Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate the call and I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the previous speaker Chris Penk who I consider a friend of mine. I'd like to acknowledge everything that the member Chris Penk brings to this House in a wide range of areas and specifically I'd like to acknowledge what the member has brought to this House. The member has a long and storied history as a lawyer and there is a lot of respect for the member from this side of the House including your dad jokes as well. As the sponsor of this bill mentioned the bill is small but the bill certainly is significant and the member is absolutely right to highlight the anomaly that exists. On this side of the House we are in agreement with the member around the anomaly and so we certainly appreciate the member bringing this to the House. The difference between the company and partnership is a little-known but important difference which is obviously highlighted in this bill. I'd also like to just talk a little bit around what the bill does. After that I'd like to also just highlight the aspect around what is in a name—why is a name important? First of all the bill makes a technical short and non-controversial amendment to the Companies Act 1993 and the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 in relation to identical or nearly identical names across entity types. I'm sure that the member will be very pleased to hear that the Government will consider including this change as part of an omnibus bill—an omnibus regulatory systems bill—which will likely be introduced later this year. So this side of the House is making the commitment to give consideration to this for that piece of legislation because this side of the House as I mentioned before certainly acknowledges that there is an issue here that does need to be addressed. What the bill does: it amends the Companies Act and Limited Partnerships Act and basically fixes the anomaly. As we've heard the Companies Act 1993 does not prohibit the registration of a new company with a name that is identical or nearly identical to that of an existing limited partnership. By contrast the Limited Partnership Act 2008 does prohibit the registration of a new limited partnership with a name that's identical or nearly identical to that of an existing company. The bill amends a section of the Companies Act 1993 stating the basis on which the Registrar of Companies may approve the reservation of a new company name. Now as I mentioned the Government will give serious consideration to including this in an omnibus regulatory systems bill and one of the reasons that the Government will do that is because a regulatory systems bill provides a vehicle to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory systems and reduce the chance of regulatory failure. So it certainly fits within that bill quite clearly. These sorts of bills address regulatory duplication gaps errors and inconsistencies within and between different pieces of legislation and aim to remove unnecessary costs of compliance and doing business. This is generally preferable to occupying a disproportionate amount of the House's time and select committees' time passing a bill with small amendments—although I do acknowledge important amendments—that amend just under two lines. That's the position from this side of the House. Regulatory systems bills are moved through the parliamentary process as omnibus bills and can therefore make effective use of parliamentary time. Now just moving on to why it is important that we don't have this duplication that we certainly see existing. If we just have a simple look at names I'm sure many members in this House—I won't ask for a show of hands—have googled their own name and seen what comes up. I have and there is actually another Jamie Strange in the world so there is a duplication. Simeon Brown: You are unique. JAMIE STRANGE: A female actress from California—I'm sure no one would have guessed that. Sorry what was the member saying? Simeon Brown: You are unique. JAMIE STRANGE: I am unique. Well thank you. Thank you yes I do try. If I mention a name which will be well-known Winston Churchill obviously I'm thinking of an American author—a historical fiction author. Others might be thinking of another Winston Churchill. The member highlights the aspect around where obvious confusions can come in and this is just an example of names. I might just mention a couple more quickly before moving on to the business aspect of this. As a football fan we think of Cristiano Ronaldo and also Ronaldo—the older Ronaldo—who is a very famous player. Many people have unfortunately had the challenge of being cloned on Facebook where someone takes the name and uses the name. That's just to highlight the issue—Simeon Brown: What's in a name? JAMIE STRANGE: Yeah exactly. Like the member opposite said: what's in a name? Now in terms of a name of a person well look that's probably on the lighter level but when you're looking at a business there is absolutely a commercial aspect that if you start a business—not you Madam Speaker although you may. But if somebody starts a business it takes a lot of work to start a business. We know that. Many many people in this House have done that. Myself I've employed seven or eight people at one point in time. It takes a lot of work to start a business and it takes a lot of work to choose a name. If somebody else then comes along and picks the same name as you there can often be quite serious commercial ramifications for your business. Some of the business name clashes are particularly challenging if the two businesses are operating in the same industry. Let's say for example one business is operating in the clothing industry and another is operating in the car industry—it's generally not so bad. But certainly if two businesses are operating in the same industry it can have a negative commercial aspect. Another clash can be if two businesses with the same name are operating in the same geographic market so that's another aspect. If you have the same industry and the same geographic market well that makes it very very difficult. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh that's a catastrophe! JAMIE STRANGE: Absolutely—I can see the horror on the member's face opposite if we had two businesses with the same name in the same industry and in the same geographic market. However—Hon Gerry Brownlee: The same town? JAMIE STRANGE: Well quite possibly and if it's a small town even more so. If it's a small town it becomes even more difficult. I think members can see where I'm going with this. But the geographical aspect though is a bit more nuanced as I'm sure the member opposite will also know as well in terms of the internet because we have a very globalised market at the moment becoming even more globalised in terms of the internet. We certainly saw during the COVID lockdown that internet sales went up in quite a dramatic way. The other aspect is there's also obviously consideration in terms of who registered the name first. A lot of this can be avoided. In fact all of this can be avoided. As the member mentioned all these calamities can be avoided by this piece of legislation so that's why the Government is going to give due consideration to including it in an omnibus bill. I've mentioned some general names but just to give an example—a real-world example—of what I've been highlighting about the business aspect if I mention Mustang people might think about a car but there's also Mustang Seeds which a lot of people may not know. Ingrid Leary: Mustang Sally"? JAMIE STRANGE: "Mustang Sally" is actually a song. I remember when I was in a band the difficulty we went to in choosing a name that wasn't already taken. It caused us many sleepless nights. Hon Gerry Brownlee: What did the member settle on? JAMIE STRANGE: We actually settled on a band named One Day Sunday but then I actually broke away and the band just became Jamie Strange. But look I won't take any more of the House's time on my musical history. Just to summarise—again acknowledging the member—I appreciate the member bringing the bill to the House and appreciate the work he's done on it. On the Government side of it we certainly will give due consideration and no doubt will be working with the member around that for this legislation to potentially be included in the bill later in the year. Madam Speaker thank you."