Financial Reporting Bill, Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill

I move, That the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill be now read a third time. It is important to consider the two bills within the broader context of the Government’s package of financial reporting reforms. Parliament passed two Government-sponsored bills in 2011 that have improved the financial reporting system. The main change in the Financial Reporting Amendment Act 2011 was to consolidate all accounting and auditing standards and set them in the External Reporting Board, or XRB, so that standards are set by a body that is, and is seen to be, independent of the interests of the accounting profession. The second major reform was the enactment of the Auditor Regulation Act 2011, which came into force on 1 July 2012. The Act ensures that only top members of the auditing profession can carry out financial sector and issuer audits. It also requires independent oversight of professional accounting bodies—the auditor regulatory system—by the Financial Markets Authority. These audit reforms were driven by concerns about finance company audits being carried out by practitioners who did not have the necessary skills and experience. The changes are fully consistent with international auditor regulation developments in recent years.

However, the financial reporting picture is not yet complete. The Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill implement four more important changes. First, they reduce the compliance burden on many non-issuer companies. Companies with annual revenue of between $2 million and $30 million will no longer be required to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice. Small overseas companies will no longer be required to file audited financial statements with the Registrar of Companies. It is expected that these changes will come into force in 2014.

Second, the legislation will strengthen public confidence in charities by increasing charities’ accountability to the donating and taxpaying public. Registered charities are required to attach financial statements to their annual reports. The current situation might be described as “do it yourself” reporting, because there are no accounting standards to govern what is prepared. This problem is being rectified by these bills. It is expected that the accounting standards will come into force in 2015.

Third, the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill includes a century of tidy-ups by making amendments to more than 80 other Acts. Those changes will make financial reporting requirements fully consistent with the goals of financial reporting and replace archaic language. Fourth, the two bills make financial reporting legislation more user-friendly by placing provisions where most users would expect to find them.

The Financial Reporting Bill also repeals the Financial Reporting Act 1993. This means that the provisions in the 1993 Act that constitute the External Reporting Board and describe its powers and obligations are being included in the Financial Reporting Bill largely unchanged. Core accounting definitions are consolidated within the Financial Reporting Bill. This includes retaining existing provisions in the 1993 Act and moving other definitions from the Companies Act 1993. The Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill places all substantive reporting obligations in sector, industry, and entity-specific Acts. Those Acts cross-refer as necessary to the standard definitions in the Financial Reporting Bill.

The Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill changes the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 by consolidating the reporting requirements for all Financial Markets Conduct Act reporting entities. Most of those obligations currently appear in the Financial Reporting Act 1993, but they also appear elsewhere, such as in the Building Societies Act 1965. Splitting the bill into two bills will mean that there will be a short Financial Reporting Act of about 35 pages comprising the provisions that will be referred to for decades to come. The Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Act will be about 150 pages. It is likely to be of little interest beyond 2016.

I would like to thank the External Reporting Board for its significant contributions to these reforms. These bills deal with the “who” question—who is a reporting entity? It is for the External Reporting Board to answer the “what” question—what accounting standards each class of reporting entity must comply with. These questions are likely to be linked, and the External Reporting Board has been working very effectively with the Government. The External Reporting Board submitted a reporting strategy to me in March 2012, and I approved it in April 2012. The strategy is fully consistent with the policy of the two bills. The External Reporting Board has been implementing its strategy to the extent that it can under the Financial Reporting Act 1993. It has also issued exposure drafts for not-for-profit entity accounting standards that will apply to registered charities. Those standards are being finalised and will be issued once the two bills have been passed.

To conclude, the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill will make major contributions to strengthening the financial reporting system in New Zealand. I commend these bills to the House.

Can I thank the Minister of Commerce. The Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill have bipartisan support. In fact, I do not believe—maybe there is—there is a party in Parliament that is opposed to them, for logical and common-sense reasons. Can I also thank the Minister for the way he has conducted himself in respect of transacting this report. I think that members of the Committee, across the House, have done a pretty good job to come to grips with it.

