🧪 EXPERIMENTAL / ALPHA — this is an independent prototype, not an official record. Data may be incomplete or wrong - always check the linked Hansard source before relying on it.
Hot Air

Tuesday, 6 April 2004

Business Law Reform Bill

Part 1 Building Societies Act 1965 (continued)
HansardID: aa0b7b08-4729-4148-8b78-31a010d7b177
Back to debates
🗣️ Speech Mark Burton (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Taupō)
Time unknown

Following discussions with parties, I seek leave that, following the part we are about to conclude, the remaining parts of the Committee stage of the bill be taken as a single, wide-ranging debate, following which we move on to the third reading, as the House has already agreed; and that, following that, we take Government notice of motion No. 2, and at that point, if it is before 10 p.m, the House rise.

🗣️ Speech John Carter (New Zealand National Party — Member for Northland)
Time unknown

We have to take the leave relating to Government notice of motion No. 2 when the House is resumed. We can take leave for the wide-ranging debate now.

🗣️ Speech Mark Burton (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Taupō)
Time unknown

I am just explaining to the Committee what the intention is once the House is resumed.

🗣️ Speech John Carter (New Zealand National Party — Member for Northland)
Time unknown

The member is advising the Committee of what the House will do when it resumes.

🗣️ Speech Mark Burton (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Taupō)
Time unknown

Indeed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am advised that members can seek leave in relation to the Committee stage, but the Government notice of motion is another issue.

If I can clarify, I am indicating to the Committee that once we return to the House, I will seek further leave from the House to complete that intention.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

🗣️ Speech Brian Connell (New Zealand National Party — Member for Rakaia)
Time unknown

Prior to the dinner interval, I drew the attention of the Committee to the signing and distribution of financial statements, and I read the section that said that if that did not happen, then the society, and every officer of the society who was in default, would be guilty of an offence. That is really the notion of vicarious liability, and I pose the question of how fair and reasonable it is. I can understand that senior officers of the society and the boards of directors have to shoulder that responsibility, but to make every officer liable seems to me a little tough. I put it to the Committee that some officers in junior positions working in such a society would have very little idea about the financial management of the society, and for them to be penalised in that manner would be unreasonable.

I also turn my attention very briefly to the proposed section 97A of the Act, “Distribution of copies of financial statements and reports”. I agree that they need to be distributed, but I pose the question of why we think we need to legislate that. I would have thought that was sensible commercial practice in the first instance. I know that there would be a defence in that some depositors or members could claim that they did not know about the financial structure of the organisation they were investing in, and I can understand that they might have an action if this measure was not done, but I fail to see how this section will change the practice that has been taking place prior to this legislation concluding its passage through Parliament.

🗣️ Speech Dail Jones (New Zealand First Party — List Member)
Time unknown

New Zealand First has no intention of delaying the passing of this bill. We were criticised in the very preliminary stages for doing just that. Now, other parties seem to wish to delay it. As far as New Zealand First is concerned, this bill has had more than enough deliberation and consideration. We intend to support it, and we have no further contribution to make to this debate, other than to see the bill proceed expeditiously.

🗣️ Speech Stephen Franks (ACT New Zealand — List Member)
Time unknown

As this debate has been converted to a wide-ranging debate, I have three areas on which I believe it would be helpful to have some comment from the Minister in the chair. In Part 9, “Personal Property Securities Act 1999”, clause 59 states: “(c) a government department knows or has knowledge of” a matter when it “has been brought to the attention of a senior employee …”. I am concerned that—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): We are on Part 1, Mr Franks.

I am sorry. I had not realised that the wide-ranging debate has not commenced.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is not until after the next vote. Then we have that debate. We are on Part 1.

I will not waste the time of the Committee. Part 1 is not something that troubles me.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to clause 6 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to, and Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2, and Parts 2 to 13

🗣️ Spoke in this debate (5)

  • Mark Burton (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Taupō)
  • John Carter (New Zealand National Party — Member for Northland)
  • Brian Connell (New Zealand National Party — Member for Rakaia)
  • Stephen Franks (ACT New Zealand — List Member)
  • Dail Jones (New Zealand First Party — List Member)