Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House Part 1 Main amendments CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Financial Service Providers—Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute “Resol-ation”)—let me start that one again. It’s still Thursday, mind you! Members, the House is in committee on the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill. We come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 12, “Main amendments”. The question is that Part 1 stand part. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take the first call in this committee stage. This is an important bill that makes changes which are largely cross-partisan, so it’s important that we interrogate them carefully, especially under the conditions of urgency. I want to first take the opportunity to thank both the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and his officials for being available on this Saturday—even though it is Thursday, Madam Chair! Going to Part 1—I’m in the first clause here, clause 4. I want to ask the Minister just a quick question on the provisions that that part gives rise to around financial compensation and non-financial— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can the member—which clause, sorry? ARENA WILLIAMS: Clause 4—his amendments to section 52 of the original Act. This provision, which makes prescribed requirements—it doesn’t make mandatory requirements, even though that’s what the title is. I want to ask him whether he considered raising up the rule within the original section on financial compensation, non-financial loss, stress, and humiliation, up to a certain amount. The reason I ask him about this is that that is the section which gives rise to that provision being a prescribed rule—not a mandatory rule as the title says. But there were a number of submissions on this point—not only to the select committee but also to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE’s) consultation in 2022. The reason why this was highlighted by organisations that advocate for consumers is that the rules for that kind of compensation are different across the four schemes, and so a prescribed rule or a mandatory rule is necessary to ensure some consistency across the schemes. What that rule is doing is that when real loss—it’s not the entirety of the loss. Say that your entire dispute might cost you $1,500, but perhaps you spent a year of your life trying to resolve that dispute in the kind of situation that my colleague Glen Bennett described in the situation with car lenders in his area. If there was injury to a consumer that was non-financial but was stress-related, all of the different schemes have different rules for that. In the submission of FinCap to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, they also highlighted this as an area for further improvement, and it is an area that I’m sure the Minister might have taken advice on not only in the formation of this bill but also in the changes that came from the select committee’s considerations. I also want to ask him a separate question now. This is the section where he could have given effect to a new section 56 provision which would have created a system for one scheme to exist—a sort of transitional arrangement. Financial mentors have been making the case over many years for consolidating into either a single scheme or two schemes. A single scheme has already been implemented in Australia and the United Kingdom, as the Minister will know. This is the part in the bill where, if he had wanted to go down the route of creating a transitional scheme that existed for one year through sections 56 to 58, he could have made one entity that was a non-profit organisation to consolidate, and then it might disestablish itself at the end of another year so that a further single private provider could have continued. That would have required the amendments for the Minister to appoint the transitional entity with representatives from the four schemes. He might be familiar with this model because it was a model that was first canvassed with MBIE in 2016. That was a model that drew on the expertise of the consumer advocates who were working in the area about how you might create—not looking to create, necessarily, a State scheme, because the consumer advocates also acknowledge that the Government has a role in ensuring that the right person pays for the cost of a scheme like this, and the right person to pay for the cost of resolving disputes at this level is certainly the private sector. I want to ask him whether he considered those kinds of amendments at clause 4. The other place you could do it is further in the bill, at the transitional savings provisions, and I have got some amendments that I will ask him about when we get to that part. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (15:26): Thank you, Mr Chair. This bill is part of the Government’s financial services reform package, to start off with. And any suggestion that this has been a rushed process—perhaps they need to go back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee report, where it was sent to the select committee on 20 May 2025. We have given this in the select committee—and I was chair during it—due consideration. I think it’s important because it will be a recurring theme, and I’m not going to repeat it, and that’s around the call for scheme consolidation—i.e., why have we got four dispute resolution schemes and not one? I thought I’d deal with that and then I won’t be repeating myself for the rest of the afternoon and evening. Arena Williams: The only MPs who’ve asked for that are National MPs. Hon CAMERON BREWER: The way I can go through that—if the member wants to ask questions and then listen to the answers—is what the member signed off as well is the select committee report, and the select committee report gave this a lot of consideration. She was right. Submitters did raise this. But let’s not forget the issue of consolidation is outside the policy intent of this bill. The other point that the select committee—that apolitical select committee that worked so well together—scheme consolidation of those four dispute resolution schemes would represent significant structural reform. Where the select committee landed—and it was well-chaired and I’m in full support of it—is that they said, yes, we can see some merit in this potentially but it does represent significant reform. But the select committee will “intend to monitor the effects of the legislation and any policy work in the scheme consolidation area in 12 months.” And so the select committee is going to keep a close eye on this, and I will keep a close eye on this, but the whole issue of consolidating our four dispute resolution schemes down to one is not the policy intent of this legislation. It’s having a watchful eye. It will get a watchful eye over the next 12 months by our Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I promise the member that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and his officials will continue to monitor the schemes and, in the future, whether there’s any possibility for consolidation in the coming years or decades. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to ask brief follow up of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. He pointed to the ability for the Minister to oversee the schemes. This is written into not this bill but the principal Act, I think, at section 80. That is a reasonably limited power for the Minister to continue to not just to review the four schemes—which he’s given himself new powers to do—but the system as a whole, is the power at section 80. I want to ask him whether he considered advice on establishing regulator oversight of the system as a whole. That’s not something which is empowered in this system. It is empowered by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s framework. When you compare the operation of our schemes, not only are there four schemes instead of the one Australian scheme, but the Australian equivalent of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) has an oversight role there and a monitoring role. It is unclear what the FMA’s role is for all four schemes. Given that they have evolved out of a system which is like a supervisory scheme model—like, the old model where you would have a supervisor of a public trust is what this is designed around, not having a financial regulator like the modern FMA. I just want him to clarify that, given that he’s spoken about the oversight function of the Minister, which is on the four schemes, not in the system as a whole. