Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill. I was pleased to be part of the Commerce Committee which considered this bill. My thanks go to the chair and members of the committee for good discussions. I think we made some improvements to the bill. I wish to comment on those and to raise a couple of questions. Firstly the bill covers 16 different Acts so it obviously has a wide scope. I am not going to comment on all the provisions that relate to those.I would note by way of starting that the Green Party is a strong supporter of legislation that is about smart regulation. We want regulation for compliance that is relevant fit for purpose effective and particularly not onerous. We believe that this bill has some welcome changes that will remove compliance obligations on small companies. From that perspective we are broadly supportive. We particularly support the levies under the Commerce Act.Under the Companies Act there are a number of provisions that I want to just briefly comment on. The Annual meetings of shareholders" provision seems to us to help with compliance on that where companies would choose to truncate their annual meetings for good reason. Under clause 21 there has already been commentary on the audit requirements. We think it is sound that the branches of large overseas companies would be aligned with the treatment of subsidiaries for equal treatment. We would have a question on that though. If there were concerns raised about branches of overseas companies for example with regard to transfer pricing provisions whether or not audit requirements could then be required by for example the Inland Revenue Department. The question to the Minister in the chair Amy Adams is about how that would work and whether such a requirement for audits for small companies would override the provisions of clause 21 in the bill. It seems to us that to treat small branches of overseas companies equivalently with subsidiaries is a sound way forward but we do not want to see that becoming a way to lessen the accountability of overseas companies with regard to New Zealand's tax provisions in particular.There was a lot of discussion in the select committee on netting in clauses 27 and 28. After some discussion we came to agreement on netting. I see that clause 2 of the bill allows for swift passage of the netting provisions which as we understand are required basically to help New Zealand conform to the provisions internationally that relate to reforms of derivative trading. I would like to pose a question to the Minister around netting and whether or not the netting provisions in the bill will reflect international best practice or whether further subsequent changes will be required.A particular concern about clauses 92 to 94 related to financial services providers. Previously the Minister talked about the register of financial services providers as ensuring the integrity of providers. I understand that there have been a number of complaints against financial services companies on the register. My understanding is that some time ago there were 340 complaints from 83 different countries relating to financial services providers on the New Zealand register. My question to the Minister with regard to these provisions which I gather include deregistering a provider if they are not a member of a dispute settlement scheme—my concern is that that change does not go nearly far enough. I understand that there is a consultation paper out but my question to the Minister is: why could this opportunity within this bill not be taken to strengthen the integrity of this register? The impression is given by financial services providers that fulfil the very procedural requirements of the register that somehow they have gained approval from the New Zealand authorities for being a member of the register whereas in fact that is by no means the case. So my question to the Minister then is: why was this opportunity not taken to strengthen the integrity of New Zealand's reputation internationally with regard to the operation of the financial service providers register?With regard to other clauses in Part 1 of the bill that we are considering we are certainly in support of clauses 95 to 100 on the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act and also the advice under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act that the duty should also promote education about financial decisions and financial capability. That seems very sound and we fully support it. So with those three questions the Green Party is broadly in support of the bill. We have these concerns and we look forward to hearing the resolution of these concerns on Part 1. Thank you."