Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Just following on from the Minister's explanation there of why the three bills are all being dealt with at once they are said to be under the Standing Orders cognate. The Minister is right that the content of those bills individually would probably not constitute the justification for the time that Parliament would need to devote to each of them. But at the same time the effect of them is slightly larger than you might get through a statutes amendment bill. So we have a situation where these three bills become cognate not because the Government declares it not because the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) declare it but because the Business Committee has agreed that it can progress this way which means it has the full support of Opposition parties. I just want to suggest that if there is anybody from MBIE who is listening to this debate they might want to take on board that some of the legislative procedures that from time to time they advise Ministers to follow are not as clear as their interpretation might lead them to think and that it is appropriate that they do have proper engagement if they want to get this sort of legislation through in a timely fashion.In a timely fashion" would also imply that if the legislation some legislation like this were set down on the Order Paper it should progress when the House has time available. I need to report to the House that on 11 September when the House was in extended setting where normally the House deals with bills that are widely supported—like this bill—there was a call from the Speaker when this bill came up and there was no Minister in the House to take that call and so the bill was set aside. It is interesting that the Minister who has moved this first reading today was involved in a similarly sort of messy procedural bungle you might say on Tuesday of this week. So it's a timely thing that I think—also ministerial staff need to make sure if Ministers do have the time of the House made available to them that they are here to take those bills through. There has been a delay on this since because of that obvious loss of time. The Minister has outlined all of the provisions that are in the three bills. I don't need to repeat the names of those three bills nor do I need to repeat the provisions that are provided in them. But I would suggest that one of the reasons why a bill like this will go to a select committee is because of some unintended consequences that can be embedded in it. The Minister referred to the retirement villages' code of conduct for the operators of those villages. I know and the Hon Ruth Dyson knows that this is a very important area where there needs to be quite some tidying-up because more and more New Zealanders are choosing to live out their retirement years in these facilities. But one of the features of them is that while people might buy a licence to occupy at a price that is probably some discount on what that similar facility might be if it were located somewhere else—Hon Ruth Dyson: How did those Christchurch people get on? Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Beg your pardon? Hon Ruth Dyson: How did those Christchurch retirement village people get on? Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That's why I'm saying we need to do something. Look poor Ruth Dyson's clearly so busy as the whip of the Labour Party—Hon Ruth Dyson: What about the money?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: So busy trying to corral all the Labour Party members trying to keep them in the camp after the disastrous Tax Working Group announcement today that she didn't hear the complimentary remarksASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! Members we were doing so well. Shall we go back to that place? Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And the interesting thing is the case that we're talking about Madam Assistant Speaker is in your electorate. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I know that. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And I don't resile from the fact—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Although we shouldn't refer to the Speaker in this debate. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: But if we were to get right down to it I just am so disappointed that when he had the opportunity prior to the earthquakes the Hon Clayton Cosgrove did not make the legislative changes that would have avoided the situation that arose there. The point I'm making here is exactly the sort of situation that arose there. That should not happen again but if you think about how those things are structured people will buy generally at a discounted price on what might be the value of that property if it were somewhere else outside of the village. [Interruption] So we're going to have a conference over there now so there's a big rebuttal coming. What was going to be a quiet afternoon for you in the chair Madam Assistant Speaker I think is going to just get a little bit rowdier as the conference progresses over there. The point is that if we end up with a situation—so how it works is someone buys that property and they are guaranteed that in most cases they will get the value of the purchase price back minus a few things but it might be 10 years out it might be 15 years out. So this retirement industry is a proposition that has layers of investment from all sorts of individuals behind it that is totally premised on capital gain. So if there is to be a more pernicious capital gain arrangement in New Zealand the select committee should consider what the code of conduct will need to say about how much of the pare-backs and others bits and pieces that are proposed should be considered in this legislation. I think all this does is highlight firstly the intricacies and potential disasters that could come from a capital gains tax but also why we have a proper full select committee process to consider all of the matters that are in this particular bill.Some of the other provisions in here probably have as many other complexities to them as well. I think Part 1 the amendments to the Building Societies Act is quite an interesting one—cancelling or suspending the registration of a building society in line with cancellation and suspension requirements for other corporate forms. Well the difference is that if someone buys into a corporate shares there's an expectation that they are doing that so consciously and monitoring it so consciously that they will understand at all times what's happening in that company. But in the case of a building society there are many people who in the late 1940s-1950s joined up at the time they started work were paying very small amounts of money and continue to pay those amounts of money well beyond what should have been the maturity date for those particular policies. And in many cases it's just a fact that you've now got some of these companies that go around trying to find people to see if they can give them some of the funds that they're owed. They take a fee on the way through about 25 percent but we do need to make sure that the provision that's here does not sort of cut off the obligation that those who are charged with managing a building society have to those who are depositors—effectively the owners of it because building societies by and large unlike other corporates are mutuals.Other changes that come in this bill are I think going to be—well they are. They're quite straightforward. But one of them that I would like to highlight is the amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1986. It introduces changes to the Fair Trading Act that are intended to better reflect the nature and purpose of product safety standards by clarifying that it is goods that must comply with standards before a person can supply the good rather than requiring the person supplying the good to comply themselves. Now this I think is an interesting thing and I think the select committee will dive into this a little bit. So where we have previously said that if someone sells something they have to know that it complies we're now in a situation where they simply have to be told by someone else that it complies. I think that puts another layer between the consumer and the supplier of the product which I think may not be all that good for the people out there who are making their purchases on the basis that it is a safe product.There are many others in here. The amendments to geographical indications for wine and spirits—there are as many pitfalls in that for New Zealand as there are benefits. But I do think that having a system that allows for example Wairarapa or Hawke's Bay or Marlborough or Otago to claim the geographic registration so that no other seller of a product outside New Zealand outside of those regional areas can use those particular names would be a good thing for the producers in those areas.There are interestingly some amendments to the Insolvency Act in here. That will be interesting as well.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Your time has expired."