Rich Katherine: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Rich Katherine: Business Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6448] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 After hearing that speech I think we are all sitting here thinking that that is the level of truth we have come to expect from that Minister. She is telling porkies again or in this case— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot use that word in this House. It has been ruled out by Speaker Hunt in 2003. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Let us just go through some of the exaggerations the first one being my agreement to the Supplementary Order Paper. That is quite wrong; I certainly gave no agreement. In fact when discussing the Supplementary Order Paper I pointed out that this was outside the scope of the Business Law Reform Bill and based on what went on in the Commerce Committee it was unlikely to receive our support because of that. 
Let us also remember that the Minister was given the opportunity by me to take back the issue to the select committee process so that some consultation could be done—so that the business community could have some say—not just some eleventh hour back-door amendment as the Minister has attempted to introduce in the Committee stage here today but a proper process whereby people could have a say about the change. Let us remember that not one single submission was received on the issues raised by the Takeovers Panel because no one had any idea that it was to be suggested. 
The Minister gave her word that the Business Law Reform Bill would be compact and would contain a certain number of issues and I recall her official telling me that there would be no introduction of any other non-negotiated clauses within the law. The Minister has gone back on her word and that is why she is playing politics with this. She has gone back on her word to make sure that the Business Law Reform Bill had some collegiality and some mutual agreement. 
This was an omnibus bill and I think that this side of the House approached the bill with some collegiality. We worked hard on it in the select committee process given that many of the submitters were quite gobsmacked at some of the changes suggested. Members will remember that Lianne Dalziel told the House that this was a technical bill and that there was nothing to see here and that people should move along quickly but of course submitters who came along to the select committee had a totally different view and they raised some very important concerns. So the issue here is that the Minister has gone back on her word. She attempted to introduce something at the eleventh hour that was not part of the initial bill. 
The officials actually reminded us that it was outside the bill’s scope and although the Minister wanted to pretend that there was a tsunami of businesses wanting to take advantage of the loophole she obviously had not read some of her own officials’ advice. They said that in the 5 years since the code was introduced it appeared that schemes of arrangement and amalgamation had been used only three times to avoid the provisions of the code and I quote: “Officials do not consider that the floodgates will open if no action is taken at this time.” So from the perspective of this side of the Committee we think that it is important to have due process. I say to the Minister that if she is to make such a dramatic change that affects the business community she should take the time to consult and not be so arrogant as to suggest that she can just introduce something in the Committee stage when nobody has had any chance to have a say on it and pretend that Armageddon is just around the corner if she does not have the opportunity to do that. 
So let us just introduce a few facts into the debate. It is a shame that the Minister has tried to play politics with this change because there was a lot of collegiality when it came to this Business Law Reform Bill. The Minister has thrown that out of the window by playing politics and by stretching the truth so far that it is barely recognisable. In terms of this Committee’s view yes we were sympathetic towards some of the concerns raised by the Takeovers Panel but we have to have a proper process. We have to give New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses the opportunity to have their say and not introduce back-door legislation that has not been consulted on at all. But that is what we have come to expect from this Minister. She wants to do things the easy way without doing the hard yards. The Takeovers Panel had not done enough of its own consultation. In fact it received only about 10 submissions on its ideas and four of them said that they did not want it to do it. So there was hardly consensus before it got to the select committee stage. The Minister told me that there would be no additional issues introduced in the bill and she went back on her word. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill and the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Amendment Bill  
divided into Companies Amendment Bill Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill Financial Reporting Bill Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill Insurance Companies’ Deposits Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper73. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill without amendment; and the Business Law Reform Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into five bills. 
Report adopted.