Labour will support these bills. They are admirable bills and they are necessary in respect of all the things we have debated tonight, over and over as we head towards midnight, in terms of appropriate accounting and financial reporting standards, transparency, accountability, et al.

I want to particularly say that we on this side of the House believe that reducing unnecessary compliance costs for all entities, but especially for small entities, is appropriate. I well recall being the Minister for Small Business for a time in the last Labour Government. It is a bit like being the Minister for Building and Construction in that there is a decent alumni of small business Ministers, past and present, in this place. The dilemma for a Minister for Small Business is that when you attempt to reduce compliance costs, your colleagues in Cabinet, with their own portfolios, and with all good intentions, are trying to solve other problems and in doing so, although they have the best of intentions and are acting in good faith, they can often pile those compliance costs back on.

But I will say that the Minister of Commerce has acted in a far more effective way than the then Minister for Small Business, the honourable—I use that word advisedly—John Archibald Banks, whose greatest contribution to the body politic was to stand in this House last year, I think, or within the last 12 months, and promote a piece of legislation that had at its heart getting rid of 31 spent Acts. For the uninitiated—because I was—I had to ask the Clerk, and a spent Act is effectively an Act that in all essence has been repealed. In essence it has no effect on anybody—it does not exist. So he was repealing 31 Acts that had no effect on anybody. That was the Hon John Archibald Banks’ great—

💬 Hon Member: High point.

—high point as Minister for Small Business, before he got into a high degree of difficulty involving his second court appearance after being convicted in a previous life of a criminal offence elsewhere. So he is rather preoccupied with his own compliance costs, and I suspect there might be a few more compliance costs as he heads through the court proceeding, trying to defend the indefensible.

In terms of transparency and standards, I hope that Minister Foss might perhaps give the former Minister John Banks some advice on how to maintain high standards of accountability and transparency, possibly in his own personal affairs, for which he is now accountable before the courts. That may lead to some lifelong learning for Mr Banks as he contemplates doing other things as he, perhaps, looks through striped sunshine in the next few years.

I return to the legislation, and I am particularly grateful for the clarification around charities. I do take the point, which, I think, a number of colleagues have made, that the more appropriate level of financial reporting and the more openness, transparency, and accountability a charity can have—though it is somewhat burdensome to make any changes—will promote, I do hope, as the Minister does, further giving from people. They will have a greater confidence that the charitable dollar that they are donating will be used—as it generally is in 99 percent of cases—in an appropriate way and will get to those who are in need, either medically or because of their personal circumstances. They will have a greater confidence that the money gets to where it needs to go to assist people.

I come back to a couple of points I made previously. I say to the Government again, even though we are supporting this legislation, that it ought to look to its own conduct in terms of when it is promoting standards, accountability, and transparency. In a previous speech I touched on the rather shoddy, slipshod, and totally morally wrong way in which it dealt with the provision for sale, and the loss of dividends from the mixed-ownership model. I just say again to the Government that it will be difficult for some as they read this legislation, and are required to spend quite a bit of money in many respects to make the relevant changes, and then look at the Government’s own record of accounting standards, aided and abetted in this case, sadly, I have to say, by Treasury, which allowed this behaviour to be got away with. They may look at this Government and say: “Well, if it’s good enough for us, why isn’t it good enough for you?”—as in the Government, not you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I think that the behaviour has been reprehensible. It was done simply for political purposes, and, sadly, the Government ought to realise that in some ways you do not actually need a piece of legislation in order to be accountable, because New Zealand is a small village. Everybody knows what everybody is doing, and the people saw through that act of incompetence and negligence—an act that was completely wrong. They have now seen through that as we have gone through several botched mixed-ownership model sales. People are not silly. This Government ought to work that out. They know when they are being snowed. They know when there is a snow job, and they know when one is trying to be put across them. So I say that.

That also goes, in terms of standards and transparency, for some of the other deals—bizarre negotiations like the ones with Rio Tinto, done behind closed doors, with no explanations and no claims about job security. That is why the Government paid 30 million pieces of silver to Rio Tinto—on a claim that it was securing jobs for Southland. Without bringing the Deputy Speaker into the debate—I know that he is a very parochial Southlander, who stands up for his patch very well—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: He’s a hunter.

