Jones Dail: Limited Partnerships Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Limited Partnerships Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14644] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill is supported by New Zealand First and is an excellent piece of legislation. I take the point that has been made about the Law Society’s reports and its suggestion for lawyers to attend seminars on this bill. I wholeheartedly support the need for that. The suggestion that this bill will change New Zealand commercial law to a much greater extent than the 1993 Companies Act would be very fair because after all the 1993 Companies Act was a consolidation of earlier legislation—tidying it up and bringing it up to date—whereas this legislation is a new type of concept. Of course we used to have special partnerships in the old law under the Partnership Act of 1908. I think they were abolished at some stage and we do not do them very often these days. But this is an excellent piece of legislation. 
The previous speaker Gerry Brownlee raised the point about foreign investment in New Zealand. Of course as is well known New Zealand First supports and insists upon New Zealanders retaining the ownership of strategic assets in New Zealand. This bill is something different because it should encourage foreign investment in new developments in New Zealand. I think also of the new tax incentives that will arise from 1 April this year and one would hope that we may be able to see some big companies coming to New Zealand indulging in research and development and taking advantage of the tax incentives that relate to research and development as part of the special partnership venture that is proposed in this legislation. New Zealand First is keen on seeing more research and development being done by the private sector in New Zealand. Currently most research and development is done by the Government and there needs to be greater expansion by the private sector. 
One aspect of the bill that concerns me—I have to confess I have looked at it for the first time only today since my recent return to Parliament—is the question of the penalties for the misuse of the name of the partnership. I just wonder whether in clause 28 which is entitled “Name of limited partnership must include words limited partnership” the penalty is severe enough. It might be that people use a name and do not make it clear that it is a limited partnership. Someone might get involved with the limited partnership not realising the limitations of limited partnerships on the liability of certain members of that partnership. He or she might think that the members are fully liable but in fact because of the nature of the partnership they may not be fully liable such as under clause 27. A penalty of only $5000 seems to be hopelessly insignificant to me when many hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars might be involved in this type of venture. 
New Zealand First being strong on law and order is keen on making sure that not only rogues and villains who beat up people and damage property and such like suffer severe penalties but people who might be engaged in what might turn out to be white-collar crime suffer severe penalties as well. I wonder whether the penalty set out in this bill for what would be white-collar crime is insufficient. I would hope that the officials might have another look at that and increase the penalties that might be available including if the name is not used properly making all members totally liable rather than limiting some of their liability. 
Overall though this is a wonderful new concept for New Zealand. Lawyers will have to specialise in this law as it will be a very difficult area. Speaking as a lawyer I recommend that any lawyer who wants to be known as a commercial lawyer attends the Law Society’s seminar because this will be something totally new—and hopefully very profitable for lawyers as well in due course.