Cosgrove Clayton: Third Readings —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Third Readings —[Sitting date: 30 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):I am going to confine my comments to only some of the legislation arising from the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill. The legislation is of course supported by the Labour Opposition. The legislation is relatively straightforward. I do agree with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs that it brings accounting practices in New Zealand and Australia closer together in similar ways to what has been done by both Governments over many years in terms of trans-Tasman commercial arrangements in banking and legal entities and sectors. It will indeed promote a far more efficient arrangement and better business outcomes I think for that profession and it is supported in large part by the accounting sectors both here and by CPA Australia.That being said as I said last night when we last dealt with this we did have some difficulties—well not so much some difficulties but we did probe officials on a number of areas—around charities and the impact of the legislation on the charitable sector which I think was a concern shared by both sides of the House. I think Mr Young was the chair of the Commerce Committee. We did not want to impose undue difficulties or costs on the charitable sector. I think we worked through those issues pretty well. There was also the thorny issue of the religious objection clause. The select committee I think tested our officials. The motivation was not to test out if you will the religious notions of the particular group of submitters—the Exclusive Brethren—who came before us. It was to ensure bluntly—and I know this may sound reasonably humorous but it is not—that we were not setting up a situation where bureaucrats were having to make religious judgments as it were and where nefarious folks could use the exemptions that are in the legislation to somehow walk round the legislation and the rules in terms of membership and the obligations that membership and the entity governing it would entail. There was quite lengthy scrutiny of officials and they were sent away to deal with that issue.There are indeed a number of precedents. The one that I recall reasonably vividly is the Labour Relations Act amendments that were made going back many many years where that particular scheme of arrangement and exemption was allowed. In respect of the Exclusive Brethren I note for the record that both Damien O’Connor and I actually ended up getting a meeting with the then Minister of Labour Margaret Wilson to make the case for that particular group that that exemption should be extended in the new and amended legislation. I have to say in passing that little did we know what that particular sect was up to and neither did the public—Kris Faafoi: As a principle—as a principle.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —as a principle—realise that it was trying to buy an election with a million bucks and put a knife in the throat of our democracy. But putting that aside we were grateful to the officials and I think both sides of the House worked through the issue in a bipartisan way. I would hope—and we did seek assurances in the Committee stage from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—that that particular exemption clause could not be abused. We hope that is the case. To be fair in other pieces of legislation it has worked pretty well.The bills and the main provisions deal with reducing restrictions on legal form for audit firms charity assurance members of accredited bodies performing statutory audits qualified accountants performing statutory accounting roles and a number of amendments in respect of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants. I think that it is appropriate that the House keep dealing with—and I am glad to hear the Minister say that there is further legislation to come in terms of this—the trans-Tasman relationship. Australia is our closest neighbour and is effectively one of the biggest if not the biggest markets we have. We have had CER for many many years we are getting closer and closer as one market and business is being transacted in more modern ways with a greater frequency. So it is appropriate that these pieces of legislation are progressed through in order to make it more efficient and easier for the commercial sector on both sides of the Tasman to transact business.I will say in passing also that it is—and this is no disrespect to the new Minister—a bit of a worry that on the one hand the Government says that these measures form part of its growth and business agenda but on the other hand it took out the portfolio of commerce from within Cabinet. The Government did not downgrade it within Cabinet; it took it right out of Cabinet and it not only downgraded it to outside Cabinet but dropped it to the basement or closer probably to the political dunny—to No. 25. This is the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs we are talking about. We have had some substantial Ministers of Commerce on both sides of the House who have made substantial contributions. I am thinking of Simon Power—Hon Member: Paul Goldsmith?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —Lianne Dalziel and with a bit of luck Paul Goldsmith might get there as long as his performance is a bit better than when he was chairing the select committee. But he may well get there.Kris Faafoi: He’s on watch—he’s on watch.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes he is on probation. We will give him the benefit of the doubt—a fair go.Hon Member: 90 days.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes we will give him the 90-day rule—we will give him that. I will just say that it is a bit of a contradiction and a bit of a worry when the Minister of Commerce is dropped to the even darker depths of where Maurice Williamson was dropped once or twice I suspect and dropped right outside Cabinet. What signal does that send to commercial entities? We know there are priorities in Government—I have been a Cabinet Minister inside—and we know the more senior you are generally the faster you can get things through. If you are not in the ring it is harder to do. This piece of legislation other pieces of legislation and future pieces of legislation will not it seems have the priority that they once did. We know that Minister Foss took an inordinate amount of time within Cabinet to drag commerce legislation through the process and through this House. Maybe sadly that is one reason why he was bounced but that should not have been the case for the portfolio that is commerce.It is slightly odd that the Government does wax on about its support for the commercial sector which we all support; the need for creating greater appropriate efficiencies which we support; and its need to cut through red tape and the regulatory frameworks which appropriately we do support. But when you take the Minister and the portfolio and you bump them right down to the most junior of junior ministerial portfolios right outside Cabinet I just wonder what signal that sends. It would be great if speakers who are going to speak on this legislation would get up and give us some sort of an assurance that that does not mean that an appropriate commerce or consumer affairs law is going to somehow—[Bell rung] Was that you or the bell Mr Assistant Speaker? Ha ha! We may have a problem here. Thank you. Ha ha! Is there a doctor in the House? At the risk of being thrown out—but what signal does that send to the commercial sector?Does this mean that commerce legislation will not only be delayed through some of the former incompetence but be delayed because it struggles to get the priority it should? If you want to have a business framework and you want to grow a business and you want to do things to help the commercial sectors surely that was one portfolio that should have remained not only within Cabinet but at a senior level within Cabinet. I recall Simon Power as Minister of Commerce I think at No. 3 or No. 4 at worst. He sat on the front row got his legislation through got it through swiftly and much of that legislation to be fair to him was positive and supported by this House. Now there are no impact players. They are on the bench. The water boy or the oranges boy or whatever has got the portfolio and that is where it sits.We do support the legislation. It is a good piece of legislation. It went through a good process with the Commerce Committee but I just hope that when we look at the priorities of the Government—there are a lot of commercial guys over there—that Government members are going to have a chat to the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister and still promote commerce legislation as a high priority as it has been in the past.Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I will.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Mr Lotu-Iiga says: “We will.” I will hold him to that. We wait and see.