Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): If I may start at the end with responding to Kieran McAnulty's comments I had hoped for a reasonably long and successful career in this place. Being endorsed by you has just ended it but thank you none the less.In terms of your comment actually—in all seriousness—that cooperative companies don't need this it talks again to your opening point around the confusion that still exists possibly even with yourself that this doesn't relate just to companies who are structured under the Co-operative Companies Act; this relates to companies who want to be registered under the Companies Act but want to structure their constitution in a cooperative manner. This has been at the core of this bill right from the start. Those companies who wish to do that have a tension in between the two sections: section 36 of the principal Act suggesting that they can have their constitution structured in a way that can differentiate in terms of the dividends for those who have share-backed supply versus obviously the provisions of section 53 which read in a particular way suggests you can't.So this admittedly very small and technical amendment clears up that legal ambiguity which I know from personal experience amongst a number of companies in the kiwifruit and avocado sector in the Bay of Plenty in particular has been a challenge because a number of those companies want to be structured under the Companies Act but want to have cooperative principles in their constitution. We're constantly being told by lawyers about this unsurity and lack of clarity around the extent to which they can do that. This clears it up and I think small as it may be is a valid and important point of clarification.If I could also go back to Duncan Webb's comments when he quoted from Justice David Goddard QC and said as a key submitter to this legislation or proposed bill that he had hoped that there would be already baked in the interpretation of the Companies Act the clarity that I was seeking. He asked where did the genesis of this bill came from. As I have said it's come from my experience in agribusiness in the Bay of Plenty but what I will clarify is that David Goddard was a key supporter of this bill. He worked with me to clarify the legislation. Indeed it has his signature all over it because he was the original author of the Companies Act along with Jack Hodder. It's this particular point that has always irritated David Goddard that there seems to be confusion within the legal fraternity over the primacy of section 36 over section 53. So to Duncan Webb's question around why well one of the key whys was David Goddard's contribution to me around the merits of clarifying this very fine technical point.So I want to acknowledge David Goddard for his good work. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson who was also very supportive of this approach and indeed the support that I received from the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and indeed the primary industries select committee superbly chaired by my friend and colleague David Bennett.Kieran McAnulty: You don't mean that.TODD MULLER: I totally mean that.And actually it's a committee that even though we have certain personalities that can make the time seem to take longer overall we get on well and we tend to cut to the chase with appropriate rural focus.So thank you from my perspective that seems reasonably concluded.Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the End of Life Choice Bill with amendment and the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.