Wong Pansy: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6442] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I thank the Minister Lianne Dalziel for providing further explanation of Supplementary Order Paper 72 in her name. National fully intends to cooperate on the Business Law Reform Bill as it was when introduced but I want to raise a process issue about the exemption power of the Accounting Standards Review Board which the Commerce Committee spent quite a bit of time tackling. 
I commend some of the submitters for their discipline in not wanting the board to grant an exemption to certain companies or classes of companies from adherence to the standards. They wanted to ensure that when a standard is promulgated every entity abides by it. That is indeed the ideal position but the select committee after vigorous debate agreed to go along with the recommendation of the officials. We understand that the board has not been utilising the existing exemption power because that particular criterion is rather broad. The board can grant an exemption as it sees fit. I think the board has shown its integrity by not utilising that provision because one can also see that for the board to grant an exemption for individual companies or groups of companies as it sees fit could result in a very subjective and non-transparent application of the law. 
But in the process of debate the select committee came up with more formalised written criteria under which that exemption power can be exercised. The Regulations Review Committee also indicated that there was a question as to whether the exemption power should be allowed at the regulation stage rather than in the primary legislation. We are broadly happy with the ultimate provision arrived at in the select committee. 
But one is slightly concerned about the process when select committee members have agreed to and believe they have arrived at a position and then—as we understand it—the Minister Lianne Dalziel has further conversations with the Accounting Standards Review Board and comes up with further agreements. In this case we are happy to support those agreements. But it makes one wonder about the robustness of the select committee process in general. If other submitters knew that they could suggest further amendments they might have also wanted to do so. I want to compare that to a previous case. When we debated the Communications Legislation Bill a class of non-profit broadcasters had an eleventh-hour negotiation with the Minister of Communications because a New Zealand First member had introduced an amendment at the Committee stage. We find that these particular behind-the-scenes negotiations completely override the select committee’s position. 
I take this opportunity to raise and emphasise again that the National Party has been cooperating in terms of streamlined legislation but we are still concerned about the procedure whereby a conclusion reached at the select committee can be overridden between a bill being reported back to the House at the second reading and the Committee stage. We hope that type of process will be minimised. Otherwise it is not fair to the submitters who see the select committee process as a way for them to clarify their position and it is not fair to the select committee members who have taken their task seriously and come to a certain conclusion only to find that further amendments have been introduced in the Committee of the whole House stage. But as we expressed in this particular instance we concur with the Supplementary Order Paper and we agree to support Part 3 with these amendments.