He is a hunter indeed. The commitment was made in this House that $30 million effectively bought job security for those Rio Tinto workers. We now know two things. Before the ink was dry on the cheque, on the Tuesday, in the Southland Times Rio Tinto was already announcing the fact that it was laying off maintenance workers. We now know—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: What’s this got to do with the legislation?

Anne Tolley asks what this has got to do with the legislation. Well, that says it all. A day late and a dollar short from that one over there. Ms Tolley, it is about accountability, transparency, and walking the talk. When you promote a bill that requires a high level of financial reporting accountability and transparency for others, one would think that you would do that from a position of moral authority, where you could stand up and say the Government is going to adhere to the same standard. That, Ms Tolley, is what it is all about, and, as I was saying in terms of the Rio Tinto deal, $30 million—[Interruption] Well, she still does not get it, but that is all right. Get Nick Smith to explain it to you out the back over a coffee afterwards. If Ms Tolley does not know what it is about, that says a lot to the community, does it not? That says a lot. Ignorance for that member is bliss, absolute bliss—hear no evil, see no evil.

The facts are that $30 million—$30 million—was promised to secure jobs, and then we find out that the Minister of Finance did not even ask for a jobs guarantee. He may not have got one—fair enough—but he did not even have the brains, the gumption, or the professionalism to ask for that. There was no transparency with the Chorus deal either—no transparency, no accountability. In terms of the Solid Energy deal, the Government was asleep at the wheel. There was no accountability and no transparency, and there were some pretty dodgy financial reporting standards amongst that. [Interruption] Oh, they have woken up.

I say to those members opposite that if they are going to apply this sort of legislation, which is appropriate to everybody else, they might want to look at their own financial conduct, their own conduct in respect of State-owned enterprises, Chorus, the SkyCity deal, and the Ruataniwha Dam project, which that Minister is involved with in various surreptitious ways, and say: “Maybe we should have the same level of openness, accountability, transparency, and standards.” That, Ms Tolley, is what it is all about: walking the talk, practising what you preach, and not being—well, I cannot use the “h” word, of course. It is not about the Government saying one thing—demanding and demanding that people outside this Chamber adhere to high standards of accountability, professionalism, reporting, and transparency—and doing another. It is not about the Government saying: “Oh, that’s OK for them, the plebs outside here, but it’s not OK for us. We’ll set our own standards. We’ll lower the height bar as we see fit, and anything will go.”

I say in conclusion that we support the tenure of this legislation. We support it. [Interruption] There is a bit of verbal biffo going on across the House between a couple of members, but that is OK. We are getting close to the bewitching hour, and I am sure there will be a few broomsticks flying out of here from time to time. I say that we support this legislation. It has bipartisan support, but I just wish the Government would actually look at it and say: “OK, if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for us.”

I am very pleased to stand and commend this legislation arising from the Financial Reporting Bill to the House.

Let us see whether I can outlast the chair of the Commerce Committee, Jonathan Young, who shepherded the Financial Reporting Bill through Parliament with great care and dignity. I guess no one can accuse him of hypocrisy, because this legislation, which has great principles in it, is being passed through. He is supporting it, but he is not going any further than that. He is not explaining why. He is not getting into the detail. He is not contrasting it with the Government’s current behaviour in the way that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has so eloquently done, and as he so eloquently does.

I want to speak a little bit about the public sector management principles that sit behind this legislation. I can actually hear people turning their TV sets off as I say that. I will try to make it vaguely entertaining, or as entertaining as it can be. This legislation is not particularly exciting, it has to be said.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: No. Nor is this member.

It is not the bright lights kind of thing. Ms Tolley says that, no, it is not. But it is actually exciting for those entities affected by it. It is exciting that accountability, where it is unnecessary, is being done away with. And where it is required, where there is a public interest angle, where an entity is too big to fail without having ripples through the community, proper and clear accountability is being required.

As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has contrasted the Government’s behaviour inside this place and in its deals with the expectations of those who are outside in the business world, I want to bring another example to the table. That is the example of the AgResearch restructure that is going on currently. AgResearch has brought a proposal, which it has put to the shareholding Ministers, Ministers Steven Joyce and Bill English, which they have signed off, called the Future Footprint Business Case for AgResearch. It is based around an idea that you cluster things together, you get hubs of activity, and it is more productive. There is nothing wrong with that as a general principle. Broadly, it has been agreed with. It has been agreed with in the reviews inside the organisation that those principles are good ones. But what has not happened has been a transparent process around assessing whether that is what is really achieved in the restructuring proposal. That is not what is achieved, argue three separate reports that have come out subsequently.

The executive leadership team—very close connections there, into the Minister’s office—has defended the current plan, which was signed off by the Minister. The Minister may be embarrassed, because the original plan seems to lack some good principles behind it, in terms of the way the different options have been compared. It was very detailed, so we know Minister Joyce had the plan for about 6 months. He received it on 31 October last year, and had it on his desk until at least the end of March. He must have worked through all those details of how many jobs were going to be lost in Dunedin and thereabouts, and how many jobs were going to go out of Hamilton.

The member David Bennett opposite must be furious at the way the AgResearch centre there in Hamilton has been gutted by Steven Joyce, without going through a proper process. Maybe he is just rolling over and letting his belly be scratched—I do not know. But if I were him, I would be furious, because Minister Joyce is steamrolling this ideological vision through, without having a transparent process and without having the proper business case requirements that Treasury would demand.

Again, there we see a level of hypocrisy. When the Government commits itself to a deal, it puts transparency to one side. In this legislation we are seeing that everybody is required to comply with transparent processes, if it is in the public interest, except the behaviour of this Government. That is the record that we are seeing. There is one rule for everyone else, and one rule for the National Government. On the Invermay Agricultural Centre debacle we have had many, many independent investigations—three, now. Well, one was an internal review, which said: “You’ve got these objectives, but you’re not meeting them, Invermay AgResearch, by breaking up the Invermay cluster in Dunedin.” There is a productive hub there. There is private enterprise. There are productivity gains—a huge history of productivity gains that are extraordinary in New Zealand terms and that contribute to our agricultural sector, which is so important as it is. In fact, you have got the whole “-omics”—genomics, and so forth—cluster there, which is working effectively.

It could be working more effectively, in fact, if you transferred more resource into it. That would be good for New Zealand. That would actually achieve your goals. But it seems at this stage that the Government is wedded to it, although Minister Joyce does say he is going to look at more detail. He has asked for more detail, and I commend him for that.

It is a little bit disappointing, perhaps, that the National Party list member who lives in Dunedin has not been out there, putting the pressure publicly on Minister Joyce to look at those things carefully. There has been no statement. There has been silence from the list member who is based in Dunedin, and that is disappointing.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Rubbish! Don’t tell fibs.

I expect him to take a call. He is saying “Rubbish!”, so I look forward to his rebutting that. But I certainly have not heard the echoes of his complaints through the media, so I will listen with interest and I will look to the newspapers for criticism, as those jobs, which benefit New Zealand’s economy, are ripped out of Dunedin. The productivity of our country is dependent on good science and on good research. This Government seems determined to run a non-transparent process and, in that case, to rip out that functional hub in the south. It is doing harm to New Zealand. Let us put aside the regional interests. It is doing harm to New Zealand.

But when it is ideologically wedded, be it a casino deal, be it a Rio Tinto golden handshake, be it a Chorus deal sorted out behind the scenes, where it is big business and corporate welfare, this Government is willing to do the deal with its ideological blinkers on. It does not matter that the electricity sector, for example, had that history of price gouging that I referred to in the Committee stage, where $4.3 billion of price gouging was identified between 2001 and 2007. Simon Bridges says that the current market model works, and that it just needs a little more time to bed in. I think that is an exact quote: it just needs a little more time to “bed in.” Fifteen years down the track, this Government is not prepared to stand up and say when something is not working.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Too early to tell, he said.

