Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to begin by thanking the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their prompt handling of this Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill. The committee received four submissions and heard from two submitters.

The amendment bill contains a small number of amendments to the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2010 and one consequential amendment to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. It aims to reduce or eliminate unnecessary compliance costs and address technical issues identified during provisional licensing to ensure a smooth transition to full licensing of insurers. As previously noted, the Reserve Bank has reviewed the operation of the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act during the transitional period towards full licensing, which expires on 7 September 2013. Although the Act has proved to be generally effective and robust, it is not unexpected that some provisions were identified as appropriate for reform. In particular, two provisions in the Act could expose insurers or the Reserve Bank to operational complications at the end of the transitional period.

The amendment bill as introduced proposed to extend the term of the provisional licences of insurers that enter into an insolvency procedure before 7 September 2013. At this date insurers that are subject to an insolvency procedure will not qualify for a full licence. The committee recommends that clause 16 be amended to allow for a provisional licence to remain in force where any of the following circumstances apply to an insurer: it is in an insolvency proceeding, its application for a full licence has been refused, or it is subject to a direction from the Reserve Bank to cease entering new contracts of insurance. Under these circumstances the provisional licence may remain in force until the Reserve Bank is satisfied that it should be cancelled.

The second proposal relates to interim financial reporting requirements. The bill recommends that overseas insurers, on application to, and approval by, the Reserve Bank, be permitted to provide half-yearly financial reporting based on the home country regulatory reporting requirements. In addition, the committee recommends a change to the provision of interim financial information requirements to extend the period by which interim financial information must be reported to the Reserve Bank from 3 months to 4 months. This will align with the time frame for annual reporting recommended by the Commerce Committee in the Financial Reporting Bill. I commend this bill to the House.

We have got a bit of competition for this call. I was very happy to stand aside. The Labour Party is supporting the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill. It is as the previous speaker, Minister Collins, described and is the sort of housekeeping legislation that normally finds support across the House. There are a couple of things that I will traverse.

The first is that there are a couple of minor changes that were made by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The first, as the Minister has outlined, is just to extend from 3 to 4 months the period in which interim financial information must be prepared and given to the Reserve Bank. This is now aligning with the Financial Reporting Bill, which has been to the Commerce Committee. The second relates to provisional licences. It became apparent that if an institution could not get a final licence because, for example, it had become insolvent, the Reserve Bank would have lost its oversight function because the provisional licence could not stay in force. That, obviously, is not very sensible, and so the committee recommends that provisional licences can stay on foot to give the Reserve Bank some continuing powers in respect of those entities until such time as either they cancel their licences or, if their problems can be fixed, they can move to a full licence.

There is one other issue that is not directly affected by this bill, but I think it is good to put it on record. There is a debate going on in New Zealand at the moment as to whether the strength of insurance companies and their financial worth should be sufficient to meet a one-in-500-year event or a one-in-1,000-year event. It is my understanding that the reasoning that lies behind the move towards requiring them to be strong enough to withstand the consequences of a one-in-1,000-year event, rather than a one-in-500-year event, is that the Alpine Fault, which goes once every 800 years, roughly, and the big quake that could hit New Zealand or Wellington in that rare event ought to be able to be catered for by the insurance community without the insurance community going broke and, effectively, leaving it to others, perhaps either putting the onus on to private individuals, who would be left uninsured, or leaving it to the Government to pick up the bill.

This is a very difficult decision because there are trade-offs to be made as to whether the additional level of security that would be obtained is, firstly, necessary, and, secondly, affordable, because if there are greater capital requirements required of insurance companies, then that cost will be passed on to consumers through the insurance bills that they pay. So the first problem could be that if insurance costs go up as a consequence of this higher degree of confidence that we would have that they could meet these very expensive but rarer events, it might be that it leads to lower levels of insurance because people cannot afford their insurance bills. That is one issue. The second issue—and this was raised with me recently by a senior member of the insurance industry—is that if the capital requirements become too high, it may be that some of the multinationals that are present in New Zealand cannot get the support from their parent companies to provide the additional level of capital that is required by the New Zealand regulator because they will not be able to get a decent rate of return on it from the insurance market in New Zealand. As a consequence, some of those insurers may withdraw from the New Zealand market, reduce their presence, or become more selective about the sort of cover that they are willing to offer, because their parent owning bodies overseas are not willing to extend the additional capital to the New Zealand subsidiary to meet those requirements. The third potential problem with it is that if the capital barriers to entry for new entrants go even higher, we are likely to become even more dependent in New Zealand in an important aspect of our financial services sector, namely our insurance companies, on overseas-owned companies, and they will face less competition from New Zealand - owned entities.

