Nice commentary. I agree it's pretty pedantic to look at hours rather than nights. And I have had claims where hours rather than nights have been used to determine payment of this benefit. My experience with this has been mixed, with some insurers considering discharge and readmission to be the same admission paying a contiguous claim. With others being a bit pedantic. Given my knowledge and history with product changes, I can only conclude that someone has complained about the definition(s) which have driven changes tightening the response. End of the day the insurers are under pressure with claims, and we have seen this benefit removed with Southern Cross and moved into an optional area with Partners Life. So it's no longer a given there will be a response from policies for this either.

That seems an awfully long-winded way to say FirstCape will be adopting its newly acquired Consilium FNZ platform. The’ve done the heavy lifting so why not acknowledge that. Or are they really going to start from scratch?

@Amused – I wouldn’t feel too bad about the use your comment was put to. And the fact Stobo wasn’t on the Indi board at the time of his resignation doesn’t make the conflict less problematic. I have no view on whether Stobo fell victim to a “witch hunt". I’m not sure that Barrass’ view represents a change, on her part, of how she viewed the Indi conflict. It is possible (as I am suggesting) that the FMA never had a proper view of the conflict in the first place. Liam Mason’s initial assessment that the conflict was unremarkable was flawed, in my opinion. "Good and effective management of conflicts of interest is particularly important for a Crown regulator. If conflicts are not recognised, acknowledged and managed appropriately, they can quickly undermine the integrity of officials, the organisation’s decisions, and public and business confidence in the integrity of the organisation." (Kirsty P McDonald ONZM QC, 2022) The identification and management of the Stobo/Indi conflict needs to be understood in the context of shortcomings identified in the report (cited above) following a 2022 independent review into the FMA’s management of the Rob Everett/Booster COI. There’s a theme emerging. I wonder what the Stobo/Indi Conflict Mitigation Record shows (if anything). There’s nothing in Aldred KC’s report that would suggest this was provided to her. Liam Mason emailed Stobo on 12th July 2025, expressing concern that Indi was using Stobo as a marketing prop. This suggests mitigation strategies were not put in place for this entirely foreseeable risk back at the time the conflict was first disclosed.

Why did they add cash and bonds into there High Growth portfolio? I'm so confused.

@ paul flood – thanks for making me aware of this. I stand by my comment that nobody in a regulatory role should ever be sitting on the board of a provider which that regulator is charged with monitoring. Do I feel a bit stink now that my comment on Good Returns was used by the FMA as part of a “witch hunt” to remove Mr Stobo as FMA Chair? Of course I do. Mr Stobo was not sitting on the board of any financial services provider monitored by the FMA at the time he offered his resignation to Commerce Minister Cameron Brewer. Interesting how things changed below from Mr Stobo’s initial appointment as the FMA chair “The FMA has a rigorous conflicts of interest process for board members to identify potential interests and to ensure that board members comply with their obligations under the Crown Entities Act. The FMA maintains a list of members’ interests. This is updated in advance of each board meeting and board members confirm its accuracy at the meeting. Mr Stobo’s interest in The Independent Mortgage Company (Indi) has been disclosed under this process.” To - “When I interviewed Ms Barrass (FMA chief executive) she told me that she considered the role with Indi was “heavily conflicted” and that the matter was a serious one for the FMA because We [the FMA] need to be beyond reproach because the inappropriate management of conflicts is not just a matter of regulatory requirements”. None of the smears against Mr Stobo have been upheld in this report by Wendy Aldred KC. Questions need to be asked by our politicians as to what has happened here. It appears people employed at Government agencies in Wellington who have a different political view to that of the public service should be cautious now when expressing their opinions. Political neutrality is sighted by KC Wendy Aldred as to why Mr Stobo should resign and yet she is part of Health Coalition Aotearoa which is a a coalition of member organisations committed to closing the health prevention gap in Aotearoa by advocating for Te Tiriti-led, evidence-based, policies. Does anyone think that Wendy Aldred KC can be considered “politically neutral” with her report prepared for the FMA?