Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill, Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this

The Labour Party will be supporting this legislation to the select committee, but it will do so with only the most intense scrutiny being applied at that stage. Many issues are raised by this very complex set of legislation, but high in the minds of New Zealanders who are listening to this debate, particularly those in the South Island, will be the appointment of Mr Simon Botherway as chair of the establishment board of the new Financial Markets Authority, which is set up under this legislation. That appointment has been called into question by the apparent failure of Mr Botherway to make a timely declaration of a possible perceived conflict of interest around his recommendation, as chairperson of a Securities Commission committee, to place Allan and Jean Hubbard into statutory management, along with Aorangi Securities.

It has further been a matter of surprise to the Opposition that the chairperson of the Securities Commission, Jane Diplock, for whom we have high regard, excused that late declaration—and, in our view, partial declaration—on the grounds that Mr Hubbard’s association with South Canterbury Finance, which had earlier put Mr Botherway’s brother into receivership, was “ancient history”. Well, how ancient was that history?

Mr Hubbard tipped all his remaining assets in Southbury Group into South Canterbury Finance to ensure that equity holders did not lose their shirts. He tipped all his assets in, and I understand that a matter of only a few days later a single, anonymous letter of complaint was received by the Securities Commission. On the basis of that single, anonymous complaint they took the unprecedented step of placing Mr and Mrs Hubbard and Aorangi Securities into statutory management, thereby causing a collapse in the inflow of funds into South Canterbury Finance.

The Securities Commission said they were not related parties, because a legal opinion noted that at the time Mr Hubbard was no longer a director of South Canterbury Finance. Well, technically speaking that is true, but by a very short margin of time. But in practical terms the impact was the same: funds into South Canterbury Finance dried up; it received a credit-rating downgrade days later, and the fate of that company was sealed.

The Opposition believes that two things must now occur: first, given the news earlier in the week that the Ombudsman is investigating Mr Botherway’s so-called declaration of interest, we believe that Mr Botherway must immediately stand aside from the chair of the establishment board and should reconsider any availability, should he not be completely exonerated from his suitability to chair the Financial Markets Authority. This is the senior regulator in the New Zealand markets. This is the position that must be beyond reproach, upon which the reputation for the integrity and transparency of the entire market rests. If New Zealand does not maintain that reputation, all New Zealanders will suffer.

I regret to hear from a major broker of international investment into New Zealand that he will not allow offshore clients to invest in New Zealand registered vehicles; he insists they must invest only through Australian-based Australian Securities and Investments Commission regulated vehicles, because he said: “New Zealand is the coldest banana republic in the world.” If that is the reputation of our markets in the ears of foreign investors, how important is it that the chair-designate of the establishment board should have his name cleared—

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

I rise to speak on the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill.

It is an interesting day in the House when we have bills before us that seek to reintroduce some degree of regulation to the financial markets. It is paradoxical that at a time when the ACT Party is collapsing internally, the ideology that sat behind ACT requires overturning after the catastrophic effect that that ideology has had on the New Zealand economy. These bills in some respects try to address some of the huge problems that were left by the embrace by the right wing of National and of Labour through the 1980s and 1990s of the ideology of laissez-faire and a low level of regulation. It seems to me that we are having to clean up after two decades of disaster as a result of that embracing of the ideology of laissez-faire—of letting the market decide everything and believing that we do not need proper regulators. After maybe two decades of catastrophe as a result of that embracing of the ideology that underpins ACT, which underpinned part of the National Government and the Labour Government in the 1980s and 1990s, we are having to try to fix it up here today.

The Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill seeks to restore investor confidence and to promote fair, efficient and transparent markets. It pulls together functions and roles currently dispersed amongst several agencies and takes a more integrated approach. It is important that KiwiSaver schemes in particular are monitored and risks minimised, as so many people rely on these for their long-term financial security. Many are still under the misapprehension that the schemes are Government-guaranteed.

