According to the Minister of State's script, the mandate of the regulatory authority is to promote the best interests of users of financial services – which means those of consumers – in a way that is consistent with the orderly and proper functioning of financial markets and the orderly and prudent supervision of the providers of those services. When those interests have to be balanced, whose will have the heavier weight? Whose is the easiest to leave out? Who will have the least organised lobby, the least organised publicity? It is clearly the user, the consumer. That is inevitable because, to again push the environmental analogy, the consumer is the point source of information whereas the regulated are organised institutions with a profile, resources and a continuity of interest in these matters, which means that they will have a continuous feedback into the regulating bodies. Therefore, the definition of what represents a way that is consistent with orderly and proper functioning will almost inevitably and without any malice or wrongdoing by anybody be balanced in the interests of the regulated rather than consumers. Once that balance is allowed to be taken into consideration there is a fundamental argument about this legislation. Co-opting the Director of Consumer Affairs – I will come to the credit unions later – into this essentially regulatory process will inevitably guarantee that the balance of interests will be weighed in the direction of the regulated rather than consumers. Again, this is not a criticism of the Director of Consumer Affairs, though that office did fail on a major issue.