Nash Stuart: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 30 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:470. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):What a lot of people do not realise is that about 80 percent of all legislation that passes through this House is actually done in a bipartisan way. We all support this. We like the sort of regulation—80 percent—Hon Member: Multipartisan.STUART NASH: Well bipartisan tripartisan—whatever it might be. But the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill is one of those bills that I know the Commerce Committee worked really hard on because what has happened since 2008—since the financial crisis I suppose—is that there has been a lack of confidence in a lot of our financial markets and in the auditing response etc. and actually a lack of confidence in the people who are charged with carrying out a lot of the duties in terms of looking after people’s investments. So this legislation is essentially just another piece of legislation that improves the confidence and improves the level of transparency across our whole financial markets structure.I did have to laugh when my colleague Carmel Sepuloni said that we were disappointed in the Minister of Commerce and Chris Bishop said: “Just wait.” I am not too sure whether Chris Bishop thinks he is going to be the new Minister of Commerce but maybe he is.Hon Member: Trying to roll him already.STUART NASH: Yes I know. Those members talk about what goes on in our caucus. Well I think if I was the Minister of Commerce—and who is the Minister of Commerce these days? It used to be Mr Foss. I am not too sure who the new Minister of Commerce is. Who is it? Who is it whip?Tim Macindoe: Paul Goldsmith.STUART NASH: Paul Goldsmith. If I were Paul Goldsmith I would be watching my back actually because Chris Bishop has those knives out. It is that old adage you know: “They are the Opposition.” And the enemy? “They are the ones behind you.” So well done. It is good to have someone who is ambitious—there is no doubt about that—and I love your ambition Chris. Well done! But—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!STUART NASH: —just wait a couple of seconds Mr Bishop.When I said that we support this legislation—and we do support it—there were a couple of concerns that were brought up and I would just like to bring those concerns up just to talk about them and put them out there. Who knows—maybe there will be amendments going forward. I was not a member of the Commerce Committee that deliberated on the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill. I did not hear the submissions. I have had a look at a couple of them.By and large it is a good legislation but I did have a couple of concerns. One of them was on the commencement date. The commencement date for a lot of these parts is actually 1 April 2017. I just sort of wondered aloud—but unfortunately I did not get a response from the Minister—why we were leaving this for 2½ years and whether there were a whole lot of processes that were going on at the time or whether there were some things that needed to be worked through the system. But I just thought that 2017 was a long time to wait for parts of this legislation to be given the Royal assent. And the unfortunate thing was that the Minister could not actually tell me which parts of the legislation were going to be implemented upon gaining the Royal assent and which parts had to wait for 2½ years. I think the last parts of this legislation do gain the Royal assent on 1 April 2017 which makes sense from a financial year perspective but it just provides a little bit of uncertainty which this legislation is actually trying to mitigate. We try to avoid uncertainty in legislation I suspect.The other thing that I was a little bit concerned about was actually new sections 42C and 42D to be inserted into the Charities Act by the Charities Amendment Bill (No 3). This is the stuff around charities. There are over 3000 registered charities in New Zealand. A lot of them go to the public of New Zealand seeking funds wearing the badge of goodwill as they should because we are not a particularly giving society compared with a lot of others and that is the truth. However when we do give money we like to think that that money is given and is being disturbed in good faith. What this legislation actually says is that if you are a large charity—and by “large” the definition was that you have an operating expenditure of over a million dollars—then you have to have your accounts audited. That makes absolute sense because if you have got an operating expenditure of over a million dollars that is a lot of money and you have solicited a lot of donations from a lot of hard-working Kiwis.But what it also says is that if you are a medium-sized charity—and the definition of a medium-sized charity is a charity with an operating expenditure of between $500000 and $1 million—you do not actually have to have your accounts audited. What does have to happen is a qualified auditor has to do a review of the accounts but that is not a full audit. I was just a little bit concerned that whenever New Zealanders do give money they do like to think that it is given in good faith and to me $500000 in operating expenses is quite a large charity. Would you not agree Sam? It is quite a large charity and I would have thought—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!STUART NASH: Oh sorry Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And I am “you”—so two errors.STUART NASH: Sorry you are right. I mean—[Interruption] Ha ha! I apologise for my indiscretions. This is something I am passionate about—[Interruption] In this House during this speech. [Interruption] Ha ha!The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member has 4½ minutes left.STUART NASH: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I suppose the one thing I am passionate about and the one thing that I really do not want to see again is the confidence of the New Zealand public take another knock because there has been a charity that has not had its accounts audited because it does not have to have them audited by law. I just think it is a concern. I would have liked to see this legislation include medium-sized charities as well. According to the definition of a medium-sized charity it has an operating expenditure of $500000 to a million dollars. I just think that there should have been a provision in the legislation that said that these accounts had to be audited. But the interesting thing is in fact that the fine for not undertaking the provisions was the same for medium-sized charities and large-sized charities—that is $50000. So there does seem to be a little bit of inequity there.The other thing is also that the cost of an audit really is not that much when it does provide a level of investor certainty. It is anything from $2000 to $4000 and I would have thought that to provide your philanthropists or the people who have given you money with a level of certainty $4000 or $5000 is not much to pay at all to get that certainty. But as mentioned we do support this legislation. It goes a long way in terms of reducing the restrictions on the legal forms for audit firms.There was one other point which I think is quite important from Part 2 of the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill. Part 2 was quite a technical part of this bill and so it is difficult to argue because it is very technical. But one thing it did do is it muzzled what the members of a disciplinary tribunal for the Institute of Chartered Accountants could actually say in public. I found this a little bit strange and I wondered whether this was dealing with an issue that had arisen before. The chartered accountants came to the select committee and actually said: “You know we do have problems with people on our disciplinary committees actually going to the media and”—[Bell rung]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is the bell for 2 minutes.STUART NASH: Oh thank you very much. Phew that is a relief—I thought I had left my cellphone on for a second.Jami-Lee Ross: It’s as limp as this speech.STUART NASH: Mr Assistant Speaker can you believe that that member has called this speech limp? All members on this side heard that member speak and I tell you what he used the word “you” 15 times in 15 sentences and I was astounded that the Assistant Speaker whom I have immense respect for did not pull him up because that member has been in the House for long enough to know that you do not turn to your colleagues and say “you” “you” “you”—I am just quoting the member Mr Assistant Speaker.But anyway what I was saying is that I was interested in the fact—Jami-Lee Ross: Take a point of order to withdraw and apologise.STUART NASH: Well I was about to take a point of order I say to the honourable member but I decided not to because the Assistant Speaker had given a ruling earlier in this week I think it might have been when he said that it is not appropriate to raise a point of order during a speech just because someone says the word “you” two or three times. That member did cross the line but I thought he was going hell for leather. I did not want you to just implode in front of all your members. So that is why I did not take a point of order but I was quite tempted to.But anyway just coming back to the legislation I did think it was quite strange that what this legislation did is muzzle what members of the disciplinary committee could actually say in public. The reason why I was a little bit surprised about that is that I think what needs to happen is that when you are engaging an auditor or when anyone is engaging an auditor—you Mr Assistant Speaker myself or any charity that is engaging an auditor—they need to know that that auditor is a person of good character. Could I make one more point Mr Assistant Speaker?