Jones Shane: Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeJones Shane: Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11438. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SHANE JONES (Labour):We rise to support this bill the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill and I intend to take the entire 10 minutes in traversing why this bill should be supported unlike the speaker who has just resumed his seat. For those of you who may have wondered that member was Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi an obscure backbencher from the National Party. He did not explain why this bill has been languishing yet he and a host of other speakers have accentuated that thebill represents us defending and maintaining in the eyes of international investigators and international regulators our high-quality reputation in terms of transparency.I am the first to agree that those of us who have had some experience in business should treasure the reputation we have—and confirmed by the World Bank—that we are one of the easiest if not the easiest of countries in which to start a business. Indeed last year as I listened to a Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority presentation about people going to Christchurch it was evident that Christchurch was having visitors from the Middle East Asia North America and Europe and one of the people at the authority told me that what they could not get over was that as these international analysts and investors came into New Zealand to look for opportunities in and around Christchurch they marvelled at the ease in which you could start a business in New Zealand.I think that is something we should treasure. I do not think that there is much disunity between the two major parties on that question and I would like to think that it is something we continue to uphold. It is disappointing to see nefarious interests perhaps tied up with the drug moneys perhaps tied up with moving around ill-gotten gains etc. in and out of New Zealand. An example of that is the case of an American promoter of a Ponzi scheme who is about to face 15 to 25 years of jail. That person exploited a loophole and was able to contribute in a degrading way to the erosion of our commercial reputation. That needs to be stamped out.I would like it said that at a broad and base level I am in agreeance I think with the majority of the members of the House. Ease of business is something that we should celebrate. Transparency is an ongoing hassle. I know a bit about transparency having suffered an Auditor-General report into an immigration decision I made. So I have been at the sharp end of what is expected of a public official in respect of transparency and adherence to process. That is why we do support this particular bill.But as is the wont of Opposition politicians there are aspects we can find that could be remedied not the least of which is why the bill has languished at the bottom of the Order Paper for so long. I am not suggesting that it is reflective of the pecking order that exists on that side of the House and the rather diminished status of Craig Foss. Craig Foss came into politics when I came in. He holds the seat of Tukituki which as I have told you in earlier times means “to beat”. I actually have got quite a lot of time for Craig Foss but I do think that his stewardship of this particular bill is perhaps reflective of the ebbing fortunes that Craig Foss is suffering and we need look no further than the languishing nature of the economy investors punters and garden-variety Kiwis in Hawke’s Bay.I would like to think that Mr Foss dedicates a small degree of his precious time to improving the fortunes in that area because they are bleak. If you have any doubt just look at the information that we amassed and the glorious number of new members when the newest parliamentarian from that part of the motu from Heretaunga via Ikaroa-Rāwhiti came to the House and unveiled the fact that there is a great deal of pain and a great deal of squandered talent and missed opportunities. Really like other parts of provincial New Zealand that area is the economic orphan child of the current Government.I am sure that the Minister responsible for this bill is not totally at fault in that regard. The other part of the fault is probably with Mr Tremain but unfortunately that would take me somewhat beyond the guts or the purview of this bill. But it should be said that on this side of the House we think it is good to give a prod now and again to the responsible Ministers to remind them that it is essential that they remain not aloof but directly engaged in promoting pieces of legislation of this nature.This bill amongst other things enables regulators to flag companies that could be under investigation. There could be a host of reasons as to why that might happen. In the context of improved trans-Tasman business relations and as investment opportunities grow over time—when this side of the House gets over to the other side I am sure they will grow exponentially—I think it is important that people have a high level of confidence that an institution they might be buying into an institution they might be forming a relationship with is regulated in such a way that there are limited opportunities for mischief-makers or people who might use companies to ruin the prospects of shareholders.The bill also extends this level of vigilance to the Limited Partnerships Act through a host of changes so that folk who are of a mind to misuse our companies do not also move into infecting that particular regime. It also seeks to better align the Companies Act with the Takeovers Code and it ensures that shareholders understand the effect that changes in company control will have on the value of their shares.So I only hope that the owners of Mighty River Power are apprised of what lies in front of that company. Anyone who owns a company or who is a shareholder in a company needs to maintain vigilance as to the statutory or regulatory framework within which a company is operating and that is one company that is going to have to learn to live with a new norm and that norm is the changes the policy reforms and the moderation and improvements that we will be bringing to the power sector. In that sense shareholders need to be confident that when they invest in these vessels when they invest in a company they are shareholders. But when the citizens of the nation require or demand an improvement in the behaviour of a company the interests of shareholders have to be measured against the interests of the citizenry.In a democracy we by and large rely on citizens to make conclusive decisions about the distribution or the exercise of power. We rely on shareholders to drive directors and the executive to generate wealth. There is a clear distinction between the interests of the citizenry and the interests of shareholders. This is designed to give more confidence to the interests of shareholders. But be under no doubt that any company operating in the area of the power sector needs to bear in mind that this party is there to ensure that consumers and the broader citizenry do not have their fortunes held to ransom by rapacious ill-informed or dangerously driven executives hoping to continue to grow their own personal wealth by dint of their remuneration at the cost of growing and gouging cost behaviour from such companies.That is slightly different from the range of duties that a director has to observe. They are well established in terms of good practice and good law but this is designed to enable the Registrar of Companies formerly in popular parlance known as the Companies Office to root out bad apples and ensure that companies being exploited or abused by overseas interests—and from to time there will potentially be New Zealand interests that fall into that trap although I dare say the ardour for bending companies’ rules etc. has been brought to heel with the large number of people facing jail time or time being virtually incarcerated in their houses. That is an improvement that is reflective of the greater awareness the resources amongst those regulators who have those punitive powers.We support this bill. Naturally we do not completely support the faltering stewardship that lies behind the bill but being parliamentarians upholding the qualities of democracy and the stature of the House on this occasion we will support the bill. Thank you very much.