What's on offer this election
w

NZ First is still keen on this idea, believing it will help stop advisers ripping off investors. However, the idea has little cross-party support.

Labour commerce spokesman Paul Swain says he has discussed the issue with people in the industry, and isn't keen to implement such a system as it would only add more compliance costs.

While he is not in favour of the idea Labour would consider it, if the industry approached Government asking for regulation.

National MP, and Minister of Commerce, Max Bradford says "I'm not sure if we have a specific policy. It's up to the industry itself to establish its own regulatory regime."

However, he liked the scheme the Institute of Chartered Accountants uses. That is the term chartered accountant has statutory protection, and only people who are members of the institute and abide by its rules and code of ethics can use the term.

The Alliance believes the priority in this area is disclosure by individuals and organisations offering advice of any interest in the product being sold, including commissions.

Leader Jim Anderton says the Alliance would like to see an ombudsman appointed by statute to enforce a rigorous code of ethics.

He says there should be greater scrutiny of the standard of advice given, rather than just licensing advisers.

Act finance spokesman Rodney Hide ruled it out, saying it's just more red tape.

All the parties said no to a capital gains tax, however the real answers are somewhere in-between.

National, as the incumbent administration, says no to a CGT, however over its tenure of the Treasury benches there has been a creeping capital gains tax.

Labour gives its standard no answer to the question, however says the issue will be dealt with in its review of the tax system.

The Alliance says it "does not have a capital gains tax in its election policy."

"We do recognise that a complete and fair tax system would include a capital gains tax, and for that reason the Alliance believes the issue of a capital gains tax should be investigated by a Royal Commission into the tax system."

Act says no to capital gains tax, as does NZ First.

National has no plans for change and currently intends keeping the status quo.

"The Government has been monitoring takeover activity since 1995 to assess the effect of existing Stock Exchange rules and Companies Act measures. We will consider whether any additional takeover regulation is needed in our next term."

Labour has released a discussion document on improving confidence in the sharemarket, and it has formally included plans for a strengthened takeovers code in its policy.

It says regulation of the market currently is "extremely light-handed" and it needs to be beefed up to improve investor confidence.

NZ First says it wants to see a strengthened takeovers code. "The small fish are being gobbled up by the big fish who will eventually feed on each other and then starve."

Act's Rodney Hide is opposed to a takeovers code. He says people who advocate such a thing "don't understand the functions of capital markets."

One of the concerns expressed about financial markets regulation is that the Securities Commission is ineffectual as a policing agent as it is under-funded and under-resourced.

Bradford says the National government has allocated extra funding to the commission over the next three years.

There have also been some changes to the Securities Act flagged that would lower the cost of raising small amounts of capital. The changes will relax pre-prospectus advertising, exempt offers to informed investors from the disclosure requirements and broaden the Securities Commission's power to issue exemptions.

Labour is keen to improve the environment for investment in the sharemarket, and besides introducing a takeovers code based on the released in 1995, wants to strengthen provisions against insider trading, and increase public enforcement of the provision.

It also wants to review the regulatory arrangements with a view to clarifying and co-ordinating the roles of the various agencies and the possible amalgamation of the statutory functions of regulatory and oversight bodies.

Hide says the Securities Commission is OK.

Parties were asked whether they would do anything to ease the disclosure burden carried by employer sponsored superannuation schemes.

The Alliance says its emphasis is on strengthening NZ Super rather than focusing on employer sponsored superannuation.

"Changes in the pattern of working lives mean that the days when a person stayed with a single employer for their lifetime have gone.

"Few employees now expect to work for employers long enough to build up an adequate pension entitlement," Anderton says.

"Occupational pensions cannot be relied on to provide a retirement income. There is no sense in forcing employers into providing retirement schemes and there are insurmountable issues of portability.

That is not to say that there is no role for employer-based schemes. If employees and employers are able to negotiate agreements providing for a retirement component, then the Alliance supports that. But there is only a small proportion of the workforce, let alone of the overall population, which will ever be covered by occupation-based schemes. Therefore, they can't form the basis of overall retirement policies.

National says it is "broadly satisfied with existing disclosure requirements."

Labour's finance spokesman Michael Cullen has indicated he would like to make changes to the disclosure legislation to reduce the costs imposed on employer sponsored schemes.

Hide says the compliance costs employer sponsored schemes faces are outrageous and exorbitant.

To see what each party says on Superannuation click here to visit Supertalk.

Commenting is closed