It is too early to tell—too early to tell. We will wait and see. But not the Labour Government. The Labour Government of the future will step in. It will make sure that we regulate the power market so that it is run in the interests of New Zealand citizens, so that people do not pay too much for their power, and so we do not have blackouts across the country. Those are the kinds of things that this Government will tolerate, in the interests of making sure that the money from the asset sell-offs goes offshore and that its mates are looked after. The Government is ideologically wedded to it. It will not even look at the NZ Power model, which is so well-championed by the Labour Party, and also a variant put forward by the Green Party, down the back of the House.

Unfortunately, this Government is so wedded to this ideological position. It is one thing for the Government and its deals—the way it does its business. It is expecting, in this legislation, the citizens of New Zealand to do something different. It is a pity the Government cannot take its own advice. It is a pity the Government cannot apply those simple principles that I referred to at the outset, the public sector management principles: clear objectives, transparent reporting, sanctions and rewards, and clear lines of accountability. Those kinds of simple principles that we find embodied in this legislation, looking out for the public interests, seem too far beyond this Government for it to adopt itself. That is a great shame, because this Government, if it applied these principles to its own practice, would be acting in the interests of New Zealanders more broadly.

But, no, it seems to be out of touch. It seems to be increasingly arrogant. We saw the dismissal of the Earthquake Commission—the Auditor-General’s report. We saw the dismissals of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme—the Auditor-General’s report. We saw the dismissal of the Law Society’s advice on the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation, saying to slow down, have a clear process, have some clear oversight of the agency, and have a proper review, for goodness’ sake! But, no, this Government does not want scrutiny. It does not want a review. The Government says that this is not for it. The Government says “This is for the people of New Zealand, but it is not for us. We are a Government that is not interested in the wider public interest, where it applies to us. We will do our own thing.” This is a Government that is out of touch with New Zealanders, out of time, and New Zealanders will be well advised to get rid of it at the next election. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a call in the last 15 minutes, at a quarter to midnight, during urgency. The Green Party will be supporting the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill, even though they are not perfect, because we do not think that perfect should be the enemy of the good, and this legislation, on balance, does quite a lot of good things. It has been widely canvassed, and the details have been worked on for a very long time by the officials, who, I think, have done quite a good job.

The main purpose of this legislation, as we have heard, is to make all general-purpose financial reporting consistent with the primary objective of the financial reporting system, which is to provide information to external users who require that information and cannot demand it. In other words, the legislation should make the requirements to disclose and report more fit for purpose to the organisations that are required to report.

The Green Party supports a much smarter approach to regulation. This legislation does that by easing some of the burden of financial reporting for non-large, non-issuing entities. In other words, it simplifies reporting requirements for small and medium companies, charities, churches, and the like. It also tightens up some of the requirements for large entities, to bring it in line with the Financial Markets Conduct Act, which was passed recently.

Financial reporting is important, for a few reasons. Firstly, it is especially important for public accountability. There is a public interest in organisations that are funded by taxpayers, like Crown entities, Government departments, and State-owned enterprises. But it is also important for banks, insurers, mutual funds, and any organisation that is a deposit taker or issuer of debt, and charities and other organisations that receive public donations. Secondly, it is important for large organisations that have significant economic significance. This would apply to organisations that are “too big to fail”.

There is no such thing as a pure or perfect free market. If we examine the objective evidence and the historical record, there is simply no evidence that there is perfect information and transparency and the ability of markets to self-correct, for that reason. The whole theory of free markets and the invisible hand was based on the idea that there were much closer relationships between the people who were purchasing things and the people who were manufacturing or providing those services. Adam Smith wrote that at a time when the relationship between a producer and a consumer was much closer than it is today. It is very difficult today for consumers and investors to understand exactly all of the factors that are involved in the nature of the business that they are purchasing from.

The complexity of our current global economy reduces accountability. It makes it harder for there to be accountability, and that is why it is incredibly important for there to be robust public oversight and regulation. Financial institutions are central to the functioning of our economy. As the financial crisis showed, it is important to have that rigorous public oversight, because when there is not that oversight, there is a tendency for organisations to get creative, to do things that are quite unwise in the medium and long term, and in the case of some of the investment banks and organisations, particularly in the United States, to actually do things that are completely illegal in order to make more money. Eventually, when the reckoning comes, it is not those organisations that suffer the consequences of their actions. Huge amounts of wealth have been wiped off balance sheets all across the world, and that has very real consequences for ordinary people—people who lost their jobs, lost their houses, and lost their livelihoods.