I think these are three very important concerns. Although I understand the concerns of the Reserve Bank about improving from a prudential point of view the likelihood that insurance companies can meet large events, we have to be very careful that we properly take into account the three factors that I have mentioned. The first issue is the cost of insurance. The second issue is the possibility that some of the multinational insurers will not get the capital backing required from their parent companies to meet those commitments and therefore might withdraw from the market, which would reduce competition and, again, could drive up costs and also increase risks because we would become more reliant as a country on a smaller number of insurance companies. The third issue is whether we are going to see ever-greater capital flows or returns of profits from the New Zealand insurance market to overseas companies because it is less likely that we will have New Zealand participants in the insurance market. That issue has been raised with me by more than one representative of the insurance industry, and I believed their comments to me to be unedited and not self-interested. They were actually not talking in pursuit of their own interests. They were talking about what they thought was in New Zealand’s interest, and I believed them to be straight in that regard. That is an issue that we have got to grapple with. It is a complex one, and I hope that we get that one right in New Zealand.

Although this area of Reserve Bank policy in this bill finds the support of the Labour Party, it is fair to say that we have considerable concern about the effectiveness of overall Reserve Bank arrangements in New Zealand. We are not convinced that monetary policy is right yet. It was interesting that when 3 years ago we pulled out of the cross-party accord on monetary policy we were accused of heresy, and a couple of the things that we called for to be changed have quietly been changed since—namely, the adoption of, albeit in a somewhat clumsy way, the macro-prudential tools. There is also a discussion paper that is now out from Treasury, or some work that has been done by Treasury, looking at the decision-making process in the Reserve Bank and whether it should be the governor or the board that takes decisions relating to monetary policy, which is another change that we called for. It is strange how these things were heresy a couple of years ago, but when there has been true leadership shown by the Labour Party, even occasionally the National Party follows suit.

What it has not addressed in respect of monetary policy is, of course, the fundamental problem under the Act, which is that primacy has to be given by the Reserve Bank to inflation-targeting, ahead of other important aspects of economic management that are impacted by monetary policy, including the exchange rate. As a consequence, we have fewer jobs in New Zealand and we have a larger current account deficit, which is probably New Zealand’s largest economic vulnerability. It is a much larger cause of problems than the insurance matters to which we are referring here. That is not to diminish the importance of the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill, which the Labour Party supports.

It is my pleasure to speak on the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill. I think it is good to see widespread agreement across the House in support of this bill, although we have not yet heard from the Greens or New Zealand First. This is an area of insurance that is of great concern to many households in the country at the moment. It is second only, I suppose, to local body rates, which are always going up rapidly. Insurance costs have been rising considerably in the last few years as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes. When those earthquakes struck, all New Zealanders did have to ultimately face a higher price for their insurance as the industry recalibrated its assessment of risk in New Zealand, as we have been forcibly reminded that we live in these shaky isles.

The bill is very important for building a more competitive and productive economy, which is indeed very much one of the key goals of this Government, that we make sure we have a well-functioning and efficient insurance sector. That was indeed the purpose of the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act, which was passed in 2010, and one consequential amendment of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act in 1989. All in all, the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act has proven to be very effective and robust, but it is not unexpected that there would be one or two provisions that would be in line for some reform 2 or 3 years out, and that indeed is the purpose of this bill, which is really to tweak a few matters that require some attention further down the line.

