Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on the Partnership Law Bill and follow the member that just resumed his seat Chris Penk as a fellow member of the Justice Committee and just to make note that this bill was both reported I guess to the House prior to my joining the select committee but nonetheless I want to recognise the work of the Minister that presented this bill David Parker. It's part of his revision programme as he informed us all last year and like the previous speaker said there's nothing controversial in this particular revision bill. It really is attending to what my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare started to say—the modernising of the actual bill.By revising or modernising it we basically are suggesting the areas that need addressing because remember the last time this particular Partnership Act was revised was back in 1908. The rules in the 1908 Act define what a business partnership is and govern the rights and obligations that exist between partners and with third parties and also provide for the end of partnerships. Those were the kinds of rules back in 1908 so to improve the access to those rules and modernising them this bill attempts to do it by reducing the inconsistency and the overlap in terms of the 1908 provisions. It also arranges the provisions' logical order. Again I mentioned earlier that it changes language format so we're using contemporary language not 1908. When I think about 1908 the country was severely different to what it looks like in 2019. So it makes sense that punctuality and formality are clear. Of course the Speaker wouldn't have known what it was like in 1908 but we could all picture our great-grandparents perhaps. Of course we want to use gender-neutral so this bill is addressing the use of gender terms and terminology and modern styles of expression. The bill also is using current drafting styles and formats to better express the spirit and meaning of the law and it removes spent or repealed provisions.So the bill like I said attempts to modernise it. There's clearly no change in policy. Though the select committee themselves did not receive any submissions the report that got tabled back to the House by the Justice Committee—albeit one-and-a-bit pages—did note that they flagged some future work in the examination of this bill. I'm hoping that somebody that was on that particular select committee—they didn't feel it was important to raise it in the report back but I'm really quite keen to hear what was some of the future work that they flagged in their full report back to the House. I'd just be interested because it'd be interesting to see whether the Minister is picking this up as part of his wider revision programme. But I think if we are going to modernise any legislation in this House then we want to capture at the time that we're doing. So it's just a question I have as the chair of the select committee to those that were around at the time. If they want to take a call I'd be keen to know what those outstanding issues were.But what's interesting—and part of our scrutiny of any pieces of law in this House is to give assurances to the House and to the public that when we say there's no policy shifts we're giving a cast-iron guarantee that there are no policy shifts or wider implications with this change. I just want to note for the House that this particular bill went through some amazing checks and balances to ensure that it was consistent with current law and purely only about modernising language.So I want to acknowledge the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in terms of their consultation with public and some interest groups on this exposure draft—an exposure draft of this bill was made available in 2018 and it was taken out to selective interest groups. We had three submissions from lawyers who helped prepare the bill for introduction. That was published on PCO's website. We also had four lawyers appointed under the Legislation Act certify that the statutory revision powers were exercised appropriately and that the bill does not change the effect of the law. But in our assurances that we are making sure that there are no legislative changes we then had the bill certified. We got it certified by the retired High Court judge the Hon John Priestley QC. We had the President of the Law Commission the Hon Sir Douglas White QC and the Solicitor-General Mrs Una Jagose QC—apologies if I've mispronounced her name—and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel herself Ms Fiona Leonard.So not only did we take it out to interested parties as a process but we also had this very very high-level certification by retired or existing QCs and High Court judges to give the House and the public that guarantee that when we say there are no wider changes other than the modernisation of language I think that test and the level of the test that's been applied to this bill should give us comfort in this House. It certainly gives me as the chair of the Justice Committee comfort that all the belts and braces have been applied to ensure that when we say there are no wider changes or policy changes in this piece of law then we can guarantee with those levels of scrutiny that have gone on previous to it.So I want to also acknowledge that the bill comes into force six months after enactment which gives businesses and partnerships the opportunity to make the necessary changes should they wish. There isn't anything major in this bill that they have to do. There is alignment to the existing legislation and what's proposed here. So there's no panic to any business partnerships out there. This is really just doing what I think a lot of businesses will understand around streamlining the process. So it is a bill I'm pleased to stand and support in terms of what's being laid out by my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare in terms of what the bill's intending to do. I want to commend the work of the select committee in considering it and those fine people that were used to test and check the belts and braces on this particular bill and I commend it to the House.