Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5483] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 National is supporting this bill because we certainly believe in the objective of passing legislation to increase the confidence of investors. But I do have a concern. In the last 2 weeks in this Chamber we have been constantly told by the Hon Pete Hodgson that if the rules are correct and the interpretation is wrong then Ministers will still pass the blame and say that the rules are not correct. So to me passing this legislation is fine—we are supportive of it—but what sort of assurance do we have in relation to agencies such as the Securities Commission which is a statutory body the Takeovers Panel and the Commerce Commission all affected by this legislation? If they operate following the intent of this legislation will they be left alone to implement its spirit? 
We have learnt this afternoon that the chairman of the Electricity Commission has been sacked because he would not give in to political pressure. He wanted to carry out his duty according to legislative provision but what happened? He was sacked. I want an assurance from the Minister that if we assist the Government to pass this legislation—in the spirit of improving and enhancing the confidence of investors in our capital and securities markets—the people who are in charge of the Securities Commission and the Takeovers Panel if they adhere to this legislation will be left alone to carry out their tasks objectively. I think that internally this legislation will assist them because it will give them the flexibility to cooperate with each other. As my colleague Brian Connell said they can share information in relation to commercial crime such as insider trading which is incredibly difficult to detect. So I think it is a good thing they are allowed to share information. 
But to me the biggest challenge facing those agencies is not so much having legislative backing; it is when how and where political interference comes. I have stated time and time again that if the Government is clear in its vision and in what it wants to achieve only then is legislation the tool to point out the direction to get to that destination. But if the Government has no idea where it wants to go then those agencies will be left carrying the can. For example if the capital market continues to flounder or if we find there are not enough investors interested the Government will continue to say that it is because we do not have enough protection to tackle insider-trading practices etc. 
We are not trying to underrate the existence of the problem and just now I have demonstrated that we have one case that was able to be prosecuted. Provenco was able to be prosecuted by the Securities Commission under the existing legislation. That company and the Securities Commission eventually came to an agreement and agreed on a $600000 settlement. So it seems to me that existing legislation had already provided the Securities Commission with the tool to do the job. The language and intent of this legislation are quite harsh and one wonders whether they will strike the balance but the concern we really have is whether the Labour Government will leave those statutory bodies to carry out their tasks according to the latter of the legislation we are debating tonight.