Why Oppose the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill
This Amendment Paper removes transparency and accountability.
It legalises unverified climate statements, eliminates independent assurance, raises reporting thresholds, and weakens oversight of industries with the largest pollution and extraction footprints. New Zealand’s financial markets rely on evidence-based disclosure — this Amendment removes those foundations.
Below explains what Amendment Paper No. 446 gets wrong, why it matters, and why Parliament must not allow a climate-disclosure regime that can be ignored, manipulated, or used to conceal environmental and financial risks.
Principles at Stake
- Transparency: Investors and the public require evidence-based climate disclosures that can be trusted.
- Accountability: Directors must remain responsible for the accuracy of the information they sign off.
- Integrity of financial markets: Reliable information is essential for fair pricing, risk assessment, and investor confidence.
- Public interest: High-pollution industries cannot be allowed to operate without scrutiny.
- Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Environmental impacts fall disproportionately on Māori communities — disclosure must remain robust.
What the Amendment Gets Wrong
- Legalises unsubstantiated climate statements: New section 26A exempts climate disclosures from the prohibition on unsubstantiated representations.
- Removes director accountability: Clause 29B eliminates liability for defective climate statements, weakening governance integrity.
- Raises thresholds from $60 million to $1 billion: Clause 28B exempts most listed companies and major emitters from reporting at all.
- Eliminates independent verification: Clauses 28M–28O remove assurance requirements, enabling inaccurate or misleading emissions data.
- Allows entities to immediately stop reporting: Transitional clause 108 permits instant cessation of climate statements, even mid-period.
- Creates broad regulatory discretion: New section 547 allows thresholds to be altered through secondary legislation with little scrutiny.
- Enables high-pollution activity: The removal of evidence-based reporting benefits mining, extraction, and heavy industry.
Why This Matters
- Climate statements lose credibility: Unverified or speculative disclosures can be legally issued, undermining trust.
- Investors face greater risk: Market integrity collapses when reporting is optional, unsubstantiated, or unverifiable.
- Polluting industries gain cover: Extraction and mining operations can conceal emissions, degradation, and environmental harm.
- Public loses transparency: Communities and Māori hapū cannot see the environmental risks imposed on their lands and waterways.
- Regulation becomes symbolic: A climate-disclosure system without verification or liability is a system designed to be ignored.
- Corruption risk increases: Lack of scrutiny invites misuse, manipulation, and regulatory capture by powerful interests.
- New Zealand falls behind international standards: Most comparable jurisdictions require assurance, evidence, and accountability.
What Real Transparency Requires
- Evidence-based disclosures: Climate statements must remain subject to substantiation requirements.
- Director accountability: Decision-makers must be responsible for the accuracy of statements they approve.
- Independent assurance: Verification ensures emissions data is real, accurate, and free from manipulation.
- Reasonable reporting thresholds: Thresholds must remain low enough to capture significant emitters and financial actors.
- Continuous disclosure: Companies must not be permitted to stop reporting mid-period.
- Te Tiriti-consistent environmental stewardship: Māori communities must have access to transparent information on ecological harm.
- Protection against corruption: Rules must prevent powerful industries from exploiting disclosure gaps.
If You Care About Transparency, Integrity, and Public Accountability
This Amendment Paper cannot stand as written. New Zealand cannot afford a climate-reporting regime that legalises unverified statements, removes accountability, and shields pollution-intensive industries from scrutiny.
If you believe financial markets must rely on accurate information,
If you believe environmental harm must not be concealed,
If you believe Te Tiriti requires transparency and protection,
Then Amendment Paper No. 446 must be rejected.
“A disclosure system that permits concealment is not transparency — it is corruption by design.” — Ukes Baha
Read the full submission:
Submission: Opposing the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill