@ John Milner - well said. FYI - let's hope these changes below make a difference. New Zealanders will soon face fewer unnecessary barriers to proving who they are under a refreshed anti-money laundering Identity Verification Code of Practice announced today by Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden and Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee. The majority of the Code will come into force on 1 July 2026, marking its first update since 2013. “The AML regime has become too slow, too repetitive, and too frustrating for ordinary New Zealanders and the businesses serving them,” says Mrs McKee. “For years, AML compliance has meant higher costs, slower transactions, and endless frustration. This Government’s changes deliver the most meaningful reduction in AML red tape since the regime was introduced.” “This refreshed Code is an early example of our improvements to the AML regime – with clearer guidance, more consistency, and a more practical approach for businesses that have been crying out for reform. “AML rules should target real financial crime, not low-risk customers. When the risk is low, requirements will be less burdensome.” “The new Code makes it easier for businesses to check Kiwis are who they say they are in ways that are safe, sensible, and proportionate to risk,” says Ms van Velden.

I've came across numerous KS account holders who thinks their KS is safer with a bank. They simply refused to know / understand that bank don't guarantee their KS funds, and it is no different with non-bank providers.

Picking up on Brian Coogan's comment on AML, I spent an hour I'll never get back on a Teams call with the DIA, which has taken on responsibility for AML from the FMA. I mentioned to the speaker that research by Dr Ron Pol, an NZ AML expert, finds the AML bureaucracy has a 0.1% success rate in many countries. He recommends using the money spent on AML to support those that fight crime, instead of supporting an expensive process that clearly doesn't work. When asked what the outcome of "The 2028 Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Mutual Evaluation" looks like, his response was all about the process and had nothing to do with the outcome. The goal being the prevention of illicit funds circulating throughout the community. I guess that is not part of his mandate. And there lies the issue. Focusing on a failed process and not the problem. Have a think about that success rate the next time you have to process a trust for AML. Here is a link to a paper written by Ron on this very subject: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366#references-Section1