Bennett David: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5738] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As we debate this bill it is important to look at the history behind the legislation which has been thoroughly exposed by some of our great members with legal minds and also some of the reasons why one would want to have legislation such as this. When one puts such strength and urgency on the Inland Revenue Department’s ability to retain first call on the money the question must be raised that David Carter just raised: why would one want to do that? It is quite simple. The Government wants to retain these huge Budget surpluses so that in election year it can have a big spend-up to buy the votes of ordinary New Zealanders. It has done that before and it will do it again. This is just another example of the tax-and-spend Government we have here today. 
But there is another reason the Government wants to build up finances: so that it can pay for its election campaigns. Today we have seen evidence of that in the Auditor-General’s report. It is good that we have the former president of New Zealand First Doug Woolerton in the Chamber to make comments about the Government’s spending. Look at this. New Zealand First took $90540 in 2005 and $59906 in 2006. A total of $150446 of hard-working New Zealanders’ money went to those guys so that they could sit in those cushy chairs. That is what this legislation is about. It is about raising money. It is about paying for their own election campaigns and that is shocking. 
Hon David Carter 
: It is corruption. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is corruption corruption on a grand scale across the whole of that side of the Chamber. But when one has that corruption one has to look at the reality of what this bill actually means for individuals out there who are dealing with high credit. We have a Government that has provided an economy that has high interest rates and a high exchange rate. That has encouraged people to buy a lot of consumer goods—all that increase in availability of credit. The student loan scheme is another example. It is teaching the wrong lessons to young New Zealanders about the availability of credit. Kiwibank will loan 100 percent of mortgages. Those kinds of things open credit availability for ordinary New Zealanders and that is when people get into trouble and that is when they need legislation that looks after them and looks after the companies and individuals who supply money to them. 
If one walks down the streets of New Zealand these clothes traders are quite obvious—basically trucks that go around selling very expensive clothing in the poorest areas of our country. It is very difficult to see how a Government can allow that kind of increase in personal debt and at the same time allow the Inland Revenue Department to have first preference over ordinary New Zealanders who have high debt levels. What have those New Zealanders got? They have a Government that looks after the Inland Revenue Department and does not attack the high debt that gets those New Zealanders into trouble. If they did not have this high debt they would not need legislation such as this. But no this Government is quite happy to let that happen because it does not care about those people. It knows best. It knows so well that it does not even follow the international examples. It is willing to walk away from the Australian example. 
That is why National members are opposed to this bill. There was the ability for this Government and this country to have taken on board some of the lessons learnt internationally—lessons in regard to voluntary administration and lessons that would enable all New Zealanders to work a way out of any problems they may encounter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member please come back to clauses 3 to 6. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What clause is the member on? Tell us. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Clause 3 “Interpretation” clause 4 “Rights and powers under other Acts not affected” and clause 5 “Act binds the Crown”. Well an Act binding the Crown! That would be an unusual thing in this Parliament would it not? Imagine if those members were actually bound by something in legislation! They would just change the legislation. Why bind oneself; just go and write another one a year later! They do not need to be bound by legislation. I thank those members for allowing us to look at the binding of legislation. 
Chris Tremain 
: Retrospective! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes let us just do retrospective legislation. That will keep everyone happy. But do these guys want us to go through how the Act will bind the Crown? Clause 6 explains that corporations and other entities are not subject to this Act.