Connell Brian: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:12419] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to start on the unusual basis of commending Mr Franks’ amendments to the Committee. I think they have been well argued. If members read them carefully they will see how they would add value to the legislation. The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe should consider them very seriously. I am quite happy to yield my call to the Minister in the chair if he would like to take the opportunity to respond to Mr Franks because I think the amendments are very noteworthy. 
I will be very quick in picking up another issue because while the Minister is on his feet he might be able to answer another question for me as well. I am intrigued as to how we arrived at the definition of “wealthy” in new subsection (2CD) in section 5 inserted by clause 90. I see that a person is wealthy if “an independent chartered accountant certifies no more than 6 months before the offer is made that the chartered accountant is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person—(a) has net assets of at least $2000000; or (b) had an annual gross income of at least $200000 for each of the last 2 financial years.” If people meet those qualifications it seems that they can determine their own investment strategy. 
That seems to me to be a pretty arbitrary line in the sand. I was wondering why someone who has a salary of $180000 a year and assets of say $1.5 million is determined not to be able to make his or her own investment determinations. When you are on your feet I would be interested in whether you could let the Committee know how that definition was arrived at. As I said it seems awfully arbitrary to me. I also see a contradiction of sorts in play here. In some ways it is a double standard. For taxation purposes we are considered wealthy in this country if we earn $38000 a year yet under this definition “wealthy” is $2 million in net assets or $200000 of income. Whilst you are on your feet Minister if you could get your head around those issues as well— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You need to address the Minister through the Chair. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I apologise. If the Minister is on his feet and is taking a call and could take some time to answer that question too I would be extremely grateful. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is just a point of clarification. I did not understand that last comment that you made to my colleague Brian Connell. It has been a habit in my observation that a member can refer directly to a Minister to say: “Would the Minister respond to my questions?”. You may be able to point to a ruling but I am unaware where it is written that members have to say: “Mr Chair can you ask the Minister to respond.” I cannot recall it. Normal practice has been to say: “I hope the Minister will respond to my questions.” but if you are telling us that this is a direction that I am unaware of and that the Committee should know about then we would be pleased to know about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It was a direction in relation to the use of the word “you” when referring directly to the Minister rather than through the Chair. 
John Carter 
: I seek clarification. If I remember my colleague’s comments he was saying: “Minister I hope that you will make some comments.” That is actually quite correct English and he should not have to say: “Minister I hope the Minister will …”. I do not want to be pedantic here but I just think we need to be careful on how we are ruling. Anyway let us get on with it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Every time the member uses the expression “you” the member is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to the Minister or another member as that Minister or member in the third person. The member can look at Standing Order 103. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know well the ruling that you are making which has been repeated many times but I want to make the point again. When the member said “Minister I hope you will take a call or answer my question …” the fact is that he had to say “you Minister”. It is quite correct English for him to make that statement—to use the word “you” in those circumstances. He has prefaced it by saying “the Minister” and then follows by saying “Minister I hope you will take it.” You are quite correct in that members cannot say: “You will take the call” because that does refer to the Chair—that is very clear. But if he says: “Minister will you take this question …” then that is quite correct English and we have to allow that to happen. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should say: “Will the Minister take this question?” in future. That is what needs to happen. In other words the member should not address other members directly. The member should be addressing the Chairperson and referring to other persons in the third person. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I respect your ruling and I accept it but it has been a practice since I have been in this House to refer to the Minister in the chair and in this case I prefaced my remarks by saying: “I hope the Minister will take a call and answer the question and whilst you are on your feet I hope you will also deal with the other question that I posed.” So— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my understanding that you said: “You will take the call”. That is the way that I saw it. As the Chair I have ruled and I refer the member to Speaker’s Ruling 20/3. Members are entitled to raise points of order and that is quite correct but once the Chair has ruled that is the end of the matter. To persist would lead to Standing Order 85(1) and that would mean the first yellow card for the member. As the member has been a member of the parliamentary rugby team he knows what a yellow card is. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Thank you Mr Chair.