Sitting date: 2 April 2026

Debate resumed from 10 February.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we were last on this piece of legislation, we were up to call No. 3. I call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:51): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to take a call on this particular financial bill. As the second reading, one of the things we are looking at is that, first of all, I want to thank the FEC—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—in terms of the examination of this bill and all of the people who have submitted on this bill.

Now, this is one of those bills where, from a Green Party perspective, we do support the bill, as well as the context around this bill. It’s one of three related bills in terms of financial services, and I think one of the things that we are looking at with this omnibus bill is to amend provisions in the bill that allow us to have minimal requirements for fair conduct programmes, on-site inspection powers, as well as the Financial Markets Authority’s (FMA) approval requiring for certain changes. I’m going to talk about the bill and the select committee and the hearings we’ve had first, before going on to one of the more important things, which is around Amendment Paper 446. I think that’s an important thing to mention as one of the things the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has introduced just shortly before finishing the bill.

One of the first things we’re looking at in terms of this is that clause 4(4) of this bill would insert a definition of the price in section 6 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act and also in terms of the FMA’s approval requiring for certain changes. As I mentioned before, we are looking at significant transactions and amalgamations of this bill. We have received a submission that the new sections 421C and 421D appears to require approval from the FMA, even if the proposed action is not relevant or governed by the Act licensing regime. With that, we would have heard—and what the committee has decided on is amending section 421C so that approval will not be required for non-licensed businesses.

I think this is really important when it comes to the ultimate purpose of this bill and a lot of things that are related to the changes to the Financial Markets Authority are around some of the clarifications, and also allowing for that level of transparency and accountability when it comes to the process itself.

With the other parts of this bill, I think there are also other parts where the FMA—the Financial Markets Authority—would also need to consider various parts of the requests. Again, similarly to what I mentioned before, also in other parts of section 421I and 421J around this is around the consideration for the reporting on the proposal and also consideration for requests for approval—whether a licensee or authorised body will still meet the requirements and also the consultation with the Reserve Bank if a licensee or an authorised body was a regulated entity.

Now, one of the other things that the select committee heard during the select committee process—and I, unfortunately, was not one of the people who oversaw this bill through the select committee stage—was also around the nature of the conditions that the FMA may impose. In this case, when we were looking at approval given by the FMA under new Subpart 3A, we’re looking at things that are prescribed by both regulations, but also that relate to matters prescribed in those regulations. I think, in this case—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Come on, Lawrence.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —when we’re looking at—huh?

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Come on.

Suze Redmayne: Happy Easter, Lawrence. Come on.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: In terms of, what? In terms of this bill? Look, I think this is an important bill to discuss. While it may not be the most exciting of the bills—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: You’re filling in. Come on.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I know this is not the most exciting of the bills, maybe, but it is an important bill, and I think it’s worthwhile to also acknowledge the people who have submitted during the select committee stage to get to where we are right now.

But with that, I do want to say that when we’re looking at the nature of the conditions that the FMA impose, I mentioned before that you get the ones that are prescribed by regulations but also related to matters prescribed in those regulations. I think part of the select committee process was we wanted to see more certainty around the nature of those conditions that the FMA should impose, and the amendments did take place during the select committee stage. Again, when we’re looking at even the amendments going through the select committee, even the amendments as well were approved unanimously, which also shows the collegial elements of this bill as it went through the FEC.

But when it comes to the conditions the FMA imposes, it is important to note that based on the hearings during the select committee—and I’m sure other people will be able to provide more detail around this—that there is the recommendation to amend part of that to impose non-licensed conditions of approval relating to the requirements, but also “vary, revoke, add to, or substitute any conditions” of a licence imposed on the licensed person.

There was also the conversation that was had during the select committee stage that there should be more certainty around the procedural requirements, which also we see in some amendments as a result of that in this tracked change version of the bill following the select committee.

I think the main crux of this that I want to draw the House’s attention on is Amendment Paper 446 by the Minister, which is around climate-related disclosures. I think that is, particularly for the Green Party, an important aspect to consider where “The climate-related disclosure regime requires financial markets entities above a certain size to report on their climate-related risks and opportunities in annual climate statements.” This, I think, is something, from what I can see, that didn’t manage to get the hearing from the public, so it’s probably one of those things that, while we had a chance to examine it during the select committee stage, it might also deserve additional attention during the committee of the whole House stage, so that we’re able to ask the Minister and potentially the officials that support the Minister on this particular Amendment Paper in more detail.

But, in essence, this particular part was part of a Cabinet decision to modify the climate-related disclosures regime and the Minister in charge of this bill has asked the FEC to consider the changes. As a result of that, the select committee has also agreed to make certain changes to the proposed Amendment Paper 446, which is particularly around removing the “prohibition on unsubstantiated representations for climate reporting entities that comply with climate standards”. Also in terms of inserting an additional clause which would mean that the “provisions exempt listed issuers with securities quoted only on a growth market from preparing climate statements.” In this case, unfortunately, because we didn’t get a chance to hear from the public on the changes, there is a—

Hon Member:Make it stop.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry? I thought that members on the other side mentioned something in terms of the select committee process. But because of the fact that this particular Amendment Paper 446 wasn’t examined in full detail and we weren’t able to hear from the public fully on this part, because it does deviate quite a bit from what we see in other parts of the bill, it is something that, as the Greens, we are concerned whether some of the changes to the climate reporting requirements are actually going to have the kind of outcome we want to see in terms of having—particularly when it comes to the reduction in the climate change reporting obligations, whether it is able to achieve the kind of requirements or the kind of obligations that Aotearoa New Zealand really should be looking at in terms of our climate change targets under the Paris Agreement.

Again, like I said, this is something that we would be spending a fair bit of time on as part of the committee of the whole House stage coming up. But in terms of the rest of the bill, this is something that we have supported and we are looking forward to the committee of the whole House stage. With that, we recommend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 April 2026. Happy Easter.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.

© Scoop Media