NZX rules review sub-standard: Weldon admits

"We wish to acknowledge that the draft rules and consultation paper provided in December were sub-standard," Weldon said in a letter to SIA chairman Scott St John on February 2.

The letter, and St John's original letter of January 30, were revealed on the Cactus Kate blog site this afternoon, and follows a series of attacks by the anonymous blogger on the NZX and its high profile CEO, who is to chair this month's government-ordered Jobs Summit.

"We wish to acknowledge that the draft rules and consultation paper provided in December were sub-standard," said Weldon. "We agree that this shifted responsibility for drafting, quality control and other work to participants and that this unacceptable.

Thanking St John for "the frankness of your response", Weldon said: "During December, in respect of the rules, roles were not defined clearly and NZX's internal process confused. As a result, deadlines were not met and the draft rules suffered.

"We acknowledge that, without a material change, the rules review is not likely to improve."

Weldon acknowledged that discontent over the submissions paper had had spilled over into broader sentiment, reflecting a barrage of criticism directed by Weldon's detractors, particularly over public comments that the chief executives of under-performing companies should be forced to move on.

In response to the SIA's concern, the NZX was appointing a long-serving, Australian-based member of the exchange's legal and regulatory team, Edwin Bunning, to oversee a new review process and timetable.

A specialist legal consultant would also be part of the new process, and would review the draft rules before a new set of internally-prepared draft rules prior to external distribution.

"I also intend to engage actively in the policy discussions and decisions," Weldon said.

The new draft rules would also exclude several areas where the SIA had objected to the need for change: provisions relating to the regulation of "advice", including "Know Your Client" and voice recording of client transactions, "as there is no current legislative impetus for revision".

In his letter of January 30, St John said the SIA Group had been left to guess why significant omissions and amendments were being proposed, and at times was unable to be certain that what appeared to be errors or omissions were intentional or not.

The document suffered from"drafting and reference errors, inconsistencies, duplicate provisions which differed within and between sets of rules, confusing and at times incomprehensible provisions, and substantial omissions," the SIA said.

Comments from our readers

No comments yet

Add your comment:

Your name:
Your email:	Not displayed to the public
Comment:
Comments to Sharechat go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved. It is allowable to use some form of non-de-plume for your name, however we recommend real email addresses are used. Comments from free email addresses such as Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc may not be approved.

Anti-spam verification:

Type the text you see in the image into the field below. You are asked to do this in order to verify that this enquiry is not being performed by an automated process.

Printable version

Related News

NZX to cancel shares, return up to $35M
NZX carbon registry sale completed
NZX trading in debt securities tumbles 41% in October
NZX third-quarter sales rise 14%, driven by agricultural data, listings, clearing
NZX monthly trading growth slows in September after August spike
NZX normalised first half profit up 42 pct
FMA completes NZX inquiry
NZX clarifies ceo evidence
FMA asks NZX about Clear Grain statements
Daily ShareChat: NZX

Get quotes for NZX Limited Ordinary Shares (NZX)

NZX Annoucements for NZX