Cosgrove Clayton: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13821. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): It is an interesting fact that the number of insolvencies since 2008 has increased dramatically under this Government. One could probably point without getting off the mark too much to many in the export sector who because of the high dollar and the lack of any sort of initiative over monetary policy have been forced to the wall not because of their own negligence but because of the environment they face and the lack of a supportive Government to stand alongside them.However putting that aside we support this bill the Insolvency Practitioners Bill. But it is also interesting to note the gestation period for this piece of legislation which had its genesis way back in a 2004 Ministry of Economic Development report that was produced under the last Government. That report raised some serious concerns in respect of a minority of practitioners who it was alleged were—bluntly—incompetent or lacked the skills that were required to carry out insolvency work. There were submitters to the report who talked about dishonesty negligence and an inability to carry out the principal duties that were required.If you look at the history it is also interesting to note that the existing criteria basically say if you are over 18 breathing walking upright and without any particular educational or tertiary qualifications or skills in the area it is possible for you to engage in insolvency work. That is a deficiency. I have got to say that if you look at the legislative history of this—the bill was introduced under I think the Minister’s predecessor Simon Power. He nods—indeed. He was a good Minister. He used to chug things through. It is a pity he is not here because it has slowed down somewhat now. The bill was introduced on 27 April 2010 had its first reading on 21 August 2010 and went before the Commerce Committee on 9 May 2011—and hey presto here we are a few years later and suddenly this bill has become a high priority. Maybe the Minister is trying to fill up his day—I do not know. Maybe the diary is a bit light—I am not sure—but this is an important piece of legislation that should indeed have been given a higher degree of priority.We support this bill because it builds on a variety of if you like consumer protection legislation but it also builds in protections for those creditors who are on the receiving end of insolvencies. One that comes to mind I have got to say is the collapse of Mainzeal Property and Construction where many many people lost their jobs. Many subcontractors for instance were caught in a situation where they could not get their tools of trade. They could not move on. They were not the negligent parties. They could not move on and get into other jobs and get other income. They were caught between a rock and a hard place. That was a high-profile collapse.I do note just in passing for the record that the Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley was a key director of that company and also I think a key director of Genesis Energy one of our State-owned enterprises. To date we have had no explanation—no explanation—as to why that collapse happened who was implicated and who was responsible. It even came before—I see Mr Young the chair of the Commerce Committee here—the Commerce Committee almost a year ago to the day. Given that Mrs Shipley heads up one of our State-owned enterprises we tried to pose some questions—because it goes to the credibility and integrity of other work that she may do for the Crown—and to ask what the problem was. I think her comment was “I will not offend the Standing Orders by answering that question.” or words to that effect. So it is interesting that for those in lofty places—those who have been in senior positions in Government who know the rules and who are now in the private sector—suddenly there is a lack of accountability. It does not flow straight through.We support the legislation. We believe this is appropriate legislation. I know that Mr Young as chair of the Commerce Committee is desperate to get up and talk about it. It is necessary. I am reminded of a story in respect of the head of Tait Electronics the late Sir Angus Tait. He said at a speech I was at many years ago that one of the greatest learning periods—and I am characterising what he said—in his life in terms of business was when that business almost hit the wall and he had the receiver looking over his shoulder and that great man managed to get the business back into being the wonderful enterprise it is. But he made the point that he learnt so much during that stressful period about business.This bill is about protecting creditors. This is also about ensuring that people who have to manage and action insolvencies are actually qualified are robust and are people of good character and not sharks. So it would be unusual if any party in this House did not support the legislation but I say in conclusion that it has taken a long time—a long time—for this Government to give it some priority. It should have had a higher priority than it has at the present time and I hope that the Minister will act with a higher degree of efficiency when it comes to other just as important legislation.