Foss Craig: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Foss Craig: Business Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6187] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Bananas. That is what the previous speaker on this Business Law Reform Bill Doug Woolerton spent 10 minutes talking about last night. After his trip to Australia he studied and consumed bananas in Australia. He was questioned—as a New Zealand First member in relation to the confidence and supply part of the agreement with the Government—about whether New Zealand apples have got into Australia. Sadly the answer was no. After 2 years of rhetoric good New Zealand apples from Hawke’s Bay are not into Australia yet. 
The National Party supports the bill at the second reading. Previous speakers from our party have indicated that. There are 60-odd clauses in the bill. I guess it is one small step for New Zealand business one tiny step for New Zealand businesses but one giant leap for the Labour Party as it finally recognises some of the compliance anchors and barriers in front of business success. It is true that this bill will help small businesses such as the Manukau company Rural Direct whose achievements in recycling plastic to make products for the farming and packaging industries have resulted in it becoming a finalist in the recent 2006 Westpac Manukau Business Excellence Awards. 
I give credit where credit is due. I think I actually sat in on the Commerce Committee a few times when submissions were being heard on this bill. The way the select committee has reported back in the commentary is very good. There are some very considered replies to some of the submissions but I do note that that select committee also often struggled to make a quorum and it was with the good faith and fair play of the National Party that it managed to keep its quorum together many times. 
This is an omnibus bill and it was a shame that we did not have more clauses in it about business tax reforms rather than reviews and of course linking to personal tax reforms. There are two parts to the bill that I have a concern over. Clause 2—with all due respect to the Governor General—is the part that deals with the Royal assent. I am respectfully concerned about our Governor General’s time because obviously he will be checking signatures on the online petition asking for him not to give Royal assent to the retrospective pledge card legislation rushed through disgracefully last week. 
I will speak to clause 34. There was a very good commentary and I appreciate the Minister’s speech around this particular point last night. This is the clause that gives exemption power to the Accounting Standards Review Board. I just have an awkward feeling about this part of the bill. I know the points are considered and there is about a page of commentary on the major two points. I was actually there the day that submission was heard and I cannot help but have a bad feeling about it because basically the Minister has decided that she knows best—or the officials have managed to convince her that they know best. 
I will quickly read the qualifications of the members of the Accounting Standards Review Board whose submission was rejected by the select committee. These are the people who recommended that the Accounting Standards Review Board did not have power to give any exemption whatsoever. They argued very forcefully and the commentary points that out. The chief executive officer of PricewaterhouseCoopers New Zealand asked that the Accounting Standards Board did not have this exemption. The chairman of Tanui Group Holdings and a director of a number of companies including Tower Corporation Holdings Ltd and National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd asked that the Accounting Standards Board did not have this exemption. The New Zealand Treasury’s chief accounting adviser also pleaded that the board did not have this exemption. Just to reiterate they are members of the board that this bill gives the power to exempt. 
This board pleaded with the select committee not to be given that exemption. Board members also made representations to the Minister in charge of the bill and other Ministers in associated departments and they cannot understand for the life of them why their combined expertise was massively outweighed by the union expertise background and history of the Minister. Another board member who pleaded that the board be not given the exemption has been a corporate and commercial law partner in Bell Gully since 1992 but the Minister knows better than him. Another board member is a partner with Beattie Rickman and works in business services in medium-sized businesses at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand—again the Minister knows better than her. Finally the Minister knows better than a person who is the chairman of the Financial Reporting Council is a director of Wesfarmers Telstra and the Sustainable Investment Research Institute is on the Victorian council of the Securities Institute of Australia and so on has chaired a strategic review and who again pleaded that the board be not given the exemption. 
Regardless of the commentary in the start of the bill about this particular clause I cannot for the life of me understand why their advice their pleadings their combined commercial nous was rejected by a Minister and I cannot quite recall last time she ventured into the real world of business. In fact I have left one out: the project manager for the project for the conversion to International Financial Reporting Standards. This body also oversees that conversion and his advice was also rejected. 
As Mr Finlayson speaking on the previous bill alluded to the only logical explanation as to why the combined commercial nous of these various esteemed board directors—in fact the board the Minister herself appoints—was rejected is quite frankly because this Government has lost touch. It believes in its own mirror sadly. It believes it knows best; it believes it knows how to run business best. In fact it has no idea and again I reiterate my objection to this particular part of the bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.