Stage Two of the Review: Development of Draft Options for Reform
Development of Draft Options for Reform
Stage Two of the Review is now complete. It entailed the development of draft options for reform. We established eight advisory groups to provide advice and expertise to MED officials on options development, costs and benefits of various proposals and implementation. The advisory groups acted as a sounding board to ensure that the policy proposals meet the needs and circumstances of New Zealand industry and consumers. We also had a series of one-on-one meetings with people from key industry and consumer organisations, professional organisations and government bodies.
The contributions by advisory groups were a core part of the development of the nine discussion documents that have been released as Stage Three of the Review.
Detailed information about the role of the advisory groups is given below.
Advisory Groups - Focus and Membership
The purpose of the advisory groups was to bring together industry and expert perspectives to ensure that policy proposals best meet the needs and circumstances of New Zealand industry and consumers.
There were six advisory groups held in Wellington, each focusing on one of the following areas of the Review:
- Superannuation
- Insurance
- Non bank deposit-takers (including friendly societies, credit unions, building societies, co-operative companies, industrial and provident societies, and some finance companies)
- Product and issuer disclosure issues generally
- Debt and equity
- Managed funds/collective investment schemes (including unit trusts, group managed funds, participatory securities, contributory mortgages)
Additionally, there were two advisory groups held in Auckland, focusing on the following areas of the Review:
- Superannuation and insurance
- Collective investment schemes and debt and equity
Representatives from key industry and consumer organisations, industry participants, professional organisations and government bodies were asked to participate in advisory groups.
Advisory group members provided valuable industry expertise and knowledge, tested the policy options and provided advice on the costs and benefits of various proposals and any implementation issues. Members were appointed in their individual capacity rather than as representatives of a particular group or entity.
Each advisory group consisted of 8 to 10 members (plus officials). This number allowed for a sufficiently broad representation across the range of financial sector interests, while being sufficiently small to allow practical and useful conversations to take place in the groups.
Due to the size restrictions we could not include all stakeholders on the advisory groups. We were still very keen to hear from any people and organisations interested in the options development stage of the Review, and were happy to receive any comments, or arrange meetings with officials to hear views. Of course, all interested people and organisations have the opportunity to comment in Stage Three of the Review (the release of discussion documents for consultation).
Role of Advisory Groups
The role of each advisory group was to provide specialist, practical and independent advice and feedback on various matters such as:
- The "coal face" workings of the financial sector;
- Potential options for reform to address the problems identified with financial products and providers in New Zealand;
- How the options would be viewed by the public;
- The costs and benefits of various options; and
- Any implementation and design issues around the options.
MED sought and welcomed the views of advisory group members, but advisory groups were not responsible for any conclusions or decisions on the Review, nor were advisory groups expected to produce a report or any other documentation or to make any formal recommendations.
Process for Meetings
Members of the groups received an agenda prior to meetings, together with discussion papers intended to stimulate thinking and discussion.
There was no formal minute taking, but MED officials sometimes took notes in order to inform policy development. The discussion was taken into account as part of the Review's overall process of policy design.
Free and Frank Discussions in Meetings
MED officials wanted advisory group members to have free and frank discussions about the regulation of financial products and providers in New Zealand.
To encourage this, MED officials applied Chatham House Rules to advisory group meetings. This meant that officials could use the information and views discussed at the meetings, but the identity or the affiliation of any speaker would not be revealed outside the meeting.
This also meant that advisory group members were asked to keep advisory group discussions confidential. Hence, while advisory group members could provide information on the timing and progress of the Review back to their industry groups, members were asked not to repeat advisory group conversations outside the meeting.
Conflicts of Interests
Members of the advisory groups were not asked to give formal advice, or to produce any formal report. This reduced the risk of any conflicts of interest arising between their role as an advisory group member and their ordinary employment obligations.
Time Commitment
The time commitment for advisory group members was a few hours per month. The commitment was small as the advisory groups were not expected to produce any set document. Instead, as noted above, advisory group discussion fed into policy development.
No Remuneration
Advisory group members did not receive any remuneration. The advisory groups were not statutory boards for the purposes of the Fees and Travelling Allowance Act 1951 and travelling expenses and sitting fees were not paid.
Location
Advisory group meetings were held in Auckland (coordinated through MED's Auckland office) and in Wellington.
Documents
Back to Top