It is so important to get the balance right. I am no fan of regulations that are not effective. I am a qualified planner who would be the first to criticise onerous regulations and city plans that have led to quite undesirable outcomes. I think that we can do things much smarter, but it would be wrong to say that we need to get rid of all regulation, that all regulation is bad, and that all compliance costs are bad, because what might cost us a little bit in the short term could save us quite a lot in the medium and long term.

The Green Party supports the changes in these bills, the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill, because it seems that the general direction set by these bills is good. We have some concerns about whether or not enough organisations will be caught by the definition of “large” organisation, and so it will remain to be seen. Certainly, with this whole new framework for financial reporting, it will be important for the Government and the Opposition—Parliament—to pay attention to what is happening, see whether it is working and whether, indeed, external users are getting all of the information that they need. It seems to me that it is going to rely a lot on decisions made by the External Reporting Board about accounting and reporting standards and that process. So Parliament will have to monitor whether or not that is working and whether or not truly all of the information that needs to be available for the public interest is available.

Finally, I think there is one big missed opportunity in this whole restructure of the financial reporting framework that has been undertaken over the past few years, and that is the lack of exploration of guidelines for environmental and social reporting in addition to financial reporting. That is known as triple bottom line accounting. There is increasing awareness around the world, and particularly, I think, amongst younger generations, that maximising short-term profit at the expense of people and the planet is not sustainable. Climate talks are happening right now in Warsaw and the situation is very, very straightforward. The scientists have told us we have to transition to a low-carbon economy, or we are going to impoverish the future of our children, their children, and their children. So it is important that we start paying attention to more than just the dollars and cents in the short term.

It is a commonly understood principle, I think, in private business that one cares about what one measures. At the moment, most organisations—including the Government; especially, perhaps, this Government—have a single-minded, narrow focus on dollars, although there are a number of other things that are important for human well-being. In order for New Zealanders to have good lives and in order for people all over the world to have good lives, we have to pay attention to more than just the dollars; we have to pay attention to the cleanliness of the environment, the air that we breathe, the water, and the stability of the climate. We want to make sure that other people are looked after, because that has an impact on our well-being.

I can go out, work really hard, start up a business, and make lots of money, but if I live in a society where other people do not have the opportunity to do that, for a variety of reasons, then that is going to impact on me because, ultimately, I will have to suffer the consequences of a society that has more crime or more injustice and is not well looked after.

I would like to see, at some point during my time in this House, a move towards incorporating greater accountability in areas that are not just financial. I would like to see guidelines for environmental and social bottom lines, so that we have an understanding of exactly what it is we are working towards and trading off. Thank you.

These bills, the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill, will improve the financial reporting system in this country. They will build a brighter, bolder, better future for all New Zealanders. I commend these bills to the House.

New Zealand First supports the Financial Reporting Bill and the Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill. They reduce compliance costs, strengthen accountability, and improve transparency. We support the bills.

Labour does support these bills, the Financial Reporting Bill and Financial Reporting (Amendments to Other Enactments) Bill, and most of the debate tonight has come from this side of the House. Well, pretty much all of the debate has come from this side of this House, as usual.

One of the things that is critical when we are looking at these bills is that the primary aim of Government should be getting on with doing its job of growing and creating jobs, which, unfortunately, is one of the things that this Government is not doing. One of the ways of doing that is reducing unnecessary compliance costs for businesses, and it is creating good standards—standards of transparency and accountability—and joining the dots between those things. Unfortunately, as we have heard from numerous examples given tonight, whether it is the mixed-ownership model, whether it is Invermay Agricultural Centre, or whether it is Chorus—and there are numerous other examples—the dots are not being joined in terms of what is in these bills, what the standards are that are being expected of other companies, and what is actually being delivered by this Government. It does not add up.

However, we support these bills. There was a lot of good work done in the select committee, and we commend these bills to the House.

Bills read a third time.