Cosgrove Clayton: Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19282. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):The Labour Party as my colleague Clare Curran said will be supporting the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill. The aims of this bill are pretty straightforward. It builds on other pieces of legislation where other professions in New Zealand and Australia have grown closer together and amalgamated where we have similar rules of engagement in terms of commerce and banking and other regulations and legislation. It will enable the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants to amalgamate with its Australian counterparts creating a new trans-Tasman institute subject to the approval of members. It allows competent auditors with the appropriate qualifications to offer audit services to New Zealand firms by altering restrictions on non-user audit work. It allows audit firms to incorporate as a company if they decide that is the most efficient way to conduct business for themselves. And of course the bill replaces references to a “chartered accountant” in various Acts with references to “qualified statutory accountants”.I just briefly want to pick up on the issues that Clare Curran raised in respect of a submission we received from the Exclusive Brethren. With due respect to them it did vex the Commerce Committee somewhat. I know that the National Party has of course a long and close relationship with that particular entity. It is a very long and close relationship dating back I think to 2005. The submission did raise a number of issues for us in that on the one hand groups are indeed entitled to express their moral and religious views their beliefs as it should be and no one argues with that. What the committee found itself attempting to do was trying to wade through on the one hand acknowledging and respecting those particular beliefs and on the other hand trying to ensure that a person could not if you like rock up to the authority and simply say they believe in X—I am not trivialising this; I am just using this as an example—and therefore they should be exempt from a number of the governance arrangements and strictures put in place by this amalgamation. It will be interesting in later stages to hear the Minister of Commerce’s view on that. Officials did recommend the course of action that was contained within the legislation.Some of us still feel some unease. Again I mean no disrespect to religious organisations but whenever as members will know you pass legislation you are not actually passing legislation for the 99.9 percent of the population that would not break the particular rule or law or moral code; you are passing it for those who would abrogate their responsibilities and offend. That is what we find ourselves doing in this place every day: passing legislation in some cases for the lowest common denominator acknowledging that that may or may not restrict the rights of those law-abiding citizens who would always regardless of legislation or law adhere to the basics of the moral and ethical code we observe in this country. So we listened to those submissions rather carefully.I must say personally I was not convinced by some of the submissions by the Brethren and the notions that they put forward. I do have reservations in respect of the safeguards around those notions as enshrined in this legislation. I say briefly that I would be very interested in the Minister’s view as we move this legislation forward in terms of assuring this House that in respect of people who apply for exemptions essentially based on personal belief there are safeguards in place to ensure that they are not deliberately attempting to walk around the legislation. We did put it to officials that we would not want them to take on some sort of quasi-religious role in terms of deciding—I see a chuckle from the Deputy Speaker in the Chair; I think he understands what I am saying—how to interpret scripture as to what was a legitimate religious or moral belief and what was not. That is not the role of officials. I suspect for many of us that would be hard to do. We would leave that to the deity and others in other places perhaps; maybe some in Rome if I go to my religious background.So it is an important point because there will be those who perhaps will try to use that corridor if you like to walk around this legislation. So as I say I will be interested as to whether the Minister can give us some assurance around that. I know there are in labour relations legislation and other legislation some longstanding precedents. But as I say I was not particularly convinced. I am not making a judgment on the beliefs of the Exclusive Brethren—I am sure that Mr Foss and others could give us a better view on that given the close association—but I was not impressed with some of their arguments in terms of the legitimacy if you will or the safeguards.We support this legislation. I think putting that matter aside I can say I believe it will benefit New Zealand. It will benefit our professional accounting institutes on both sides of the Tasman. It will make them more efficient. I think it will make them more robust. It will also provide easier access to both markets. One would hope then that that will enhance business opportunities not just for that profession but for other associated commercial entities around that. With those words I support the bill.