Cosgrove Clayton: Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:317. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):As others have said this is a bill with very little controversy that is supported by my Opposition colleagues in line with the Government and supported by the New Zealand accounting profession and CPA Australia. I do agree with the Minister the Hon Paul Goldsmith—we all agree—that this will bring the profession closer together as trans-Tasman regulatory reform and legislative reform have done in other areas of banking and finance. It will create efficiency and some greater transparency. Again the Minister sort of leapt into the fray and has not answered some of the questions.I think the previous speaker Mr Faafoi in all seriousness raised some issues about the religious exemption. We want to make sure that the context is clear here. We are not going to enter into some religious discussion involving the Deity—I see a former qualified member of it over on the other side—or what people may or may not think. The issues in respect of this bill were in truth centred on whether we were somehow going to have the department or officialdom trying to define outside their brief what was for instance a legitimate religion and trying to be a sort of arbiter or referee of those nefarious forces—there always are in these things—who may try to use this particular clause to get around being members or being subject to the constraints or rules and obligations of the legislation. So it was as Mr Faafoi said a serious debate.I do question—and I suppose to my point—that the body itself would have to make judgments. New section 36M(1)(a) inserted by clause 31 states: “the relevant body is satisfied that A is a practising member of a religious society or order whose doctrines or beliefs preclude membership of any organisation or body other than the religious society …” blah blah blah. The question for us was quite simple. No disrespect to our friends in officialdom or to the new entity itself but how are they qualified to make those judgments? That was our question. How do you stop those folks who just want to pull the wool and walk around the regulations and the strictures? How do you avoid that happening?My colleague is right. There has been precedent. I believe it was labour relations legislation. I recall this because when we were in Government my colleague Damien O’Connor and myself were approached by members of the Brethren sect or whatever they call themselves to approach the then labour relations Minister Margaret Wilson to seek a continuation when we disposed of the Employment Contracts Act and reformed that legislation of an exemption based on their beliefs. Mr O’Connor and I went to bat for the Brethren out of genuine concern. Little did we know that that would come back to almost knife us in the throat back in what was it 2005 as certain members of that sect decided that they would abrogate their own religious beliefs—so-called—and enter the fray under surreptitious means and they almost bought an election with a million bucks. But putting that aside I think this is a fair clause that does tread a path to allow people who have religious beliefs to be a part of this legislation but it does not impinge on their own individual religious beliefs and views and values. But I would be interested if the Minister could perhaps claw back into history and into his own I think Anglican upbringing and perhaps reassure us that the entity—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Baptist.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —Baptist; my apologies—will not be asked to make arbitrary decisions around what is a genuine religious belief or not because that would be rather absurd. I doubt whether the Australians would want to enter into that sort of activity themselves.But this is a good piece of legislation. It will promote efficiency and transparency and a high degree I think of quality work within the professions and will allow expansion and amalgamation across the trans-Tasman boundary. We do support it. It is a pity it has been around for so long and it does worry us—no disrespect to the new Minister who I am sure is diligent in all his work—that the commerce portfolio has slid down the greasy pole from being inside Cabinet to being outside Cabinet and then being at the bottom of the outside of Cabinet somewhere near the dunny. So we do worry about that because the commerce portfolio has I think we would all agree been through the offices of Simon Power and Lianne Dalziel and a number of Ministers and has been treated very very seriously.