Curran Clare: Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18670. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):In speaking to Part 2 of the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill I would just like to I guess remind the Committee of the actual history of this bill. It is pretty important to keep that in the public’s mind. There were two Cabinet papers as I understand it that came before Cabinet in 2011 which was actually 3 years ago. The issue that was being considered was whether or not there was a case for criminalising directors’ statutory duties. That arose within the Ministry of Economic Development and it was part of I think a 2010 securities law review discussion paper. The history of this legislation goes back to 2010 and then it came to Cabinet in 2011. It ended up taking 18 months to get through the select committee process and its second reading was a year ago in 2013. I think nobody can dispute the history of this piece of legislation and again it would be quite good if the Minister of Commerce could get up and say why he thinks it took so long.I also want to remind everybody as to what one of the major issues was that really sparked I guess the impetus around this issue. This was in New Zealand in 2012—actually on 27 June. It is nearly 2 years ago minus 9 days that New Zealand got removed from something called the white list which is a European Union list that provides guidance for EU banks and financial institutions about countries with EU-equivalent money-laundering and anti - terrorist-financing laws. It has a white list of the countries that are basically the preferred countries—the countries that are transparent that have got good laws in place and that actually do the right thing around financing standards in terms of dealing to anti - money-laundering and counter-terrorism.We got removed from that list in 2012. New Zealanders listening out there tonight that happened in 2012. That is 2 years ago. This Government claims it is the Government for business and transparency and all that sort of thing. New Zealand got removed from that white list 2 years ago. We were basically being told we had to undertake additional measures to ensure that customers including companies from New Zealand are who they say they are. That essentially means that we have to be able to reassure people that businesses and business transactions that are happening in this country are actually transparent and that we are doing everything we can to ensure that dodgy behaviour is not happening and that people are not getting away with that. Well you would think that this Government which claims it is the Government for business would have thought that this was a priority. Why was it not a priority? We have been removed from a list—Hon Simon Bridges: You’ve already given this speech.CLARE CURRAN: Minister Bridges how about getting up taking a call and telling us what your views are on this. Why has it taken 2 years for a piece of legislation that was already before a select committee—why was it not a priority? Why was it not a priority? What is the answer?Hon Simon Bridges: This was your first speech.CLARE CURRAN: Yes but what is actually the answer? Why was it not a priority?Hon Simon Bridges: A busy Government.CLARE CURRAN: “A busy Government.” is the answer. It was a busy Government. So what was the Government actually busy with? What about our international reputation? What about our reputation and getting back on to that white list? Why is that not a priority?Hon Simon Bridges: Oh you want me to take a call?CLARE CURRAN: Yes it would be great if he takes a call because we might actually get an answer. [Bell rung] Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Clare Curran.CLARE CURRAN: Thank you Mr Chair—a very good decision. We got dumped from that list and that was around growing publicity of New Zealand - registered companies being linked to crime overseas. There was a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. There was a company called Tormex Systems Ltd a New Zealand - registered company that allegedly laundered US$680 million through a Latvian bank account. That was just one of many examples of entities that exploited New Zealand’s simple company registration regime. There were plenty of other examples. I know that the select committee considered many of those examples and took that issue really seriously. We were actually doing our job in this Parliament thinking “Right we’ve got to sort this. We’ve been removed from this white list. We’ve actually got to get the issue sorted.” yet it was 2 years down the track before the legislation came back to the House and it still has not been passed. It still has not gone through the House.What has happened to our reputation? Well members have all got their heads down over there on the other side of the Chamber so clearly they actually did not think that that was that important. There were obviously other more politically expedient pieces of legislation they could put through the House that would impact on people who were actually more vulnerable and for some reason those members just decided to take their time.The select committee actually did quite a lot of work on this and we recommended—and this goes to Part 2 around the requirement for directors to live in New Zealand. This is actually quite a good part of this legislation. There was a lot of work done on this. We recommended that the requirements for an agent living in New Zealand be omitted: “Better balance could be achieved by requiring a company to have a director who lives in New Zealand or who lives in and is a director of a company in a country with which New Zealand has reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of low-level criminal fines.” This was pretty important. We strengthened the legislation before the select committee on this.We put a higher test into the legislation. I am just going to read out what it says in the commentary because it is quite important: “The purpose of requiring a director who lives in New Zealand is to ensure that there is an identifiable individual with a substantive connection with the company who can be questioned about the activities of the company and who can in certain circumstances be held to account.” That is so important. It cannot be just an address. It cannot be just a shop or a door behind which there is no actual person. We heard submissions on this issue. We knew that it was really important to actually ensure through legislation that there could be actual people.Hon Simon Bridges: Now Phil Goff is counting the numbers.CLARE CURRAN: This is the committee working together.The big problem Mr Bridges is that we have not actually got to the point of passing the legislation. It is important that the people of New Zealand know tonight that that Government over there is actually not that concerned about white-collar criminals. This Government drags its heels on putting this sort of legislation through. It does not consider it urgent. It does not consider it that important. This legislation has obviously been put down the pecking order because that is such a busy Government doing other things that are actually going to impact on ordinary struggling New Zealanders who are just trying to keep their heads above water and pay their bills every week. Instead we are letting the white-collar criminals in this country off the hook.This piece of legislation does need to get passed. It needs to get passed soon. We have got to address these issues. Thank you very much to the officials for the work that was done by them in the select committee. The work done generally by the select committee around this is important. I have no idea why this bill as with so many bills that seem to come before the House on these sorts of issues is taking so long to actually get through the House. I would really like to hear the Minister get up and tell us why that is. Why is it that his legislation seems to get put down at the bottom of the list—at the bottom of the list?Hon Phil Goff: Because he’s a junior Minister.CLARE CURRAN: Is it because he is a junior Minister? What is it? Is it that the Minister sitting there Simon Bridges seems to have a louder voice and therefore his stuff gets put up—