The Act establishes a licensing and prudential regulation regime for all insurers, and all insurers are to be licensed and supervised by the Reserve Bank and must comply with prudential requirements. Some of these reforms in the amendment bill ensure that the provisions in the current Act do not expose insurers or the Reserve Bank to operational complications at the end of the transition period. One reform relates to the interim financial reporting that is prepared in accordance with New Zealand generally accepted accounting practice requirements. The proposed amendments allow the Reserve Bank to specify another basis for reporting by overseas insurers, so they are not having to be running two different sets of accounts in a very complicated manner in order to deal with their regulatory requirements here.

I would just like to thank all members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who worked very hard on this bill. The committee received four submissions. The number was not great, but the overall interest in the bill was substantial. We heard from two submitters directly, recommending a change to the provision of interim financial information requirements. The committee recommends extending the period by which interim financial information must be reported to the Reserve Bank from 3 to 4 months. I remember that one of the submitters suggested 5 months, but I think they all agreed that going to 4 months made sense, as it would align with the time frame for annual reporting recommended by the Commerce Committee in the Financial Reporting Bill.

The other reform relates to the extension of the term for provisional licences or insurers that enter into insolvency procedures before 7 September 2013.

All in all, I thank the members of the committee and the officials, who worked very hard on this bill. I have no doubt that when passed it will add some greater assurance to the sector, in the hope that over the next few years, in what is proving to be a difficult sector in the New Zealand economy as we come to terms with the complications and the consequences of the Canterbury earthquakes, this legislation will serve us well. Thank you.

I have to start by saying that this legislation, the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill, has introduced a rare outbreak of consensus in the House, at least thus far. Even after that scintillating address from Mr Goldsmith, I do not think we will see many people marching in the street over this legislation, despite—

💬 Paul Goldsmith: It had gravitas.

Well, Mr Goldsmith is telling us that he spoke with gravitas. I will let the viewers at home make their own assessment. But, as I say, there will not be people marching in the street, I do not think, even after that scintillating address with gravitas, in the way that there are people upset by, say, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation, which we have seen before this House today. I understand that 66,000 people signed an online petition on that, and that was nearly twice as many as debated snapper.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

This piece of legislation attracted just four submissions—just four submissions—which is a long way, I think members of this House will agree, from the amount of interest in those other areas, which I shall not go any further into at this point.

Mr Goldsmith himself is to be congratulated on steering this legislation through. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee as it dealt with this legislation, but I have worked with many of the members on it before. I know that they do work well and constructively together, and they have brought this bill back to the House very quickly. If this side of the House was to be critical at all of the way in which this bill has progressed, it would be—

💬 Paul Goldsmith: There’s no need to.

—of the stopping and starting nature of its progress. Mr Goldsmith says that there is no need for that, but I think the viewers at home should understand that this bill does come into effect to take over from the transitional period, which the previous Act covered, which expires in September this year. So suddenly there is an urgency to get this bill through the House.

It is housekeeping legislation, as Mr Parker has drawn attention to, but it is housekeeping legislation that is now being rushed through, due to the, perhaps, incompetence of the Government’s management of the House. We certainly have seen a lot of urgency and extended House time in the House this year, and also, in terms of the legislation itself, there are a lot of “Henry VIII” clauses in legislation, certainly in the Inland Revenue Department stuff that has been dealt with through that same committee, dealing with matters related in terms of revenue and so forth. We have seen clauses in legislation that have been intended to cover up for stuff-ups that might subsequently happen. Certainly, the student loans area has seen lots of legislation that has not been able to be implemented and has subsequently caused the Government embarrassment. So it has become fond of these “Henry VIII” clauses. I am pleased to say that there is none in this particular piece of legislation, and that is because it is a very simple piece of legislation, which has widespread agreement, and it is simply tidying up a couple of simple matters.

