of that Supplementary Order Paper.But I really want to talk to those who are voting against this bill. I do thank and acknowledge members across the House for their acknowledgment of what has been going on in dire situations across this country in many many tragic circumstances. However those who are voting against this bill and against this protection are voting for uninformed borrowers and uninformed lenders. They are voting for irresponsible behaviour from lenders—predatory behaviour. They are voting for a continuation of some in our community carrying out exploitative behaviour towards some of the most vulnerable in our community because that is what has been going on and that is what those members are voting for if they in fact vote for the status quo. If those members are voting against this bill they are voting for having no principles of responsible lending no consideration of the circumstances of the borrower no Responsible Lending Code no pre-checking and no understanding of what the obligations are that a guarantor might be taking on if English was their second language and if they did not actually know what was going on.I have had members in this House come to me about issues that in fact this bill would fix and they are now voting against this bill. I cannot understand it. If they vote against this bill they will be voting for the status quo of arbitrage and whole exploitation in rules and regulation across this land. That is not right. That is not fair. That is not the Kiwi way. If those members are voting against this bill they will be voting for embedded fees ratcheting costs and selling insurance to beneficiaries who are taking on loans that they cannot afford to pay back in the first place. That is what they are voting for if they vote against this bill. They if they are voting against this bill will be voting for unlicensed repossession and predatory behaviour carried out by some in our country. They will be voting for people to go into other people’s houses and take possession of things that have not been borrowed against and have not been listed and they will be voting for them to use leverage extortion and even blackmail—even running down the road with a machete to chase down some of our vulnerable New Zealanders.I do not for the life of me understand why some members in this House are doing that. They can make their political point but they are putting New Zealanders at risk. They will be exposed and I think that they will be judged accordingly. Those who are voting against this bill will take no allowance of the hardship they will take no allowance of the oppression clauses in the bill and they will take no allowance of the changes to the dispute resolution services. As is evidenced by those good members across the Chamber who are voting for vulnerable New Zealanders and for fair play yes some members are putting New Zealand first but some other members in this House are not. I think that that will play back very badly for them because they are allowing a continuation of bad dodgy predatory and exploitative behaviour within our community. I am proud to stand with the other MPs in this Chamber to address that exact matter. Thank you.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Well finally—finally someone from that side of the Chamber has shown some passion about this issue. Congratulations to you Minister Foss on getting up and having some passion but where was that 4½ years ago when this process started? Where was that passion when you started out on this whole process to make sure that the people whom you are talking about those vulnerable borrowers out in our communities were getting protected? This was such a priority when it started in 2009 and here we are in May 2014 and finally we are getting something done about it. So thank you for getting passionate about it but on this side of the Chamber we are not quite believing how much of a priority you have made this piece of legislation the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill for all those vulnerable people you claim you want to protect.If you did want to protect them you would have done something about this a long long time ago. This is a debate on the title and commencement date. This piece of legislation could have commenced 2½ to 3 years ago if this Government really prioritised the needs of the vulnerable people whom the Minister was just a little bit passionate about before. This process started in 2009. Then Simon Power had a summit in 2011 and then a Cabinet paper was presented to Cabinet and came out in October 2011. It has been sitting and doing nothing—nothing—until now. So I say to the Minister that he should not get up and puff his chest out as though this has been a priority for him. It has not been Minister. It has not been a priority for this Government at all.If it were a priority you would have looked with a bit more passion at the Supplementary Order Papers regarding interest rate caps too but you have not done that. The Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs put his arms up and said it was all too hard. Well it was not too hard for the UK it was not too hard for the US and it was not too hard for Canada but here in New Zealand it is all too hard. The Government says: “Oh we can’t do that. It’s impossible.” Listen to what the Minister said when he spoke up: “We can’t do it. It’s too hard.” Well why can other countries do it and we cannot? Why can Australia do it and we cannot? If you are really serious about protecting the people whom this bill pertains to Minister you would have done something about this a long long time ago and you would have looked at those interest rate caps.That Minister can get up there and all of a sudden get passionate because one party is not supporting the Government all of a sudden but that just does not wash with us because 3½ years ago you guys could have got off your chuffs and actually done something. In those 3½ years a whole lot more vulnerable families have been affected by loan sharks and you guys sat on your chuffs doing nothing about it. We started this process at the end of the last Labour Government because we knew it was becoming an issue but you guys sat on it and you did nothing. Then all of a sudden it became a bitmore of an issue. Simon Bridges made a few noises and then it went quiet again. Then it comes back and all of a sudden this is the best thing since sliced bread 4 months out from an election. Well it does not wash with us. You could have done something much much sooner.We have talked about different titles for this bill. I think we should change it to the “Credit Contracts and Financial Services (Blame Peter Dunne) Bill” because Peter Dunne had the one vote that could have changed this bill to make sure there was a protection for those vulnerable families we were talking about by introducing those interest rate caps. But he turned again and now that measure has not gone through just like with the asset sales legislation. Peter Dunne had the vote that changed that. Here we have a piece of legislation that would have protected vulnerable families from those loan sharks who are charging up to 700 percent interest—not 30 not 35 not 40 but in some cases 700 percent we are led to believe. But that is OK with Peter Dunne. That is OK with the National Party: “We don’t need to do anything there. That is fine.” Well it is not fine with us on this side of the Chamber.If you thought about it and listened to a lot of the people who came and made submissions—and I know that some people on that side of the Chamber might get up take a call and say there are reasons why they did not do it. If you listened to the submissions of the people working at the grassroots you would have looked at it a lot more seriously than you have. It would have been a real protection in this bill for those vulnerable families. It would have sent a pretty good message to those third-tier lenders that we do not like what they are doing that they have been ripping off people for too