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (15:31): What I was referring to there is pretty much what the Finance and Expenditure Committee suggested I do. That is, I’m not bequeathing myself statutory powers to conduct some oversight, but the select committee asks the Minister, in their report, for the Minister to undertake further analysis of cost-benefits and risks, broad stakeholder consultation, and, potentially, a wider review of the primary Act. As the member Arena Williams knows, every piece of legislation is always under review. I’m committed to continue to look at the functionality of this piece of legislation going forward. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:32): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a short question for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, in clause 4 of this bill, before moving on to other parts, because, I think what we’re seeing with section 79(1)(caa) will be discussed much later in the piece. But I want to check with the Minister, because I wasn’t part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for this. This particular clause has interesting wording, which is whether the requirements prescribed “(if any)” are complied with. My assumption is that “(if any)” pertains to if the requirements themselves need to be met, as opposed to if there are any requirements. Surely, if you look at section 79(1)(caa), there are requirements. It’s detailed in there. So can the Minister just confirm that bit of clarification that, when we’re looking at “(if any)”, that refers to “if any” of the requirements—and, again, we’ll discuss the requirements later—of the three requirements in (i) to (iii) need to be met, as opposed to if there are requirements. I want to continue on by just checking that other members—and I see that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has additional questions for some of these earlier sections as well. I just want to check, in terms of clause 5—now, I’m also noting that when it comes to the withdrawal of approvals, there are additional sections that are being discussed later. I want to check if other than withdrawal and consideration for approval, would any other potential part of the principal Act that would actually be affected by—or rather, the changes we’re seeing in terms of clause 7 with the new section 67B to 67F. I will start with those two questions, but, of course, there will be lots of questions to come. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (15:34): Just before we get too much further into the discussion on this bill, I am going to set that challenge for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs that I signalled was going to come to him in my second reading speech. I think it is quite important for all those listening at home on a sunny Saturday afternoon—though I know it’s not so sunny in some parts of the country—if the Minister could clarify the different schemes we’re talking about. To be clear, it’s on the first page of the bill as it came from the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I’d like the Minister to clarify the schemes: the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, the Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman, the Financial Services Complaints Limited scheme, and the Financial Dispute Resolution Service; how those schemes differ; and where they overlap, just to give a little bit of guidance to our many, many devoted followers who are listening today. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (15:35): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to partake in this pop quiz, largely because we share some Taranaki heritage. Of course, Dr Russell comes from a place called Whangamōmona. So if you were at a Whangamōmona pub quiz in the republic of Whangamōmona, there would be—and those four questions as to what are those schemes and who do they pertain to, the table that I sat on would win that quiz and this is why. We’ve got the Banking Ombudsman Scheme. Of course, providers that can choose that scheme—it takes into effect most banks. The Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman—that takes insurers and credit providers under its wing. The Financial Services Complaints Limited—well, that encases lenders and financial advisers. The Financial Dispute Resolution Service—well, that also takes into consideration lenders and financial advisers. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:36): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll move on. I just want to take the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to clauses 6 and 7, at the bottom of page 2. Firstly, I want to clarify with him whether it is, in fact, an error that there’s not a deletion of section 67A of the original Act. Section 67A is the provision which deals with mobile traders and other parts of the credit contracts system. In the bill that we passed this week, there were modifications to ensure that mobile traders were treated by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), as their regulator, in the same way as other lenders, and that they will not be licensed in a different way or subject to requirements of their services as a whole, they will just be subject to the requirements of lending products. I want to ask him genuinely: would it be appropriate to vote for the amendment which is a deletion of section 67A? It is not a policy position which is the Labour Party’s policy position. There are some fierce advocates amongst colleagues—one of them sitting to my left in Dr Deborah Russell—around the harms of mobile trading and the need for regulation of mobile traders. I’m simply asking him whether it was an oversight because this bill was drafted before his other suite of bills which removed special provisions for mobile traders. This will now be an outlier of those financial markets systems bills which set out the rules of market participants when mobile traders are no longer financial market participants for the purposes of the consumer credit regime. My other question is at clause 6. The repeal of section 63(1)(q) takes away the general provisions for the Minister to continue to review the schemes. That was a power to delve into them at least every five years. But that had a useful provision, in that it had to be done within three months. My question is about whether he has retained the time frame—which is a short time frame—for him to act, because that is a useful thing to have: for the scheme participants to know that if they are going to be reviewed, there will then be a short time frame for a response to that review in whatever form—whether it’s the regulator, whether it’s the Minister, where it’s Parliament. That was an important part of the way that section 63(1)(q) was operating. I also just want to ask him, when this bill was first introduced, his predecessor said that there had been a problem with timeliness in the way that these reviews were carried out. I want to ask him whether the removal of the three-month provision is because the timeliness of the reviews was so poor that they were not meeting that time frame. How many reviews actually put the Crown at risk of breaching that provision? Of course, there’s no penalties associated with that provision—nor should there be—but was it the case that there was a sort of widespread slippage of the completion of those reviews? You might imagine that there would be reasons for that—say, in the period 2022-23, when there was a worldwide shortage of auditors, there was considerable slippage in auditing not only of private companies but of public accounts. You can imagine a situation where that would be the norm. But it’s important for the public to understand those things because, when you have a statutory requirement for timeliness, just to remove the timeliness doesn’t solve that problem. Obviously it can exacerbate it. What is the situation going forward in terms of timeliness, Minister? That would be a helpful thing to understand. Just in the time that I’ve got remaining, I’ll begin on my question around the addition, the Minister’s new section 67B, under his clause 7, of the independent review of schemes. Firstly, the provision there at new subsection (2) that the notice provides for the manner in which the review must be carried out, doesn’t seem to make sense in light of new section 67C. If it doesn’t do that—if it’s only a “may”—then it doesn’t seem to work with the rest of the provisions, which have set out the manner in which it is intended to be given notice. On one hand, we’ve got a provision where the Minister has to give it in writing, but it can be in whatever sort of writing: on biro, like an amendment by me is sort of fine, but then there is a prescription about how you would give notice. That seems to imply that there might be two ways of giving notice. I just want to ask him whether that also applies within the five-years provision. We’ll come back to that in a minute. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:41): Thank you, Mr Chair. Also just waiting for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ response to my previous questions regarding clause 4 and clause 5. I’ve got one more question on clause 5, before, I think, I’m ready to move on to some of the substantial sections. But I respect the fact that some of the other members may still have questions between clauses 4 to 6. I mentioned the changes to what we saw in terms of section 56 amended by clause 5, “Withdrawal of approval”, subclause (3): “In section 56(1)(g), replace ‘section 67’” with the addition of inclusion of section 67D(1) and 67F. Now, I do want to check with the Minister that when we are looking at some of the other sections that potentially this relates to—let’s say, if we’re looking at section 77 of the principal Act. It’s always quite exciting when we have an amendment bill because you can go back and refer and learn more about the principal legislation as well. Section 79 of that Act, which I know we’ll touch on later, is around regulations made under the Act, but in section 79(1)(da), which is not part of this bill but is an important thing to mention in the context of clause 5(3), in that it prescribes matters relating to section 67(1)(f) as well, which also includes information that must be provided. I want to check with the Minister that if we’re adding in additional areas like new section 67D(1) and 67F in clause 5(3), was there no requirement that those new sections 67D(1) and 67F to also be inserted as a part of section 79(1)(da) under the regulations made under this Act? Because, again, I would assume that in terms of the overall coherence of this particular legislation in relation to the principal Act, that new sections 67D(1) and 67F would also need to be included as a part of the regulations made under the Act. Is there something else that means that those two particular parts are already included or encompassed, or are they not required as a part of section 79(1)(da)? That’s my question to the Minister. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (15:44): Mr Chair, thank you. I just want to go back to the previous question and take it from the top, as far as why are we replacing scheme-commissioned independent reviews with Minister-directed independent reviews, which must occur every five years. It’s a very good question. But I want to give the House every assurance that we are replacing the scheme-commissioned reviews with these Minister-directed ones, and we are confident that they will be more robust, more consistent, and genuinely independent reviews, and removing duplication. The Minister sets the framework for the review, but talking with officials just now, the terms of reference is something that we work with the Minister and the scheme on together. There is a notice period. We are confident that with the intent of this bill to give the Minister more flexibility, that this will deliver improved consistency and transparency, while reviewers remain independent and schemes remain operationally autonomous. The independence of the review of each of these schemes strengthens, but the Minister working with each independent dispute resolution scheme, will work very closely on setting out those terms of reference and the framework for those reviews. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (15:45): Thank you for those answers, Minister. Going back to clause 6, amending section 63, removing the requirement for schemes to write their own rules about independent reviews. So we had an earlier question about time frames. I’m focused more on the reviews themselves. Until now, each scheme set up how it would be reviewed, and that led to differences of quality, timing, and scope, so from a consumer’s perspective it can feel unfair. You know, why should the oversight depend on which scheme the provider belongs to? This clause says, essentially, “enough of that”. Reviews will now be driven centrally under a standard approach that should make outcomes easier to compare and easier for the public to understand. But at the same time, it does shift power away from the schemes themselves and towards the Minister. That may be justified, but it does mean that independence has to be protected in other ways. I suppose the real-world test will be whether reviews feel robust and fair; not political, not box-ticking, and not overly distant from how schemes actually operate. Two questions for the Minister there: what specific problems with the old system led to this change, and how will independence be protected now that reviews are centrally directed? ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:47): Thank you, Mr Chair. All right, I want to come to my main question for new section 67B(2) and it is a question about the terms of reference for review. As I understand it from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ helpful response before, the interaction between 67B and 67C is that the consultation must happen before the review is entered into—those terms of reference must happen. Perhaps the reason why he has phrased this as “The notice may provide for the manner in which the review [happens]” is because there is clearly going to be an understanding between the agency, the Minister, and the complaints scheme. I think that’s fine. We do lose some level of transparency there, if the Minister’s notice simply says, “I’m giving notice of a review and it’s on the terms that we’ve agreed.” There is a sort of lack of transparency there for any consumers who are aggrieved by this particular scheme, but you gain a sense of high-trust engagement between the Minister and the scheme being reviewed. I want to ask the Minister, then, about how he intends for consumers to get the assurance that they need because of this. I want to refer him to a very helpful piece of advice that financial mentors made public. From January 2025 to January 2026, FinCap surveyed users of the four schemes and calculated the net promoter score. For anyone who is unfamiliar with these measures, a net promoter score is about the number of people who would rate positively or rate negatively any given scheme. I bring this up because the results are revealing. Some schemes utterly fell short of public expectation for a scheme which is, for most people, assumed to be a public scheme and an alternative to the courts. What we must understand here is that this is intended to be something which is quasi-judicial. But for one of the schemes they had a net promoter score of negative 30. Others had net zero net promoter scores in January, and then one scheme had a positive net promoter score of 12. There was one game out of the three which had a very positive score, but the others fell well short of the expectations of the people who used them. In 2026, there was an improvement. I would suggest to you, Mr Chair, that the industry was well on notice that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was conducting these reviews, that there was a process for official feedback, and the net promoter scores became—for two of the schemes—positive 30. That was better than any given scheme in the first year, and there were no schemes with a negative net promoter score. The reason I raise this with you, Minister, is when the terms of reference are agreed, they don’t have to be public—so they don’t have to include consumer satisfaction, they don’t have to include any information on how easy it is for a consumer advocate to raise issues with the scheme, they don’t have to include information in the review about the hours that it takes for someone to engage with the disputes or the amount that they are paid back inevitably by their lender when things go wrong. None of that is definitely included. This could have been included in the primary legislation. Consumer-friendly legislation in Australia does include terms of reference which make it very clear that the way that the agency will be considered to be successful or not will be on measures like that; about how easy it is to use and how much money is recovered for consumers. A Government who is interested in making consumers’ lives easier and bringing down the burden of debt for consumers who have entered into consumer credit contracts which are expensive, would be focused on ensuring that those terms of reference, if not set at the primary legislation level—I give the Minister it’s his right to arrange the legislation in a way which takes that out of his hands, either at the regulation level or within these bespoke arrangements, but they’re not public. I want to ask him: how do consumers ensure that, in 2025, when most consumers were telling FinCap that we have used these schemes and they are terrible, how do we ensure that the Minister is true to his word that this is going to improve and streamline the experience for the people who have to use these schemes at some of the most vulnerable times in their lives? When they have lost their homes, when they have lost their cars, when somebody they love has got into such debt that they need to declare bankruptcy, what is the insurance that these schemes are going to have terms of references that they are reviewed to his satisfaction, let alone the committee’s? Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (15:52): Each of these dispute resolution schemes are publishing annual reports, I’m accurately informed. Each of these annual reports—like annual reports are having to reflect on their previous year’s operations and results—will be publicly releasing the key findings of those Minister-directed independent reviews, and so there will be a level of scrutiny there. As I’ve articulated and as the member pointed to, in new section 67B inserted by clause 7, how the Minister of the day is to conduct these independent reviews—at least once every five years—is heavily prescribed in statute, as you will see. Also it is a process of collaboration. If the Minister appoints a reviewer, that appointment must also be made in written notice to the reviewer. There is a very firm process that’s mapped out on the review of these dispute resolution services. As I said at the beginning, reforming it like this will address the wide variation in how schemes have previously been commissioned with their own reviews. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:54): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I’ve just got some questions on clause 7. My first question was if the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs wouldn’t mind maybe addressing some of FinCap’s submissions and comments in relation to whether he intends to use the powers under clause 7 to initiate a review that is consistent across all approved schemes. I know that the Minister talked about how consolidation was not in scope of the bill, but I wonder whether clause 7—and what is in clause 7—would be used to initiate a review on whether there should be more than one approved scheme. While I know an amendment to basically consolidate that may be deemed out of scope, I wonder if the Minister intends to use the provisions in clause 7 for the reviews to include whether there should be more than one approved scheme? Because that’s basically what clause 7 would allow the Minister to do. Is that part of what the Minister intends to do with the powers? I mean, that’s up to the Minister, so I’d like his opinion on it. The second question I have is in relation to the provisions of clause 7, whether the Minister has sought advice or has any views on these sorts of costs that any of these reviews on average could have? Like, are there any fiscal implications—if so, like of conducting these reviews—for the Crown? I would like to know whether there are any costs related to this. Now on new section 67B(3) inserted by clause 7, my third question relates to the ability for the Minister to appoint a reviewer “who, in the Minister’s opinion, has the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience”. What safeguards are there for ensuring that this isn’t sort of a jobs for mates kind of arrangement? I mean, the way that it is written, it is simply just “in the Minister’s opinion”, right? I guess the Minister could just say, “Well, it is my opinion that this person has the knowledge, skills, and experience.” But are there any safeguards that the Minister thinks are put in place to ensure that these can be fairly evaluated? This is useful because I would like to trust that the Minister will be robust in—and I would like to take him at his word around—his intention as Minister to appoint someone to be robust and assessing their knowledge, skills, and experience. But a future Minister perhaps could just say, “It’s just my opinion” and then have no way of anyone else assessing whether that future Minister potentially may have actually done adequate or robust assessment of, say, the person’s skills. That, in and of itself, then I guess undermining public trust on the reviewer’s ability to carry out that work and undermining the provisions in clause 7. The other question I had was in relation to—and another Minister kind of engaged with it a little bit, but on new section 67B(4) inserted by clause 7, that “The appointment must be made by written notice to the reviewer.” Are there any requirements for the Minister to actually seek the agreement of that person? Because I mean, there’s the notice that has to be given to the reviewer, but I don’t see much in terms of language of saying, “The Minister must receive confirmation that this person is actually interested in doing the work.” I just wanted to know: how would that work? There’s the requirement to notify the reviewer, but is there the reverse of that where the reviewer must notify the Minister that they’re interested? To recap, I’m interested to know if there are any fiscal implications of conducting the reviews per clause 7. I’m interested to know what safeguards there are to maintain public trust in how the Minister appoints the reviewers, and also whether the Minister would like to address the calls from FinCap to conduct a review of whether there should be more than one approved scheme. Thank you. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (15:58): Look, this is the last time I’ll canvass this, but the member did raise some good points as far as clause 7, and could there be a structural reform within the rounds of that? Clause 7 very much talks about the framework for reviews and, as I’ve touched on from the outset, a potential structural review of the system—i.e., perhaps a consolidation of four dispute resolution schemes down to one—is outside the policy intent of this legislation. But, as the Finance and Expenditure Committee have asked me and have asked that the Minister of the day and they have given an undertaking that the select committee themselves will continue to review this, is that core structural reform, like anything in a legislative sense, is always on a policy agenda to continue to be reviewed—they are living documents—but reducing the number of schemes cannot be achieved within this statute. But that’s not to say that we’re not reviewing it. The select committee have asked me in a macro sense to keep an eye on it and that’s what I’ve given a commitment to do. On the reviews that the Minister sets, what the Minister of the day sets is the framework. The Minister does not set the outcomes. As far as cost—how is all this funded?—well, the good news is that the dispute resolution services, as is on the explanatory note, is a free service, but the schemes themselves are funded by member fees. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I have to say, members, it’s hard to think how any more questions on folding the four schemes into one would constitute anything other than repetition. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:00): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a quick question to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: when he said that the Minister sets frameworks not outcomes, was that a response to question my question about new subsection 67B(2)(c) and the way that the review reference terms will be set, or was it a reference to something else? I want to take him now to new subsection 67B(3). It’s generally industry standard for the reviewers of these schemes to do several different reviews. They are people who conduct reviews of schemes and disputes in other capacities. That’s a good thing. These are people who are well resourced and have the proficiency to be able to carry out these reviews, but I want to ask him about whether he intends to take that practice forward, or whether he has a different intention about the kind of people that will be appointed as reviewers, given that it’s now firmly within his ambit. The example that I want to put to him is the largest provider of dispute resolution schemes in the last financial year was reviewed by a commissioner of another dispute resolution scheme. So is it his intention that reviews will be conducted by people— Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: A peer review! ARENA WILLIAMS: —who are commissioners of other schemes? Yes, a peer review, you might say, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. You could mount an impassioned argument for why that would be the most efficient way of doing it, but I think in the situation where most consumers are looking at dispute resolution schemes and raising the problems that the Government was responding to in its reviews in 2016 and 2022, it would be quite hard for the Government to step back and say that now that it’s within the provision of the Minister and not with the agency to continue appointments—you know, which are his responsibility; they are not the responsibility of the Public Service, so they have a degree of governance independence, but also politicisation—whatever you say about them, that is the perception. Is it appropriate that members of schemes would then review other members of schemes—whether or not that’s members of dispute schemes for the provision of financial services, the members of dispute schemes for utilities, or the members of dispute schemes for telecommunications, they are all quite a close network of expertise of a specific niche of corporate directors in New Zealand. And yes, you could also mount an argument that the corporate director pool in New Zealand is shallow and that there are not many people who could lead this kind of review. Again, the question is about how we make sure that there is a level of robustness and that consumers can see the public good of them lifting up the review provisions to the responsibility of a Minister. It is meant to be more public; it is meant to be more accountable by doing it that way, so is he sure, then, that his appointment provisions should not have an extra part there which says the Minister may appoint, as the reviewer, any person who is not a member of another scheme within the system? I have presented him with a number of amendments that would also invite him to make a decision to appoint a consumer advocate. This is a different question. It is a question about whether he thinks that the appointment of a consumer advocate, or of FinCap themselves, would be appropriate in the system. The reason for this—obviously, “person” here could mean a natural person or could mean an organisation or a business. Appointing a body that is in the business, every day, of—it is the financial mentor’s job to spend hours on the phone trying to resolve these disputes efficiently and quickly for the taxpayer and the client, who is the person who is in debt and is trying to raise the dispute. Is it not their expertise, then, to know what schemes are responding appropriately to consumer demand? Is it not the business of these schemes to take the burden out of the courts and out of the taxpayers’ way and make sure that they are properly resourced by the Financial Dispute Resolution Service? With that lens, it would be obvious that you would want consumer advocates making the decisions about whether disputes resolution schemes were doing their jobs. So I want to ask the Minister, will he consider my amendments which suggest consumer advocates as the appropriate bodies, particularly the amendment which would appoint, essentially, FinCap, or an organisation like FinCap, as the default reviewer going forward? Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:05): Look, the member does well to raise this and I want to reiterate the important difference between scheme-commissioned independent reviews and Minister-directed independent reviews. As officials have noted, that move away from schemes commissioning their own independent reviews of themselves addresses the wide variation in how schemes previously commissioned their own reviews. They are independent reviews. You’re not marking your own homework, but you’re getting four completely different independent reviews that have been commissioned by each scheme and conducted independently rather than ministerial oversight, to be able to set the framework but not the outcomes. As far as the Minister’s appointment of the reviewer and whether that should then be reviewed, well, I’m reliably informed that at least the key findings of each review will form each scheme’s annual report at the end of each year. And you’re right, it’s put in statute here: “The Minister may appoint as the reviewer any person who, in the Minister’s opinion, has the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to carry out the review.” So, yes, that does take some ministerial judgment, but as we have seen across parliaments, most Ministers, when they are appointing the people with the right expertise to oversee an independent review, get it right. If they don’t get it right, then there’s trouble to follow the Minister. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:07): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few more questions for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs in new section 67B, inserted by clause 7. I think the Minister has actually answered some of our questions already around review, etc.—my questions are quite separate. The Minister mentioned, multiple times, the fact that the Minister now gets to determine the framework, which I think is a great idea, but I just want to get a better understanding from the Minister of some of the potential questions around what that framework would look like. I’m drawing this from other external evaluation reviews that I myself partook in before, when I was in the private sector, particularly in education, on the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. The first question is when we’re looking, for example, at new section 67B(1), “1 or more approved dispute resolution schemes be carried out”, is there an expectation that all four will be done at different times or all four will be done at the same time? Is that the best value in terms for the information that we’re looking at? That might be being my first question. The second question is, when we are looking at, let’s say, 67B(2)(a), “when and how the review must be carried out”—and I want to draw also to new section 67C, I understand that the Minister must consult with the person responsible for a dispute resolution scheme (DRS) in this case. But I want to check if there’s any consideration around whether that review needs to be, in some ways, premeditated, as in, “We’re going to be going in on 15 July and this is when you’re supposed to have all of it ready.” or is it able to be conducted more like a spot check, as in, every so often, we may be able to drop in and just say, “Hey, we want to review this scheme today. You need to be able to give it to me right now.” That level of spontaneity also allows for a more robust scrutiny of any sort of dispute resolution scheme or any sort of schemes. We see that, for example, with some of the other potential schemes or other external evaluation reviews as well. My third question is around new section 67B(5) inserted by clause 7, which is, “The Minister must ensure … at least once every 5 years.” There are two parts to this question. When we are looking at what formerly used to be called the external evaluation review under NZQA—number one—they have a set of categories, right? If you hit the target, you are a category 1 institute, or category 2, 3 or 4, and those categories determine how frequently we’re going to be able to review you. So if you’re a category 1 institute, we will review you once every four years, but, if you drop down to a category 3, we will review you every year until you get back up to a certain category. Is that tier process something that the Minister has in mind, in terms of a framework—in which case, it’s quite nice because then all four schemes are on the same page in terms of, essentially, your record and your score card? So I just want to check with the Minister if that’s something that the Minister has considered as part of the framework and whether that would impact or affect how frequently they are going to be subsequently reviewed based on their category. My final question for the Minister is around new section 67B(2)(e) inserted by clause 7, which is a requirement for the person responsible for the scheme to pay fees. The Minister has already stated that. But I want to check, one of the things—and again, kind of drawing on previously, when we talked about anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism—is around that there’s a tiered fee process because those who are most at risk or more likely to create risk—i.e., banks, in those sorts of systems—will also have a different tiered system in terms of fees. When we were looking for the fees for the dispute resolution schemes (DRS), for these four, are they all kind of equal pegging in terms of the level of risk they present; or, potentially, would the Banking Ombudsman Scheme be presenting more risk because they’re banking, as opposed to Finance Services Complaints Ltd? Is that a consideration that the Minister had as well? So those are my questions. Are all of the schemes going to be reviewed at the same time or at different times? Is there consideration around the category system and whether the category would affect how often they are subsequently reviewed? Are they going to be doing spot checks, or are they going to be a very much structured review period? And, in terms of the fees, are there any tiers based on the level of risk each of the DRS presents? Thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Cameron Brewer. Simon Court: I move that debate on this question now close. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I haven’t called you, Mr Watts. I called the Hon Cameron Brewer. Simon Court: But— CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): But? Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:12): Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Watts! Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member too for his engagement on this. He’s after a feel of how this will happen and how these reviews will be commissioned and the frequency of them and can they happen concurrently. Yes, they can happen concurrently. They just have to happen once—at least once—every five years. Will there be kind of spot checks—kind of racing in there like a food safety inspector? No. As section 67B(1) inserted by clause 7 says, the schemes have to be given written notice to the responsible people who are overseeing that scheme. So there is a written notice period. So there’s a lot of good faith in this, and I’m sure that that will be realised. Just to reiterate: how do we know—what’s the public sunlight on the schemes and what the key findings have been when the reviews have been commissioned by the Minister. You will see—and I might be jumping ahead there—section 68(2)(b) “information about any independent review … if a report on the review was received under section 67E during the financial year;” must be reported on in that financial year annual report. And so there is a statutory obligation when the Minister initiates an independent review for the scheme to include the key findings in their annual reports. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I can see from the record that there is repetition. We are going over old ground. I’m going to invite members to talk to new material. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:14): Thank you so much. I don’t believe that new section 67F has been mentioned. Now, I want to talk about section 67F(2)—this is in clause 7. I wanted to ask: in this “The person responsible for a scheme must, within 5 working days after giving notice to the Minister, publish the following on an Internet site that is publicly available” Does the Minister intend to explore whether this should be a repository on a Government website—the link to these reports? Because there are multiple schemes, does the Minister intend to, for example, host the information that the schemes must publish online on a Government collated website to, I guess, increase the accessibility for the public to understand the notice and the report received under section 67A? If not, does he feel like the layperson will be able to actually—and I received principled feedback from people that I know who were actually telling me that they didn’t know that these four schemes existed. I think that the everyday person may not necessarily know that they do exist and how they can actually access. So does the Minister have any intention of allocating any resources to host these reports on a Government or ministry website at all; and if not, why not? Hon Cameron Brewer: Just on that, because that is a good question. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Hang on. The Hon Cameron Brewer. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Slow down. Hon CAMERON BREWER: Thank you. Just the level of excitement from me here, because this is very interesting stuff. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The TV cameras can’t keep up with you. Hon CAMERON BREWER: The schemes will be published. They publish the fact that there’s been notice given, and they also publish the report received. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) could link to it as well, and perhaps that’s something that I work with MBIE just to give these reports and these reviews the sunlight that they will deserve. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (16:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to further explore the answer from the Minister that we’ve just had now around making things publicly available on the website—and this is new section 67F(2) “The person responsible for a scheme must, within 5 working days after giving the notice to the Minister, publish the following on an Internet”—which was lower case, struck out, and replaced with “Internet” with a capital “I”—site that is publicly available”. There are a few questions about this. The first, really is around the use of language here, because “Internet site”, it’s a very strange way of saying website, so it’s curious language. The other thing is that it says “is publicly available” but then, in brackets, “at all reasonable times”. And so I’m wondering what an unreasonable time to be accessing a website to be looking at that would be or whether that is implying that there could at times be, through no fault of the party responsible, an outage that prevented that resource from being available on a website, which would seem to me an unnecessary inclusion in the bill. I’m just curious to know what the thinking behind that is and the choice of that language around referring to something as an “Internet site”. I’ve never heard anyone say “Please go to my Internet site and check out—x, y, or z.” Generally people will talk about a website or they’ll say “You can find me on the internet.” But “Internet site” seems like a term that exists only in this bill. I’ve never seen it anywhere else. But it’s really that question about reasonable times—what that is intended to capture—if the Minister could provide a little more information about that. The other point I wanted to make was that while we were back in section 67B—and I’m not planning to go backwards here at this point. But we were looking at some of the content in section 67B, particularly around section 67B(3). There was a reference from the Minister about how that connected in with something in future section 68. So I just wanted to bookmark for the Minister and, Madam Chair, for you that when we get to that—given that those two pieces of legislation are so connected and do speak to one another—that means we may want to refer back to some of the connectivity within the bill between those two parts. But what I wouldn’t want that to be mistaken for was going backwards. It’s certainly not my intention. But it is just to ensure that there’s a cohesion between those two parts of the bill. Primarily, the questions in this point from me are around that choice of language, being “Internet site” rather than “website”, but also what the “at all reasonable times” language is intended to capture—what the Minister is thinking would be a reasonable time, or just what the intention of that language is. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member, after me just saying, “please provide new material”, repeated the same question on the same issue as the previous speaker. I haven’t got much more tolerance for repetition. Arena Williams, have you got new material? ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:20): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll move the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to just a brief question on his replacement section 68, inserted by clause 8 of the bill, on page 4. The provisions at subsection (2)(a), (b), and (c), they don’t include a (d) there, which would have required reporting on consumer care requirements. That is something that arises in two pieces of legislation that he is responsible for, and his advisers will be able to advise him on. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act creates those kinds of reporting requirements for “buy now, pay later”, although those are on pause, and the financial advice providers provisions require them to report annually on their consumer care provisions as well. It’s also a very long-established part of the electricity retailers annual reporting components. I want to ask him whether he has considered a new (d) there, which would insert a requirement in the annual reports to give an assurance to consumers that compliance with consumer law and consumer care codes was in place. I’ll also move him to clause 9(2): after section 69(1), insert new subsection (1A). I want to ask him whether that provision for the timing specified for the Minister should be the old three-month provision. If it’s not the old three-month provision, why not? Was that because the industry wasn’t able to do it in that time frame? And if it’s not going to be three months, then is there a need for a better look at what is included in those reviews, if they are that onerous that someone sufficiently qualified cannot prepare them within three months? I’ll move him on to also clause 11. This one is the big one that the Finance and Expenditure Committee gave some consideration to. It is around governance probity, and it is one of the most important changes that he is making. It also gives rise to regulation-making powers, which the Regulations Review Committee was able to write to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on. So this is a useful one for him to clarify: the level of independence; what his initial provision was, which required members of the boards to be independent. The committee considered that the better level of independence was the board’s independence. So I want to ask him two things about