NBR had this intro to a story Friday: "The appointment of an 'anti-car' blogger to the NZTA board proves transport minister Phil Twyford is the 'weakest link' in the coalition government, transport groups say."

Another version of it could be: "The appointment of an 'anti-commission' advocate to the FMA board proves commerce minister Kris Faafoi is the 'weakest link' in the coalition government, [insert advisers, life companies, professional associations] say."

Ever since we reported that Consumer NZ chief executive Sue Chetwin had been appointed to the FMA board, numerous people in the industry contacted me and said what's going on here/what advice did the minister get?

Yes, there has been a lot of head scratching.

A little point of clarification here; while a little bit of licence has been transposing the names of ministers we're not saying Faafoi has been bad. The general feedback from the industry has been he has done a good job and political commentators consider him one of the better ministers in this administration.

However, one does have to wonder how someone with such strong views on commission can be appointed to the FMA board. How can she objectively consider these issues?

If there is any upside, it maybe that Chetwin has to tone down her rhetoric around commissions when she is wearing her FMA hat.

The other bit which is difficult to reconcile is that Faafoi has been clear that the Government doesn't intend to ban commissions. To do so would decimate the industry and reduce the public's access to advice – one of the underlying principles of the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Act.

However, the regulators seem very anti-commission and want them gone ... well not quite. 

Here's what they told us:

"We haven’t said all commissions drive bad behaviour in life insurance. We’ve identified potential risks with volume-based sales incentives in both banking and insurance and want to be reassured that banks and insurers have good processes in place to ensure customer interests are protected. 

"We have signalled concerns that high up-front commissions (or soft commissions) may lead advisers into a conflict of interest where the customers’ interests are not put first. That’s really our concern: to ensure the customer interest is prioritised."

The point is there is a lack of clarity in the messaging. Throughout the week this is a topic which has been brought up in numerous conversations and there is huge concern about a perceived lack of understanding of how the industry works.

The other point people are making is that life companies and advisers are being unfairly targeted.

An interesting question, which we don't yet have an answer to, is why is it alright for banks to continue paying customers thousands of dollars to take out a home loan? It's clear many borrowers place their business where they can get the biggest cash back.

That's potentially far worse than commissions around life insurance as there is potentially a massive financial risk on customers.

Food for thought.