Standards MoU between New Zealand’s Financial Reporting development Standards Board (FRSB) and Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) Product Safety Standards Consumer Safety Standards Enforcement Assistance in gathering evidence MoU between the Securities Commission and ASIC and enforcing compliance Arrangements for New Zealand New Zealand and Australian Takeovers Panels appointments membership of Australian Accounting Standards Review (ASRB) and institutions, and vice versa Financial Reporting Council (FRC) FRSB and AASB Bilateral undertakings may need to be facilitated by changes to domestic law. For example, New Zealand’s Securities Act has been amended to give the Securities Commission the right to exchange information with overseas counterparts, which includes ASIC, thus making possible the MoU between the two Commissions that provides for mutual assistance in relation to enforcement activities. They may also provide the framework and impetus to develop legally binding instruments. For example, the recently agreed mutual recognition agreement on securities offerings has been on the action agenda of the MoU on Business Law Coordination, is based on the principle that each particular situation a firm will ‘for only have to comply with one set of rules, have certainty as to the application of those rules in the other jurisdiction, and which regulator it needs to deal with’. Bilateral legally binding commitments Bilateral legally binding commitments, contained in Treaties and reflected in domestic laws embody a strong commitment to reciprocity; provide the greatest certainty of outcomes (e.g. common food standards developed by FSANZ) and are the most durable cooperative arrangements (given the potentially high cost of extracting from them). For these reasons, they also significantly reduce each country’s ability to determine its own policy and regulatory settings. Further, experience has shown that there can be practical difficulties in developing arrangements given differences in underlying legal frameworks and public sector management systems. Examples of bilateral legally binding commitments include: Explanation Examples Administrative New Zealand or Australia A contracting option is under consideration in relation to contracts with the patent examinations arrangements government to provide services on its behalf Harmonisation New Zealand and Australia Food standards harmonise standards/rules but maintain independent enforcement/implementation institutions Mutual support New Zealand and Australia Legislative changes proposed by the include provisions in legislation Council on Banking Supervision or by agreement requiring each regulator or other agency to avoid actions (including policy
Standards development MoU between New Zealand’s Financial Reporting Standards Board (FRSB) and Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) Product Safety Standards Consumer Safety Standards Enforcement Assistance in gathering evidence and enforcing compliance MoU between the Securities Commission and ASIC appointments Arrangements for New Zealand membership of Australian institutions, and vice versa New Zealand and Australian Takeovers Panels Accounting Standards Review (ASRB) and Financial Reporting Council (FRC) FRSB and AASB Bilateral undertakings may need to be facilitated by changes to domestic law. For example, New Zealand’s Securities Act has been amended to give the Securities Commission the right to exchange information with overseas counterparts, which includes ASIC, thus making possible the MoU between the two Commissions that provides for mutual assistance in relation to enforcement activities. They may also provide the framework and impetus to develop legally binding instruments. For example, the recently agreed mutual recognition agreement on securities offerings has been on the action agenda of the MoU on Business Law Coordination, is based on the principle that ‘for each particular situation a firm will only have to comply with one set of rules, have certainty as to the application of those rules in the other jurisdiction, and which regulator it needs to deal with’. Bilateral legally binding commitments Bilateral legally binding commitments, contained in Treaties and reflected in domestic laws embody a strong commitment to reciprocity; provide the greatest certainty of outcomes (e.g. common food standards developed by FSANZ) and are the most durable cooperative arrangements (given the potentially high cost of extracting from them). For these reasons, they also significantly reduce each country’s ability to determine its own policy and regulatory settings. Further, experience has shown that there can be practical difficulties in developing arrangements given differences in underlying legal frameworks and public sector management systems. Examples of bilateral legally binding commitments include: Explanation Examples Administrative arrangements New Zealand or Australia contracts with the government to provide services on its behalf A contracting option is under consideration in relation to patent examinations Harmonisation New Zealand and Australia harmonise standards/rules but maintain independent enforcement/implementation institutions Food standards Mutual support New Zealand and Australia include provisions in legislation or by agreement requiring each regulator or other agency to avoid actions (including policy Legislative changes proposed by the Council on Banking Supervision
TTPaper.docx