this. Given that it’s industry practice now that the reviewers of the boards that are initiated by the systems themselves are members of other schemes, how would those other schemes show independence from the board at a board level? Because if a board is independent from the reviewer, then is it the case that no one who is a member of another board which does a similar sort of thing can possibly be independent? I also want to ask him then—this is obviously not then the sort of ordinary legal meaning of independence. Independence usually has a meaning that is defined by conflict, and conflicts are financial conflicts. They are conflicts for you or your spouse or someone who is your dependant or who has an arising financial interest in something that they could be considered to be conflicted by. But if a board has that level of independence, then that’s not what it is. So if we’re stepping outside of the ordinary meaning of independence, has he sought advice on what that would be? If you had, for example—I mean, it’s an ordinary and real example—a board here that was all of the same members administering one scheme and all of the same members administering another scheme, would a conflict arise? I’ll also ask him my question about the level of independence and probity that he expects now that we’ve set it at the board level—whether he would expect that to be something which was reported on in the annual report as well, the level of independence. Because, before, while he was sort of drawing a line in the sand that excluded any conflict, now he’s accepting a conflict. And I think that’s the right call. I have already canvassed that I think there is a shallow pool of directors who are going to be on these boards. We need to accept that New Zealanders deal with this all the time in a professional manner. But, given that he’s gone from all out to all in, is it appropriate then that in the annual reporting side, he would make a provision that would allow the annual report to capture either the conflicts of interest register-level reporting or what the Financial Markets Authority requires, which is a bit more than that, which is the actual transacting. Because where a financial interest arises, I think that’s where he would draw the line to bring them within the regime. Given that he’s now pushed all of those conflicts out, bring in the ones where actual financial benefit arises, bring in the ones where actual payments are made by schemes to people who would otherwise be the reviewers but for some other reason are members or beneficiaries of financial payments. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (16:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Minister. I just want to touch on clause 8, the section 68 replacement, because for consumers, transparency is very important and people should be able to see whether a scheme is resolving issues quickly and fairly or whether complaints are stacking up. However, raw data alone doesn’t help most people. What matters is clarity and plain language. If done well, these reports can empower consumers; if not, they just risk becoming a doorstop of paperwork that no one actually reads outside of Wellington. My question on that piece is around: how will these reports be made useful for ordinary people, not just officials? And then the other piece is it’s not just individuals interacting with these entities. It could be sole traders and small businesses as well. And yourself, Minister, being the small-business spokesperson, I just wanted to know if there were any specific metrics around small businesses and sole traders that you would like to see inside this annual report. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:26): At the risk of repeating myself around whether the public can have confidence that there’s going to be enough transparency in the findings of these reviews into the dispute resolution schemes, I point the member to the annual report—section 68(1) and (2), inserted by clause 8—as to the statutory obligations of each scheme to publish the key findings of their annual reports, and that includes the key findings of the actual dispute resolution reviews. And so I have given an assurance that there might also be the possibility of putting those dispute resolution reviews—linking them once they’re published—through to the MBIE site. And so there will be a lot of ability for the public to be able to see these independent reviews once they’ve been published. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:27): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a brief question for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. I had trouble hearing him, and I think he said that it was his intention—he can give me a nod if he likes. I think you said it was your intention to publish on the website. Hon Cameron Brewer: Once they’ve been published online, yeah. ARENA WILLIAMS: Great. OK. Understood. That’s great. I think that settles the question. The question that I had was just around—I’m at clause 12. It’s still very loud in the Chamber, Madam Chair. I am sorry. I’m at clause 12, where he’s entering a new section 79AAA into the primary Act. My question is: should the validity point point back to his new section 67B, inserted by clause 7? His new section 67B is requiring him to consult before the review happens. I’m asking him whether—because he’s said “must” not “may”; that’s not something I would have done. But should it still be valid, even if he gets his timing wrong, whereby he’s made notice, say, and has then consulted. It seems to me that given you’ve got these other provisions, Minister, where you’re taking a kind of high-trust model with the scheme providers, wouldn’t it also then be appropriate that if notice provisions, say, of terms of reference were done in the wrong order, that the consultation provision wouldn’t be the thing that got in the way of that? I raise it because consultation provisions for Government have been subject to litigation since bringing litigation against the Government was enabled, and that is one of the things that can trip Governments up. And so wouldn’t it be appropriate to just point section 79AAA also to section 67B? It would be a small change. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have, for me, one final question on clause 12, new section 79AAA. This is in relation to the letter that was sent to the select committee from the Regulations Review Committee, and this is to do with the breadth of clause 12, which talks about a “failure to comply” with the requirements of section 79(1)(caa). The failure to comply means that nothing in section 79AAA will be affected if they fail to apply to the regulations. And that’s to do with the appoint of a person, an act of a board. And the question which potentially may have been responded to—again, I’m not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But the question I have—and it’s important to be on the Hansard—is: what then is the repercussion if there was a failure to apply? Because it doesn’t invalidate anything. So just one simple question for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs on that. Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:30): The member raises a very good point, and it probably needs a full answer, and so bear with me. The failure to comply issue that he’s raised, the rationale for section 79AAA here is that it protects consumers from legal uncertainty and prevents technical challenges to past decisions. It mirrors section 34 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, does not remove consequences, and scheme approval can still be withdrawn under clause 5. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (16:31): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 44. