Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I rise to just answer some of the very thoughtful questions that have been put this evening from my—Kieran McAnulty: Don't sound so surprised. TODD MULLER: —it's my normal voice—colleagues on both sides of the Chamber. If I could just deal firstly with Kiritapu Allan's questions which at the core related to one of the key themes really of our conversations around the Primary Production Committee. It was that if we made these changes we would somehow open a Pandora's box and create an unforeseen inequity by fixing this particular problem. That's a very fair point and it was an issue that we grappled with and that is why I think the final bill that we presented back in its second reading and that we now reflect on here this evening has had subtle provisions that have tightened my initial bill in a way that takes that concern completely off the table. There is of course a very clear clause now which makes it very explicit that should a company constitution seek to have differential dividend rights attached to the same class of shares relating to supply of that company that is allowed but all the other protections are assured. In particular in clause 4 we have new section 53(4) a new addition which specifies and defines what a differential dividend means. It makes it very clear that a board cannot decide in a less than objective manner to treat a particular shareholder differently to another based on anything other than what's listed in their constitution. It has to be supply-based or not. It can't be any other particular commercial dispute or any other issue that might widen that power to be differential in terms of the way they treat shareholders in the same class of share. Those protections we have reinforced by making the amendments we have in the bill that's in front of us this evening. Clayton Mitchell—again thank you for your kind comments and acknowledgment that New Zealand First will now support this bill which is appreciated. At the core of your question was what is the need—why are we here really? We have talked about this through the process and I remind the member that—Greg O'Connor: The answer's 43. TODD MULLER: No we're dealing with sections 36 and 53. There is no 43 this time but maybe in the next bill. But I remind the member that for particular companies—particularly in the area that he comes from in the Bay of Plenty that are agriculture-based—the opportunity to be able to structure their affairs in such a manner that has this distinction in terms of share-backed dividends is valid. The lack of clarity between those two sections had caused a number of companies in the Bay of Plenty but also wider than that in agriculture in New Zealand to have to go to expensive alternative models to be able to reach the same conclusion. So rather than it being clear that they could set up their constitution in such a manner they had to have different types of classes of shares to achieve the same outcome. So this change whilst small and whilst technical for those companies means a lot. Hamish Walker thank you for your contribution. I appreciate the support that you bring not only on this issue but to the wider agriculture debate that we're having. You're a remarkable MP for Clutha-Southland—a future star in the making there ladies and gentlemen. Finally Priyanca Radhakrishnan thank you for your contribution. It's a shame we didn't have your sparkling personality and perspective on the Primary Production Committee. Your question related to the link between this and the export sector. Look ultimately what we want to do here is to create the conditions for New Zealand businesses to be able to be successful on the world stage and the extent to which you can create an opportunity for export-orientated businesses to structure themselves in a way that works for them as shareholders I think should be embraced. This is part of that story. It's a small part admittedly but it's a small technical amendment that enables those companies to be even more successful because there is clarity in terms of how to treat their constitution in this regard. Thank you.