It is clear that the deregulation of the 1980s and 1990s was a failed experiment. It has done serious harm. Very few people would not have a war story, whether personal or of a family member or friend, of being caught up in the financial collapses that resulted from the deregulation of the late 1980s and 1990s. Deregulation opened up the way for greed. It was an opportunity for some people to exploit and gain from the less well-informed, trusting people—who often were persuaded by celebrity endorsements—and sheer financial stupidity. The Greens will support this bill as it is a useful mechanism to give some comfort to investors and potential investors.

The bigger picture is that in New Zealand and globally, investor confidence and, indeed, the confidence of those not directly participating in the financial markets have been seriously undermined, and that confidence is unlikely to return as people realise that more is broken here than inadequate regulation, poor oversight, and sharp or, often, outright corrupt practice. There is a much more profound flaw at the base of our economic system, and that is not a problem that is amenable to mending by any single bill, as important as it is that we amend some of it.

Tim Jackson, the Economics Commissioner for the UK Sustainable Development Commission, has outlined the deeper-seated problem in his report Prosperity without Growth. The report highlights the inherent structural flaws of the economic system, predicated as it is on the assumption of continued and unending economic growth. He says: “The market was not undone by rogue individuals or the turning of a blind eye by incompetent regulators. It was undone by growth itself.” He demonstrates that the dominant economic model was always ecologically unsustainable, and has now proven to be economically unsustainable as well. He also, on a more positive note, makes the point that the economic crisis and its ongoing effects also present us with a unique opportunity to invest in change, to put aside the short-term and limited thinking, and to look for means and practices whereby we can still survive and flourish but also reduce our material impact on the planet.

The Greens will be hosting an economic seminar later this year—and we look forward to the participation of members from other parties in the House—where some of the possibilities for positive change can be proposed and debated. A debate starting from first principles on the purpose and form of our economy, and the base assumptions underpinning it, needs to occur as a matter of urgency, if we are not to soon discover that remedial measures like those proposed in this bill, while necessary and useful in the interim, are far from sufficient.

I will speak now on the second of the two bills before us tonight, the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. In similar fashion to the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill, this bill has a worthwhile purpose, and as such we will support it, but it also shines some light on an industry that needs to come to terms with the realities of international and, increasingly, local expectations about the profession’s scope and the potential for it to make a more holistic contribution to a successful and sustainable economy.

The bill to some extent acknowledges the age-old dilemma of who will guard the guardians. A great deal of trust has been placed in auditors, and this bill sets out to strengthen the regulatory regime within the Financial Markets Authority, or FMA, with the authority charged with overseeing a new licensing system for auditors and being responsible for monitoring the adequacy and effectiveness of the industry’s regulatory systems and processes for overseeing auditors. This response to the financial crisis will also contribute a degree of investor confidence in our financial markets.

It is interesting to read in the bill’s explanatory note the comment that “self-regulation is no longer within the range of international acceptability.” Yet self-regulation, of course, has been the ideology of New Zealand Governments since 1984, through to 1999. It is incredible what a failure that ridiculous experiment in self-regulation has been. It has resulted in catastrophe and suffering for tens of thousands of New Zealanders, who have lost their savings because the ACT Party ideology became the official ideology of the National and Labour sides of the New Zealand Parliament for so many years. Despite regulation being somewhat antithetical to the National Government’s core philosophical position, it is bowing to international pressure to better and more actively regulate in this area, and let us hope it does it well.

It is unfortunate that the Government seems unable or unwilling to go further and to take the opportunity to encourage or even, over time, oblige the practitioners, the chartered accountants, to adopt what is emerging as best practice internationally: to bring together not only financial but also environmental and social information into accounting standards and practice. After all, what does it matter if we have great accounting standards if they lead us to destroying the planet on which we depend for our very survival?