The area that the Reserve Bank is getting the powers in is to do with monetary policy. We do know that there are a number of things that are not in this legislation that might, in fact, be more useful and more usefully debated, perhaps, if the Government was able to get legislation through the House in a useful time frame and in an orderly manner and not stopping and starting. We would, in fact, be debating in more depth the use of macro-prudential tools, such as those announced today by the Government—those loan-to-value ratios that will shut more first-home buyers out of the market. These are important issues. The things that the Reserve Bank deals with that are dealt with here in this legislation do affect a lot of people, either directly or indirectly. This bill contains amendments that are largely technical issues, including requiring the Reserve Bank to keep a register of licensed insurers. It is very difficult to object to such a measure, I have to say. This bill also contains amendments that empower the Reserve Bank to give notice to an insurer that allows the insurer to prepare interim financial information in accordance with requirements other than the New Zealand generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP), which Mr Goldsmith referred to. It also extends the term of provisional licences of insurers that enter into an insolvency procedure before 7 September 2013.

No one would argue that any of these things should not be in the legislation. We really would only be more concerned with what is not in the legislation, in terms of the Reserve Bank’s powers. If the Reserve Bank was given more powers to be more flexible in the area of monetary policy, we might have a more up-to-date and 21st century policy that kept pace with the rest of the world. Mr Parker raised the matter of the promissory of inflation targeting—I note that Mr Goldsmith had nothing to say in response to that—and the lack of economic growth and the lack of employment opportunities that this 1980s legislation has introduced and failed to correct over time. Governments of all stripes have failed to address this issue fully, in my view. But it falls again to the Labour Party to raise these issues and to ask why it is not in this piece of legislation, why we are not addressing these big issues in this House, and why we are stopping and starting to take pieces of housekeeping legislation like this through. We might otherwise be debating bigger issues, the kinds of issues around economic growth and employment that see in my area down in Dunedin the loss of 85 jobs at Invermay—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a second reading speech, and a second reading is what has come back from the select committee. So I ask the member to confine his comments just to that.

Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. I understand that the select committee did have a discussion about monetary policy and its wider implications, which I am alluding to. I apologise if I am spreading that debate too widely, but these are important matters.

The Labour Party will support this legislation. We recognise that it is a sensible bill. That is why we supported it going to the select committee. That is why our members heard those submissions. That is why our members describe the bill as housekeeping. That is why our members questioned why there might not be a little bit more in this bill that actually would support our exporters so that we could have an export-led recovery in the fashion that the Government talks about but has failed to deliver upon.

We have also discussed the insurance industry here and a shift from a one-in-500-year cover to a one-in-1,000-year cover, and there can be no disagreement with the importance of ensuring that New Zealand has adequate insurance cover and has an industry-friendly policy so that insurers are not faced with undue red tape when delivering their policy to New Zealand. No doubt that has been taken into account in the exemptions around GAAP that have been proposed, which I am sure will be discussed further by Mr Bennett when it comes time for his contribution, which many in this House will listen to with great interest, as with so many of his contributions on insurance matters in the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Well, it comes to the end of this contribution, and I do wish to again stress that the Labour Party will be supporting this bill, despite the reservations that I and other members have raised with the House in terms of the completeness of the legislation and in terms of its failure to address those broader issues of economic growth and employment that are affected by monetary policy that is put through this House. This is housekeeping legislation. It is not a hands-on approach. It is not hands on in the way that some of the other areas are being dealt with. When we think of the Tīwai smelter or the GCSB, there is a much more active role being taken by the Government. But it is legislation that needs to go through this House. It is legislation that we welcome. It makes those changes that will make it easier for insurers to be here and to make sure that New Zealanders are supported through good times and bad. We think particularly of those who have been affected by the recent earthquakes in Wellington, and the fears they may be carrying, which may in some small way be alleviated by having insurers available and able to share some of the risk that goes with living in these shaky isles. Thank you.

The objective of this bill before us, the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill, is to amend the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2010, which established a licensing and prudential supervision regime for insurers operating in New Zealand. The amendments are claimed to have the aim of improving the Act’s effectiveness and ensuring a smooth transition to full licensing of insurers by, first, amending the provisions that are unnecessary; second, amending provisions that impose unwarranted compliance costs; and, third, addressing so-called technical issues. The amendments are described as generally minor and technical in nature, and indeed they have been described by colleagues, especially from Labour several times in the House tonight, as housekeeping. So that is the objective.

