Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I've been quite anxious to speak on this bill because there's a point that's occurred to me. Actually it was something that was said by my colleague the Hon Stuart Nash and it just triggered a train of thinking. Mr Nash spoke very clearly to—I think it was Subpart 8 was it? No no it might've been Subpart 10 about patents. It occurred to me that there is one of these subparts in Part 3 that is a little unlike some of the others. If we look at Subpart 1 it's about amendments to the Commerce Act Subpart 2 is about amendments to the Companies Act Subpart 3 to the Copyright Act and Subpart 4 if I can find it is about—this might be a bit similar—the Corporations (Investigations and Management) Act and so on. So they're all amendments to various Acts but one of these amendments to Acts is a little bit different. Even though it looks the same it is actually a little bit different and that's the amendment in Subpart 9 to the Insolvency Act.On the face of it it looks very very similar to the other subparts. What it does is it allows communications to be brought into the 21st century and to be done by audiovisual and by email and so on. But I guess the difference with the Insolvency Act is that often people don't want to be contacted in insolvency cases. In a lot of the other cases that we're talking about here people actually want to be in communication with Government. They actually want to receive the messages. They want to expedite their business and it makes the utmost sense to have that done through email or through audiovisual communication and in such a way that it really expedites it.But one of the things with insolvency is that of course you've actually lost all your money you've lost your assets. You know going bankrupt is quite a humiliating procedure for a lot of people and they sort of feel that the last thing they want to do is deal with the Official Assignee. By definition if you're bankrupt if you're going through that process you have no money. Now that often means that you don't have easy access to a computer. You've got to no easy way of receiving your email.I was thinking about this a little bit further because of course in my electorate of New Lynn we do find a lot of people who come to us and they say Actually we can't telephone your electorate office because we can't afford to pay the cellphone charges." And I say "Well what about emailing?" and they say "We don't have a computer at home." Now typically people who are less well off they're going to go through the no-asset procedure. That's for people who owe less than $47000 of debt but you can only do that once and then you're into the insolvency procedures. I guess if you're going through insolvency the incentive is to avoid communication.Now we all know that with email as my various colleagues have referred to we all get masses of email and it becomes quite a good excuse actually to say "I didn't receive it." or "Maybe it got lost in the spam folder." and so on. So I agree that we do put the onus that as long as it's been correctly addressed we've got to make sure that it does get to the person but there's just this extra barrier when it comes to the insolvency cases and I guess the no-asset procedure cases of people who don't want to be contacted and then it really makes no difference whether it's an email or a letter or so on. So I agree it brings it into the modern age.I guess the other thing that's sitting in here if we go to clause 70 of this bill which amends section 165 of the Insolvency Act it even says things like "A person who is summoned by the Assignee for examination"—well they can agree to an audiovisual link. But again I just wonder how common that kind of agreement actually is in this rather difficult case of insolvency.So I would appreciate it if the Minister could perhaps speak a little bit about how that particular case might be got around in the case of someone who is reluctant to be communicated with; they don't actually want to be communicated with. I'm not sure how this is going to improve matters by using email. In fact it just gives them an extra excuse.As I said it is a little different to the other clauses in this bill where we are dealing with situations where people do want to be in communication with Government where they do want to understand what's going on and yet we have the opposite incentive in this case. So I would appreciate the Minister perhaps adding a little to explain this."