The profession has always measured and reported upon the flow of money through a business, an organisation, or, indeed, an economy. The New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants, among others, has over time looked at the various mechanisms and models for extending accounting and auditing practices to measure the whole of a business’s activity and the effect of that activity—measuring and reporting the environmental and social costs and benefits of business, and so giving a much clearer and more complete picture of its real value and its real influence. A genuinely integrated, transparent form of accounting is becoming commonplace in many countries, and sustainability reporting has been adopted by some of our largest and most successful companies locally as part of their regular cycle of reporting. Not only does this make a positive contribution to brand value; it gives our exporters a means to protect themselves against claims from other producers closer to the market that we are not able to compete in terms of the sustainability of our products and services. The present Government’s distaste for the word “sustainability” is well documented, but in this instance it would do well to acknowledge and accept the inevitable; to be at least a follower of the international trend to whole cost accounting, and to facilitate the development of expertise and acceptance of the new models within the profession. This is, after all, the 21st century, not the 19th century.

These bills are useful in terms of repairing some of the shortcomings of our current approach to finance and economy. The challenge now is for the Government to display some courage and willingness to recognise that some things cannot be fixed, and to adapt to new realities and new demands on a finite planet. Substantive and fundamental change in our economy is inevitable. We can choose to lead, and work to manage the transition and seek to achieve the most positive outcomes socially, environmentally, and economically, or we can passively wait for change to roll over us.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

I am pleased to stand to talk on the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. I say from the outset that although I am naturally suspicious whenever leave is sought for bills to be brought together under one umbrella—so-called cognate bills—in this case I am prepared to grant an exemption. These bills are truly what we might call companion bills. The Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill is absolutely linked to the establishment of the Financial Markets Authority, an initiative in the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill. The Financial Markets Authority, once it is up and running, will be the Government regulator of the audit profession, so the two bills are virtually one and the same. It is in the philosophical intent that the linkages are most explicit, with both bills designed to foster confidence in our finance industry and, in doing so, to strengthen the base for our markets.

I have come straight from Ōtautahi, and I have been immersed in the situation of our people there since the earthquake on the morning of Saturday, 4 September. The perilous situation of some of our families as they consider their capacity to provide for the basics of life—food, shelter, a place to sleep, and a roof over their heads—has been truly hard to bear. I have seen our elders weep in despair as they wonder how they will manage. I have sat with families who are struggling to cope, and it reminded me of just how important it is to ensure our financial viability is secure. On a different scale, but essentially driven by the same hopes and fears, the financial confidence of our markets is a critical factor in establishing a secure foundation for our economy. The last few years have seen many analysts expressing concerns about the viability of our regulator agencies, and in particular whether there are sufficient checks and balances in the system to ensure that providers act with integrity and honesty.

Such concerns have sparked off an enormous legislative agenda around financial advisers, securities, capital market development, prudential regulation, governance of financial service provides, and the like. I cannot help but think that if only the Government could put such effort into addressing the situations of abject poverty that so many New Zealand families find themselves in, we could make a difference overnight. I am thinking of aspirations to create confidence in our communities, such as setting a deadline to eliminate child poverty by 2020, or initiatives to address the basic levers, such as raising core benefit levels, including superannuation and the veterans pension, and increasing the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour—of course, not to mention removing GST from healthy food.

These bills do not do that, but they do look after the interests of some people who are cash rich and are able to invest in our financial markets, primarily through the creation and establishment of a new Financial Markets Authority. This is being promoted as a super-regulator for our financial markets, bringing together functions that have been spread across the Securities Commission, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Government Actuary, and NZX. This Government clearly likes the super-size concept—the super-regulator, the super-city—but only to a degree, and we have to remember that the “Supersize my pay!” campaign is a message that this Government is yet to deliver on. The “Supersize my pay!” campaign was launched in late 2005. It revolved around three main planks: the minimum wage, abolishment of the youth rate, and secure hours. One would think they are all perfectly reasonable. However, this bill does not deal with that. It aims to promote fair, efficient, and transparent financial markets. We know that the Government is anxious to fast-track this legislation to establish the authority as soon as possible, in order to promote confidence in Aotearoa’s financial markets. However, there is always the concern that fast-tracking the authority’s establishment might mean that the work carried out by the authority would be done under uncertainty, as the finer details of the shape of the new regulator are still being sorted out and might not be completed by the time the authority is established.

