Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. Hon Gerry Brownlee: This could go over our heads. Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Mr Brownlee it would be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous that we've got this bill before the House. I mean I did do some research. I went on the Companies Register and checked on company names. So we've got for example Smith Smith and Smith Ltd; Smith and Smith Ltd; Smith and Smith Homes; Smith and Smith Investment; Smith and Smith Property; Smith and Smith Enterprises; Smith and Smith Property and Enterprises; Smith Ltd; Smith and Smith and Sons; Smith Industries; Smith—so the whole idea of identical names is just you know the idea that you're protecting something when you've got that many Smith and Smiths out there. But you might think I'm cheating by picking Smith. We've also got—and I didn't know he was quite the magnate—Penko Properties Penko Holdings Penky Properties Penky Management and Penky Holdings. So you know if that's not an identical name what is—what is? So we have this bill which is trying to put its finger on a problem that really just doesn't exist. So in the end we're not supporting this bill because we're going to waste as little of Parliament's time with this kind of trivia as possible. It's really quite upsetting to me that a man of Mr Penk's intellect—apparently—troubles himself with such tripe. So the fact of the matter is that if I as a limited partnership set myself up as Penko Partnership then there is a plethora of law to deal with that. If I use a brand we've got a trade marks law. If I'm using a particular design we've got the law of copyrights. The entire tort of passing off is centred around me having the get-up the name the branding and passing myself off as some other business and getting their goodwill when in fact I'm not entitled to it and of course overlaying all of that we've got the Fair Trading Act which says that it's a breach to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct that might mislead or deceive. So in any situation where we have names which cause confusion you can pick already from a menu of remedies depending on what the breach is and what the best forum to go to is. The other thing of course to note is that Mr Penk has picked the most obscure of business vehicles: the limited partnership. What about charitable trusts? What about incorporated societies? What about the friendly societies or the industrial and provident societies or even just partnerships—full stop? Now we all know that law firms for example often set up partnerships and in fact there are a number of cases. I think it's Newburgh v Newburgh and Newburgh" or something like that—the two Auckland law firms who went toe to toe on a passing off case as to who could use the appropriate last name. They fought it out and there was a result. So this is an utter waste of time. To think of all of the problems in the world the big mountain that Chris Penk chose to climb was identical names of limited partnerships. Now I don't know who handed him this dead duck but I'll tell you what it wasn't a friend. We know what the National Party's like. Someone thought "There you go Mr Penk's going past." and said "Put that one in the ballot Mr Penk. You'll go a long way with that. Your career will go to dizzy heights of the back of the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill." Now Mr Bishop's bill didn't set the world on fire but it made a meaningful change and it will affect real people's lives in terms of legal services and the bill before that on leave for miscarriages that really touched. But this? The best we can do is say that multinational companies have to be careful what names they use and we want to add another remedy to the four or five that already exist in our absolutely comprehensive law. Mr Penk I've written in your report: "Can do better.""