long and that we are cracking down on them. But this Government did not do that. It did not make it a priority. It did not make this bill a priority and then all of a sudden we get a passionate speech from the Minister in the last reading of the Committee stage. Well thank you very much Minister but it is all too late. It is all too late. It is 3 years too late.Again I want to say about Peter Dunne that he turned on this big time. Carol Beaumont introduced a piece of legislation in the last term of Parliament that would have essentially introduced interest rate caps. Peter Dunne sent a letter to someone who was behind the scenes helping with that bill and he said: “I was happy to support this bill and was very sorry that it did not proceed past first reading. I hope that further progress will be made on this issue in the future.” That bill that Peter Dunne was talking about essentially would have introduced interest rate caps. So on 28 July 2010 Peter Dunne was all good with interest rate caps: “Sign me up.” He was ready to go. He knew that the interest rates were unfair. But all of a sudden he has changed his mind. And why? Does he think all of a sudden that it is OK to have 500 600 or 700 percent interest rates for the most vulnerable people in our communities for those who cannot afford that? Is he OK with that? Is the Government OK with that? Something changed between 28 July 2010 and when this piece of legislation came into the House. He did a complete U-turn and all of a sudden it is OK for those third-tier lenders those loan sharks to charge exorbitant interest rates.So if you are looking for an alternative title add “(Blame Peter Dunne)”. “(Blame Peter Dunne)” should be added to whatever is the name of the bill that we are debating. He was the one who made sure that something that would have been a massive protection for those families out there was not included in this bill. So I say to Peter Dunne that he has a lot to answer for: asset sales and also making sure that these families are not protected from exorbitant interest rates.We have also heard from the Minister about extra resourcing for the Commerce Commission. He mentioned some extra resourcing that the Minister for Social Development may have announced earlier around budgeting services. That is good buthe did not actually answer the question about the resourcing for the Commerce Commission. As I said in an earlier speech in this Committee stage we want to make sure that the Commerce Commission has resources on the ground right around New Zealand to make sure that what we are putting in this bill is effective. He may have skirted around that and some other funding for budgeting services.We want to make sure that the Commerce Commission which has not really made this a priority in the past is on the ground and has got people in there who understand these communities and are doing work to make sure that they understand who is still acting badly who are the loan sharks who are still doing dodgy deals who are those affected and who is being educated about this new code of responsible lending. That is what we want. We want a commitment on that to make sure that the Commerce Commission does not just have someone who is well meaning who is based in Māngere and who is the only poor sod doing this. There need to be people right around the country working with that one person to make sure that the communities in Invercargill in Dunedin in Christchurch in Wellington and in my area of Porirua—which is affected quite a lot by loan sharks and those truck shops that we are talking about—are getting the information and the help they need. I know that the Minister in the chair said that his previous speech was his last contribution to the debate but maybe he could make one more and specifically talk on that issue of the Commerce Commission getting the right resources and changing its attitude from being a high-level regulatory body to getting down there and getting stuck in the weeds with people to find out what is going on with these truck shops with these third-tier lenders in order to make sure that it is making a difference to the people on the ground.This is a good piece of legislation but it is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity because we could have supported Carol Beaumont’s Supplementary Order Paper 430 to bring in interest rate caps. That side of the Chamber is OK with interest rates of 50 and 100 percent and beyond. We are not OK with that. That is why we introduced this Supplementary Order Paper. We thought the Government might have given it a lot more thought than it did but it did not. It is a lost opportunity. I think we should blame Peter Dunne for that because he was OK with it 4 years ago and all of a sudden he is not.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I take this opportunity to rise to speak to the Minister’s statement previously around parties that are opposing the bill. New Zealand First is opposing the bill; the Minister in the chair the Minister of Consumer Affairs is quite right. He is however quite wrong in everything else he had to say at that time. New Zealand First is opposing the bill because New Zealand First does not do half jobs.Although there are many positive reforms inside this bill there are practicalities and realities of the people who have come to talk to us—the people actually affected; the people whom the Minister stood up and passionately professed to care about. They have come to see us and talk to us about the fact that although all those other protections are there and they can use them in a legal sense they still have to take somebody through that legal process. They still have to make sure that that person follows the rules as opposed to a very very simple mechanism which is to place a cap on interest rates. That is all that those people asked for.So if we were going to rename this bill possibly what we should rename it to is—actually National members do not really like getting their hands inside business and this is business as far as they can see it. So although they put in all these other supposed safeguards the poor consumer—poor consumer in the fact that they are borrowing money from unscrupulous people who have no conscience whatsoever about the waythat they prey on these families—and those families will still have to go and see an agency. Those families will still actually have to fight to make sure that if the rules are not followed they then have to go through that process. It still puts a burden on the borrower.How much better would it have been for this Committee to truly stand up for the borrower and say: “Over this percentage of interest rate is exorbitant.” If the Government had been able to truly participate in a practical way to support those families and to support Ms Beaumont’s Supplementary Order Paper 430 New Zealand First would be voting for the bill. But New Zealand First will not do a half-pie job. New Zealand First will not put through legislation merely because it upsets the Minister when it does not truly address the issue and truly help the people at the bottom of this bill.So if the Minister wants to know—actually we are not at all interested in what the Minister wants to know. If New Zealanders out there want to know why New Zealand First will oppose this bill in the same way we opposed the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill it is because we actually listened to the people it would have an effect on. We represent them here in this Parliament. This bill does not go far enough and we will not just tick it off for the pleasure of the National Government.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes78New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes41New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 41.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 442 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Billpursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 443.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.