I want to turn my attention to the proposals in this bill to improve an oversight in KiwiSaver. We have been really pleased to be part of the developments around KiwiSaver that are focused on housing. I come back to the basic needs I talked about earlier, as demonstrated in the last couple of weeks in Ōtautahi. Some members of this House might be familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. They include safety and security, which are so fundamental to survival. One of the developments we are really proud of over the last 18 months since we have been in a confidence and supply arrangement with the Government is the KiwiSaver deposit subsidy and the KiwiSaver first home withdrawal option, which helps people with the deposit for a home. In our analysis, about 10 percent of current KiwiSaver members are Māori. With this new development, the home deposit elements of the scheme can be coupled with a Kāinga Whenua, a Welcome Home Loan, and the Welcome Home First Steps education course, providing another pathway for Māori into homeownership. This is a significant advance to help create opportunities for Māori to enjoy homeownership along with other New Zealanders.

We have had a particular interest in looking into the KiwiSaver changes to ensure that basic thresholds of fairness and justice apply to that scheme, along with any others. The changes to the KiwiSaver regulatory regime include making fund managers more accountable to regulators and investors, and requiring fund managers to disclose information about returns, fees, and assets in a consistent and comparable manner. In the current environment, there is only limited regulation of fund managers within the KiwiSaver regulatory regime. These bills will move the KiwiSaver scheme closer to the legal structure of unit trusts and bring trustees closer to the licensing regime that will be established by the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. We support all these measures, as we believe they are being done in the spirit of accountability, transparency, and security. We are pleased to support this bill at its first reading.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill this afternoon. I cannot wait until this legislation comes to the Commerce Committee, because I sit on it, as does Sam Lotu-Iiga, the deputy chairperson, who, I would like acknowledge, had a baby girl this morning. He is now the father of a beautiful little girl called Hope Elizabeth. Hopefully, he will be back in time for this legislation to come into the select committee as we kick off the deliberations.

I am particularly interested in this legislation coming to the select committee for the reason that I am a chartered accountant. A lot of the things that this legislation deals with are in relation to improving auditor regulation. I first started off in accountancy as an auditor in Wellington, so for me it is really relevant to see where this discussion goes. I know that the Institute of Chartered Accountants, or NZICA, is a supporter of this change. That is good to see, because it put the regulation of auditors who audit public accounts underneath another regulator, and takes it out of the family of the institute.

So I take just a small call this afternoon to say that I look forward to seeing this legislation come into our select committee and to hearing what the submitters have to say. Thank you very much.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this

I will begin by responding to the comment by Rahui Katene that she wished this House could do more to eliminate poverty in families. Rahui Katene sits with the Māori Party, and she voted for a Budget this year that increased the gap between the rich and the poor by having income tax cuts of which 35 percent of the value will go to the top 5 percent of income earners. So I say to Ms Katene that she should please not preach to others in this House about those who are less well off, and that she should not vote for a Budget that increases the gap between the rich and the poor.

I agreed with some of the things that Russel Norman said, in that we are dealing in this legislation with a reaction to some over-deregulation in different parts of the economy. He mentioned that there had been over-deregulation in a number of spheres. There are some obvious examples, like the building industry. We over-deregulated the building industry and we caused billions of dollars of costs to ordinary New Zealanders through leaky homes. Those homes were in large part an outcome of the over-deregulation of the building industry.

We also had over-deregulation of the electricity industry. I am reminded of the comments we heard from John Carter in respect of the Electricity Industry Bill. He had the temerity to assert that there had been under-investment in transmission because of what the last Government did. [Interruption] Well, I say to the Hon John Carter that I put on record that he got that exactly wrong. What happened was that Mr Bradford so deregulated electricity transmission that there was a written agreement between Transpower New Zealand, which owned the national grid, and the energy companies. The agreement said that Transpower could only ever invest in the grid and be paid for it if the people who were paying their bills agreed to the upgrade. That was contained in a written document prepared by Treasury under Max Bradford’s National Government. But what happened was that Contact Energy, Meridian Energy, and the other companies could never agree on any upgrades, so none were done. By the end of the 1990s transmission expenditure had dropped to, I think, between $20 and $50 million per annum, which was woefully inadequate.