What is in the content of the bill? There are nine technical changes to the prudential requirements pertaining to the insurance industry. Let us look at a few of them. Firstly, the amendments will include things like allowing the Reserve Bank to exempt a licensed insurer from the requirement to have a current financial strength rating if the insurer has stopped writing new contracts. Secondly, it would allow overseas insurers to use the accounting rules that apply in their home country for interim financial reporting, rather than adhering to New Zealand’s own accounting practices. Thirdly, it would require the Reserve Bank to keep a public register of all licensed insurers, while dropping the requirement for it to be made available on the bank’s website. Fourthly, it would make any offences under the principal Act category 3 offences, as defined by the Crimes Act, thereby creating a statute of limitations of 5 years.

The bill was referred, after the first reading, to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on, I think, 8 May. Enough time—5 weeks or so—was allowed until the closing of submissions on 14 June. As David Clark has pointed out, only four submissions were actually made, and in fact only two were heard by the committee. So this housekeeping is scarcely an earth-shattering event. The recommendations that came back from the select committee were minor, as the committee itself described them. There were some changes to clause 11, extending the deadline for interim financial information from 3 months to 4 months. There were changes to clause 16 pertaining to provisional licences, and to section 246, in clause 16, on that subject as well. These are minor changes to a technical bill.

In its essence, the bill is seeking to relax the regulatory framework, and this is the wrong time to be doing this—in a post - global financial crisis environment. The housekeeping that we are talking about is the wrong kind of housekeeping. It is tidying up some simple matters, but heading in the wrong direction. On that basis, the Green Party opposed this bill in the first reading. The minor amendments recommended by the select committee change nothing. The Green Party will continue to oppose the bill.

I rise to speak to the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill. We are, of course, talking about the amendments that came back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee. As one of my colleagues across the House said a little earlier, it has been a rare outbreak of consensus in the House, and certainly it was so in the select committee. As others have tracked through, we had four submissions, and we heard two of them. The Reserve Bank, which is really quite crucially involved with this piece of technical, detailed amendment to legislation, was very much in favour of the main thrust of it. I think that the majority agreement was not hard to reach. I struggle to find anything in the bill that actually caused much in the way of dissent, not that I am looking very hard, of course. It is not in my nature to do so. The amendments proposed in this bill are very minor and technical and have done the job very well.

I guess from the point of view of the public, when you look at insurers needing to be licensed and supervised by the Reserve Bank and then needing to comply with prudential requirements—and taking up the point that Dr Kennedy Graham, the speaker who just resumed his seat, made, there is public disquiet around the regulations and the governing of what people do, particularly, I guess, with the global financial crisis and some of the other challenges that we have withstood as a nation—it is, I think, a very good piece of legislation for these times and it does need to be done. So the Reserve Bank’s role will be as both the regulator and the supervisor.

Some of the reforms that I think are really too technical and of not much interest in general to the House I will not spend any time on. But when I look at the overall thrust of what this piece of legislation is seeking to do, it is entirely consistent with what we seek to do as a Government, which is to cut red tape and to reduce unnecessary compliance costs. We try to do that wherever we find it. We hunt it down, we seek it out, and we deal with it as we can. So I think that with this bill, which will allow the Reserve Bank to exempt an insurer that is, for example, running off its liabilities from the requirement to have a current financial strength rating—all of these sorts of things—the public can rest easy that they are being well looked after, their needs are being served, the precautions that need to be taken are being taken, and we are cutting down the unnecessary red tape. I think really there is not too much more to be said. I commend the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill to the House.

I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We believe it is vitally important that the fundamental situation in New Zealand is that we have a sound, well-functioning insurance sector. It has been clearly proven over recent years during our major natural disasters that unless we do, New Zealand is at great risk. It is most important—and I think all parties in this House would agree—that we have a robust insurance sector with substance, and that, of course, includes our own Earthquake Commission.

