Jones Dail: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6528] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill is an exciting piece of legislation if one is a lawyer or an accountant or if one goes to the Regulations Review Committee meetings on Wednesday mornings at 8.30. 
Darren Hughes 
: I bet the member is always late. 
DAIL JONES 
: No the member is usually on time for that committee. 
As a lawyer believe it or not one can go through the 13 pieces of legislation that are being amended by this bill and one could show some interest in all of them. Of course the most disappointing feature of this legislation is that it has been held up since 2001 by this Labour minority Government. This bill was sought after and requested by all the commercial sectors in 2001. Somehow or other in 2003 New Zealand First gets the blame. Well that is a long long bow. 
The National Party says that it has a 16-point plan to sort out compliance cost requirements. New Zealand First has a one-point plan. It is very simple: vote New Zealand First. Can we fix it? Yes we can! It is just a one-point plan for us. We are not a very subtle bunch. One point is enough for us; one vote is enough for us. [ 
Interruption 
] If we have a good idea we stick with it. That is right. 
I have looked through this legislation and read it clause by clause. Of course we have had the speech from the Minister and I thought: “Oh well let’s see what it says.” I ask members to look at this wonderful piece of drafting that we have in clause 13. I looked and looked at it and I hope that perhaps the next Government speaker will explain it to me. Clause 13 “Interpretation” states: “Section 2(3)(b) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the word ‘capital’ and substituting the word ‘capital’ “. Shall I say that again? Clause 13 “Interpretation” states: “Section 2(3)(b) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the word ‘capital’ and substituting the word ‘capital’ “. Well what does that mean? 
Pansy Wong 
: Is it now a little “c”? 
DAIL JONES 
: No they both have a small “c”. This is a wonderful piece of legislation which has been heralded by the Minister of Commerce. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Das Kapital! 
DAIL JONES 
: Oh Das Kapital—with a “k”. It should have been with a “k” not with a “c”. All I can say is that that is the first amendment that will be made to this piece of legislation. Somehow or other the Government has messed it up already. 
I must express my appreciation at the very beginning for the tremendous support given to me by the New Zealand Law Society in investigating this bill and what must have been its predecessor. I have about 26 pages of information here from the New Zealand Law Society and its representative at Kensington Swan for which I am very grateful. Each of these pages has about four to six suggestions for this legislation. I would say that at the very least three-quarters of them support the legislation and New Zealand First will be supporting this bill because in principle we do support it. There is no doubt about that but obviously we could not support clause 13 which will remove the word “capital” and substitute it with the word “capital”. There is obviously something wrong there. 
As I flicked through the bill and looked at various things—and this is for the record as much as anything else or for anyone looking at it later—I note that clause 23 seems to be an amendment that was not in the original suggestions made. Clause 29 is headed: “Penalties that may be imposed on directors in cases of failure by board or company to comply with Act”. That clause seems to be relatively new judging by the information handed out to people. Clauses 34 and 35 seem to come within the same category as well. Clause 37 deals with the Distress and Replevin Act of 1908. As I have mentioned on a previous occasion the Law Commission in its 1995 report on the Property Law Act said that this Act should be repealed. Does anybody in the Chamber know what the Distress and Replevin Act of 1908 is all about based as it on the— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What does “Replevin” mean? 
DAIL JONES 
: Exactly! What does it mean? Here we are voting for something that even the member for Pakuranga does not know the meaning of. No no one knows. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Worth and myself may have dealt with the Distress and Replevin Act—and perhaps Mr Franks but I am not sure whether he knows. But that does not stop us from passing legislation and moving legislation on and I am sure that the select committee will take a great interest in it. But the essential fact is that the Distress and Replevin Act should be repealed. That was the submission of the Law Society and the Law Commission—in 1995 as I recall. Why has the Government not repealed the Distress and Replevin Act and put in the new Property Law Act in place of the 1952 legislation? 
The Government says it is trying to do something to assist the business community. In fact the House is just patching up a dreadful old piece of legislation that talks about levying distress or in other words seizing goods usually by a landlord or a judgment creditor and recovering them. I think that the word “replevin” would be an old Norman-French word that goes back to 1066 and probably means “recover”. Am I right? [ 
Interruption 
] No I am not. I have forgotten what “replevin” means and I do not want to know what “replevin” means to be perfectly frank. All I can say is that in practice the Act is a very dangerous piece of legislation. I have come across its being implemented by real estate agents who really would have got into all sorts of problems if anyone had ever criticised what they were doing. 
As I look at Part 6 “Financial Reporting Act 1993” and at the definition of “turnover” I feel sure that people will have a closer look at that. I look at clause 42 “Meaning of group financial statements” and in particular at section 9(1)(e) and I know that people will be having a closer look at that too. 
I am skipping through the bill. There are 13 parts with 13 Acts of Parliament being amended so I have to move along fairly quickly. I refer now to clause 46 which deals with the removal of disputes processes. Now I would have thought that in this day and age we like to see dispute settlement taking place away from lawyers. Clause 46 removes dispute resolution processes and I wonder whether the select committee will have another think about that. 
While I am speaking about the select committee I point out that this bill I am told is to be referred to the Commerce Committee. We have a Justice and Electoral Committee which has five lawyers on it. Why do we not send the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee which in past years would have considered legislation of this kind? Why send it instead to the Commerce Committee which I think has two lawyers on it—or only one? I mean no disrespect to Mr Parker but I would have thought that a bill of this kind with 13 technical pieces of legislation ought to be going to a select committee with at least five lawyers on it. But no no. Why send the bill to a select committee that might actually know something about the bill and might be able to interpret it and understand it? So the Government is sending the bill to a select committee that has only one lawyer. The bill will then be really in the hands of the officials as to what ultimately goes into the legislation. 
I move on. The bill also deals with the Life Insurance Act the Personal Properties Securities Act and such like. Clause 59 may be of interest to lawyers as may be clause 65. I notice that clause 68 inserts new section 75A which is in addition to the information given to me by the New Zealand Law Society and I would suggest that any lawyer looking into this bill later on would have a close look at that clause. The suggestion of the New Zealand Law Society regarding clause 72 about the satisfaction of judgment debts—making sure that the collateral goes towards the satisfaction of an obligation rather than what was originally in full satisfaction—has been taken into account by the Government. 
The main thing really that I want to look at in the short time that is left to me is the compliance cost matter which I hope Mr Franks might take up in greater detail. [ 
Interruption 
] I am talking about compliance costs with regard to sections 5(2E) and 5(2F) of the Securities Act which is referred to in Part 10 of the bill. As I read that provision—and the Law Society submission about the provision goes for over one and a half pages—to me there is some great doubt about whether the proposal in the bill for the Securities Act with regard to section 5(2E) I think it was relating to compliance cost requirements is satisfactory. I just mention it in passing so that at a later date someone can perhaps have a closer look at it and see whether he or she is satisfied with the bill as introduced by the Government. 
I look at new section 36A inserted by clause 92 which is additional legislation that is included and there are many other various notes that I respectfully suggest the Commerce Committee will have considerable interest in. I would hope there might be parties in this House that will ensure there may be a substitution on the Commerce Committee to help it with the legislation. New Zealand First always wants to ensure that commercial legislation or any legislation works satisfactorily. 
The claim made by the Minister that this bill will reduce compliance costs and suchlike is a load of rubbish. In many respects this legislation requires additional things to be done. It is all a matter of interpretation. The main point is that this bill has been waiting to come into the House since 2001. I would have preferred to see its parts come in individually because my concern is that if one part holds up this legislation then it will hold up 13. We must make sure that if there is one part holding it up we can take it out of this bill and proceed with the other 12.