The Labour Government then came in and said that that was nonsense, and that we needed to have a regulator that had some oversight of planned investment in transmission infrastructure. The amount in transmission spending following that change increased more than ten-fold to more than $500 million per annum under the Labour Government. That included approval for some massive projects, like the upgrade of the Cook Strait cable, the transmission upgrade through the Waikato, some big upgrades in the northern South Island, and some upgrades in Auckland. So I say to Mr Carter that far from that record being proof that a National Government does well and a Labour Government does poorly, history shows the opposite.

In terms of these bills, which impose more regulation in respect of the finance sector, I agree they are necessary. But I do not think that they absolve the need to have a good look at what has already gone wrong. I am told that 61 finance companies have gone broke in the last 4 years—61 finance companies. The biggest of the recent failures has been South Canterbury Finance. We heard the Hon Bill English a couple of weeks ago in the ministerial statement debate say that most of what had gone wrong in South Canterbury Finance was a consequence of lending prior to the date of the first Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme. He said that that was the case—and it may be the case—but we will not know until we look into it. I raise that because it seems to me that if there was shonky lending before the time of the grant of the first guarantee, we need to know what was known, by whom, and when. The purpose of the Crown guarantee was not to prop up already insolvent institutions. The purpose of the Crown guarantee was to give investors confidence that already sound institutions would not fail as a consequence of a run on the fund. That is why we did that in favour of banks, and also in favour of finance companies.

If the Hon Bill English is correct in saying that at the time of the original guarantee South Canterbury Finance was effectively already broke, then someone has gone wrong. I do not know who that somebody is, which is why we need an inquiry. Was it the statutory trustee? There is a statutory trustee for every finance company, who has a statutory duty to oversee the terms of the debenture trust deed and to make sure that the finance company is operating in terms of its legal mandate set out in the trust deed. I do not know. There may be some fault by the trustee, and if there is, the trustee should share the pain that is currently being borne totally by taxpayers, who have bailed out the company to the amount of $1.6 billion. I ask Mr Cunliffe whether that is the figure.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this

I am sure the Hon David Parker realises that there is going to be recovery of assets. I will not proceed to talk much further than that, other than to say that the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill are strong and good legislation that will bring great robustness to our regulatory framework. When shocks and quakes come they reveal where weaknesses exist. Prior to the quake everything looks integral, but when a shift and upheaval come vulnerabilities are exposed. That is exactly what happened when the global financial crisis hit. It was felt in nearly every sector of our economy and the economies of the world. But the fractures came where inherent weaknesses existed. This Government has undertaken the rebuilding of the regulatory infrastructure of the financial sector, and in the case of this legislation now before the House, the establishment of a Financial Markets Authority.

Although a low Government debt compared with those of other advanced economies puts us in a stronger place, according to the International Monetary Fund, in order to withstand future financial shocks we need a robust regulatory infrastructure in place. I congratulate the Minister of Commerce, the Hon Simon Power, on his leadership and the hard work he has put into this rebuilding. As much as the Hon Gerry Brownlee is present and hardworking for the people of Canterbury in their quake, the Minister of Commerce has put in an enormous effort to ensure that strength, confidence, and stability surrounds our financial markets sector. He said at the end of April 2010: “Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear to me that one of the missing pieces in the regulatory landscape is a single regulator focused on proactively monitoring and enforcing securities law. On too many occasions in finance company collapses we heard of investors’ money falling to the floor through the cracks between regulators. This has damaged investor confidence, and if we are to restore that confidence we need to make changes.”

National is focused on boosting growth and creating jobs. Only a strong economy can provide financial security for families, real opportunities for young people, safer communities, and the high-quality education and health services that all New Zealanders need. This bill will go a long way towards providing the environment and framework for that to occur. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora anō tātou. One hopes that members of the financial community up and down the country are taking note that legislation is wending its way through Parliament, although the legislation really is a belated reaction in terms of the $6 billion - odd that has gone west, associated with the failure of multiple finance companies. You see, that was New Zealand’s episode of the subprime mortgage crisis. We are told that the derivatives market—opaque and complex; numbering trillions of dollars—actually lay beneath the collapse of much of the financial system in northern Europe and the United States of America. Although much of our financial apparatus was spared such pain, we have lived through the loss of $6.5 billion worth of toilers’ and garden-variety Kiwis’ wealth; it has gone up in smoke.