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams’ two tabled amendments to the heading of clause 4, replacing “mandatory” with other words are out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to the heading of clause 4 replacing “mandatory” with “necessary” is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting subclause (1), be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting subclause (2), be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5, deleting subclauses (1) and (2), is out of order as being inconsistent with previous decisions of the committee. The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 6 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(1), replacing “may” with “must” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(1), replacing “may” with “must” and “1 or more” with “2 or more” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(1), making reviews mandatory unless there are good reasons not to, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dan Rosewarne’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(1), is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. Ingrid Leary’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(1), is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(2) replacing “may” with “must” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(2) replacing “may” with “must where reasonable” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(2) replacing “may” with “ought to” is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(2) inserting paragraph (f) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(2) inserting paragraph (f) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we have 20 tabled amendments to clause 7, new section 67B(3) replacing the word “person” with different terms. I’ll put the question on four of those amendments to test the will of the committee. The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(3) replacing “person” with “consumer advocate” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(3) replacing “person” with “reasonably capable and financially literate adviser” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(3) replacing “person” with “person who has recognised financial skills” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Lemauga Lydia Sosene’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67B(3) replacing “person” with “financial adviser” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The will of the committee having been tested, the remaining 16 tabled amendments to clause 7, new section 67B(3) are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that Arena Williams’ amendment to clause 7, new section 67C replacing “must” with “may” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67C replacing “must” with “may consult by email” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67C replacing “must” with “ought to” is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67C relating to having regard for consumer interests be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67C, relating to having regard for consumer interests including community fundraising enterprises, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67D(1)(a), replacing “reasonable” with “necessary”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67D(1)(a), replacing “reasonable” with “required”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67E, replacing “as soon as practicable” with “within 3 months”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67E, replacing “as soon as practicable” with “within 6 months”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Jenny Salesa’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67E, replacing “each person responsible for” with “each person actively in charge of”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67E, deleting all the words after “to the Minister” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67E, replacing “must” with “ought” is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67F(2), replacing “5 working days” with “10 working days”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 7, new section 67F(2), replacing “5 working days” with “20 working days”, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 68(1), replacing “3 months” with “2 months” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 68(1), replacing “3 months” with “70 days” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 68(1), replacing “3 months” with “40 days” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 68(1), replacing “3 months” with “3 months” is out of order as having no legislative effect. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 68(2)(b), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 68(2)(b), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. Members, we have 21 tabled amendments to clause 8, inserting new section 68(2)(d). I will put the question on three of these amendments to test the will of the committee. The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 8, inserting new section 68(2)(d), relating to small-business complaints about interest rates be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8, inserting new section 68(2)(d), relating to trends in consumer experience be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 8, inserting new section 68(2)(d), relating to information about changes to key governance personnel be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The will of the committee having been tested, the remaining 18 amendments to clause 8, inserting new section 68(2)(d), are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 68(2), inserting new paragraphs (d) to (f) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendmentbe agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 68(2), inserting new paragraphs (d) to (f) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Georgie Dansey’s tabled amendment to clause 9(2), new section 69(1A), replacing “within 3 months” with “within 21 days” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 9(2), new section 69(1A), replacing “within the time” with “within a reasonable timeframe” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dan Rosewarne’s remaining tabled amendment to clause 9(2), new subsection (1A) of section 69, is out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words. Arena Williams’ two tabled amendments to clause 9(2), new section 69(1A), are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 9(2), new section 69(1A), is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 9(2), new section 69(1A), inserting “and no longer than 10 working days” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. Georgie Dansey’s tabled amendment to clause 9(2), new section 69(1A), inserting “and no longer than 5 working days” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11(1), new section 79(1)(caa)(iii), to delete “reasonably” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Reuben Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1), new section 79(1)(caa)(iii), to replace “reasonably” with “autonomous” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 11(1), new section 79(1)(caa)(iii), to replace “reasonably” with “is seen to be” be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1), new section 79(1)(caa), inserting new subparagraph (iv) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ingrid Leary’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1), new section 79(1)(caa), inserting new subparagraph (iv) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dan Rosewarne’s tabled amendment to clause 11(1), new section 79(1)(caa), inserting new subparagraph (iv) be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to delete clause 12 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 12A, inserting new section 80A, requiring the Minister to review how information about disputes is shared with consumers be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 12A, inserting new section 80A, requiring the Minister to introduce regulations to require the display of information about financial services disputes be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 12A, inserting new section 80A, requiring the Commerce Commission to review the operation of the Part in respect of consumer fairness be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 12A, inserting new section 80A, requiring the Minister to review the operation of disputes resolution schemes be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43 New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ four tabled amendments to insert new clause 12A to require a review of the operation of Part 1 by a specified select committee and a response from the Minister are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. Arena Williams’ four tabled amendments to insert new clause 12A, inserting new section 80A, to require a review of the operation of Part 1 by a specified select committee and a response from the Minister are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Ingrid Leary’s three tabled amendments to insert new clause 12A, inserting new section 81, relating to reviews of the operation of Part 1 are out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Part 1 agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (17:20): Before we come to Part 2, I am just going to make a comment here. I know we’re in urgency, but we have a bill here that has been to select committee, so members have had a chance to participate. There were, as I understand it, no minority views in that select committee, and all parties have supported the bill. I suggest that perhaps in the future, in situations like that, members may do a bit more homework within the committee, because we’ve just spent close to an hour’s time voting on stuff that had already been largely agreed in the select committee process. I just want members of all parties to think about how we make process in this House in the future.