Curran Clare: Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Curran Clare: Regulatory Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4690. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to speak to Part 1 of the Regulatory Reform Bill again and take a little issue with my colleague Clayton Cosgrove. Although I support the vast bulk of what he said on the bill in his previous erudite speech I would like to say that Labour is the party of restorative justice. It stands for restorative justice and rehabilitation. I think that is a really important point to bear in mind when we are talking about the issue of documented memory loss and the effect that that can have. 
In particular I refer to section 44A(b) in clause 11 and the point that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove was making around whether or not the Minister in charge of this bill John Banks could actually establish “a procedure for the recognition of persons or classes of persons who are to carry out specified functions and activities …”. It was unknown whether or not he could actually recognise those people and whether he would have the memory capability to do so. I think given that we know that there is a phenomenon known as recovered memory syndrome that it is possible that he could actually recover his memory and be able to fulfil and carry out his functions as the Minister in charge of this legislation. In particular I refer to section 44A(c) in clause 11 which says this part “sets out the duties of recognised agencies recognised persons and recognised classes and when their recognition can be suspended or withdrawn;”. The bill goes on to talk a bit more about recognition and the importance of recognition and recognised agencies recognised persons and recognised classes. I do take issue with what Clayton Cosgrove said around the ability of the Hon John Banks to actually recognise those things and whether or not he was able to. 
I would like to follow on from my colleague Lianne Dalziel who chaired the Commerce Committee that saw this bill through and did a very good job. I am sure that all of the erstwhile members of the Commerce Committee in the last term would agree that she did a very good job on that. 
The summary of changes includes quite an important issue—which we have not discussed tonight—around amending the Companies Act 1993 to allow companies to choose whether to use electronic shareholder participation. I suppose when thinking about this bill that that particular aspect of the bill is actually quite important and one would think that it would have meant that this bill came before the House a lot sooner than it did. I understand that a number of companies have wanted to use an electronic means for shareholders to cast a vote but because of their inability to do so under the current legislation they have not been able to. Just to set out the issue with that the Companies Act 1993 does not permit companies to use electronic technology for shareholders to vote during meetings nor does the Act permit shareholders to elect to receive notices and other documents from the company electronically. The impact of this bill—which as Lianne Dalziel has said came out of the regulatory changes that came from the previous Government—will enable companies to use electronic technology for shareholders to vote during meetings. This is 2012 and one would think that we could have sorted this issue out a couple of years ago at least. You have to ask yourself: “I wonder how many companies have actually been precluded from using that mechanism to get their business happening in a more timely and easily managed fashion?”.