Those finance organisations actually had a very important role to fulfil. Mezzanine finance provided a level of financial support for investors and entrepreneurs beyond what a bank could prudentially allocate. It makes one wonder, had those types of people been in charge of our major trading banks, what the result might have been. One shudders to think about that. Other than Kiwibank, we are stuck with Aussie-owned banks. Those banks remained stable during the recent financial imbroglio, but many of the finance companies have turned to custard. This legislation, unfortunately, will not bring that money back in any manner or form. Let us not forget the size of the loss, and the fact that an entire generation of savers have watched their wealth vanish.

One of the most extraordinary examples concerned the protagonists behind the failed Hanover Finance investment. It is hard to imagine that the long arm of the law will ever catch up with them, but who knows? Events like those show why legislation of this nature and extreme vigilance is needed. The original owners of Hanover Finance passed the spoiled goods over to Allied Farmers, and what do we read about in the newspaper now? That company, too, is teetering on the point of absolute collapse.

I preface my remarks on the bills with those comments because we did not move with enough pace to bring to justice the people in whom society had posited their trust. We will live to regret that, because it is difficult now to get a range of projects up and going. Although capital may be there, it is very chary, and it is very frightened of falling again into the hands of the characters who have ruined people’s lives. As we have said earlier, we support this legislation, but we ask whether it will enhance the confidence of savers to bring money back into circulation so that it fulfils this mezzanine purpose. I hesitate to agree that it will, other than to say that it is an important building block on a long road to recovery.

My colleague Lianne Dalziel played a key role in launching the work related to the Capital Market Development Taskforce. I do not fully subscribe to the notion that New Zealand is short of capital. I prefer the approach that says New Zealand has capital, but that it is both misallocated and, at the moment, very shy; it is staying in an area where it is unlikely to be squandered as a consequence of dodgy decision-makers. So this apparatus has to fulfil the purpose of causing a new source of capital to be made available to firms, entrepreneurs, and investors in our country, because it is only through investment that we will create jobs and enhance the number of firms that will produce a greater level of goods and services—hopefully, to generate foreign exchange earnings.

Often a celebrated case is seized upon, and the culprits in a given case are jumped upon from a great height. The style of compliance pursued by the Inland Revenue Department tends, in my assessment, to search out for egregious examples of wrongdoing, smash them hard, and then hope and trust that the severe punitive measures visited upon the culprits will send a message out to a wider group of people. Well, that is really what needs to happen as a consequence of the passage of these bills. There is an enormous contrast. We can watch television and see the hapless individuals who have been fast and loose with the funds of American citizens being marched out of their offices, surrounded by heavies—I dare not say “goons”, but they are very frightening individuals—wearing FBI-emblazoned jackets. However, in Aotearoa New Zealand, those wrongdoers often go away for a holiday overseas, then come back—

MELISSA LEE (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to rise to make a very short contribution to the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill together with the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill, which are obviously being read together.

I will take a moment to talk about the Financial Markets Authority. This authority will consolidate functions that are currently fragmented across several departments such as the Securities Commission, which is the current market conduct regulator; the Government Actuary, which is the current market regulator of superannuation and KiwiSaver schemes; certain functions of the Ministry of Economic Development; and also some functions currently undertaken by the Minister of Commerce. The Financial Markets Authority will be the one authority that will look after all of those.

Obviously the Financial Markets Authority will be focused on promoting fair, efficient, and transparent financial markets. A key focus will be on a visible proactive surveillance and enforcement role in relation to those markets. Speakers who have spoken before me have talked about the huge financial trouble that New Zealand and the world has had. Investment literacy in New Zealand is very poor, and we need to improve the situation.

I am a member of the Commerce Committee and I look forward to the submissions that will come to it and the work that will be done on this legislation. This is great legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this

I move, That the Commerce Committee consider the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 February 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).