McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It's a delight to be able to speak very briefly on this bill. I just wanted to stand up and congratulate the sponsor of the bill Todd Muller for putting forward something that was deeply important to him and the industries that he's worked in and the companies that he represents not just in his electorate but across the country as well.Perhaps people at home might note that there is some hesitation in making speeches about this despite the number that have been made because it is a very complex and difficult to understand bill. I think they may have even noticed that in the previous speech from the chair of the Primary Production Committee which considered this bill. I didn't think he was going to make a speech; I'm very pleased that he did and then—Hamish Walker: A very balanced chair.KIERAN McANULTY: He's actually a woeful chair Hamish Walker but nevertheless I appreciate your view.Look the point here is that this bill is very technical—so specialised that it received four submissions to the select committee. Now those that don't know might see that and think that that is an indication that this bill is not important. But in fact that is the exact opposite because it just goes to show that this bill specifically what it sets out around sections 36 and 53 of the Companies Act 1993 sets to do something that means a lot to a very specific area and then probably means nothing to anybody else but that doesn't take away its legitimacy and it doesn't take away from its importance.I do actually have a question that I would like to be answered if I may. We're talking around how—you've got clause 4 Section 53 amended". You've got "Replace section 53(2) with:"—and then it follows on. Essentially it outlines that "The board of a company must not authorise a differential dividend unless"—and then it goes on in (a) and (b) to outline the conditions in which it can do that. The question that I have is more of a philosophical question really and it is a genuine one is that: why do we need to stipulate within this what a cooperative can do within its own constitution when members of a cooperative dictate or have a say in who is on the board and what their constitution says? So I would like just purely out of interest to get the member's views on that particular question because I think that might give those at home that are watching or listening at home a bit of context as to why this is so important and why we're actually talking about this.You know I do want to just finish briefly with saying that the sponsor Todd Muller—he's had a hard run. He's got a broken hand and you know—I don't know if it is broken. It was in a sling; it's just sore. He's got a crook hand and he's been tossed about within the spokespersonship but we on this side of the House like him. Some on that side of the House like him but all of us over here like him. So I do want to congratulate him for getting it this far.There was some confusion throughout the process. We as a party took the view at one point that: what is the point in spending taxpayers' money on the process of passing a bill which doesn't seem to have that much interest? Then we said "Well look if the taxpayer is willing to pay David Bennett's salary then we should be willing to put money into something as valuable as this." So we've changed our view and we think that this does no harm and therefore why should we oppose it?"