The insurance sector underpins the basics of our modern economy. If we do not have a sound insurance sector, our whole economy could well suffer. The public must have confidence that this sector is sound, and appropriate prudential supervision of the sector is an important regulatory function that this Parliament must ensure is done to the very highest level. The Christchurch earthquakes demonstrated the critical role of insurance and they highlighted some concerns, as were illustrated in the situation with AMI. It would be so easy for situations like that to occur if there was no oversight by this Parliament and by the Government to ensure that the right safeguards are put in place in terms of the insurance sector. But the major disasters have also revealed some aspects of the insurance sector that may not be working optimally for New Zealand. With so much of the insurance sector dominated by overseas companies, it is essential that the regulatory framework is comprehensive, is up to date, and works well. New Zealand First appreciates the significance of the insurance sector, that it operates well in New Zealand, and that at this present time we do seem to have it well and truly in hand.

That is not to say that things cannot fall through the cracks, however. This bill goes a long way to tidying up areas such as that. But New Zealand First does have a few questions, such as the financial standards not being required of the insurance provider if it is in a run-off period. If the licensed insurer is described as being in a state of run-off and is not entering into new contracts for insurance, the Reserve Bank will be satisfied that it does not, therefore, have to have a current financial strength rating. We do have some concerns about that. We would welcome the Minister of Finance and the Government explaining this a little further, because we believe that the highest financial ratings should be required even at a time when an insurance company is running down in New Zealand. We would not want an insurer to slip out the back door because its financial ratings were not held to the highest level throughout its activities in New Zealand.

The Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill is very much an administrative bill. It is a technical bill. It tidies up areas through the Reserve Bank to make sure that our insurance industry in New Zealand has better governance and better oversight. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, as we believe it takes positive steps for improved controls over the insurance industry and it will enhance the effectiveness of the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act. So New Zealand First will be supporting it.

Call it tidying up, call it housekeeping, or call it what you like, this Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill is in place because the National Government is firmly focused on responsibly managing the Government’s finances and building a more competitive and productive economy. This bill is another significant step towards achieving a clear, robust regulatory arrangement across our financial sector. Although the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2010 has proven to be generally effective and robust, it is not unexpected that some provisions have been identified as appropriate for reform. The bill does not involve significant changes to existing policy, and it is expected to continue to benefit from industry support. This is a really good bill. I commend it to the House. We will be voting for it.

I know that it is very close to time to be calling it quits tonight, but I intend to take only a very short call on this Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill. As a couple of members on our side of the House have said, and I think Maggie Barry also said, this was one of those instances where in the Finance and Expenditure Committee there was relative—

💬 John Hayes: Which you’re not on.

No, I am not on it. But I am able to comment on it because I have read the bill, which obviously you had not, Mr Hayes. Can I just say that there was a level of consensus in the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I just want to echo the comments that were made by the previous speaker from New Zealand First, Mr Andrew Williams. You only had to be here in Wellington on Friday afternoon and to experience the earthquake—I also sympathise with the people of Seddon who have been through some rough times in the last month or so with earthquakes, and also acknowledge people in Christchurch—to realise just how important the insurance industry is. Making sure that we do have a sound insurance sector available for Kiwis to make sure that if God does take its path and there is some kind of disaster, there will be some kind of compensation in it. I think that after the Christchurch experience the public certainly want to have confidence in the insurance sector, and also that with a greater level of oversight the Reserve Bank may be able to keep watch of all those players in the insurance industry and make sure that they are keeping above board and that their businesses are solid.

I guess it has been thrashed here throughout this debate that this is a piece of housekeeping legislation. But although it may be minimal and there may be a consensus across the House, I think that most New Zealanders will be very pleased that there is a level of consensus around this piece of legislation, because they want to have a certain degree of confidence in our insurance sector. I guess this bill and the amendments made to it at the Finance and Expenditure Committee give that level of confidence to Kiwis out there who are very, I guess rightly, concerned about the stability of the insurance sector. With that I would like to say that Labour will be supporting this bill to the next stage.