Clark David: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionClark David: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14527. Text is subject to correction.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I am keen to speak to the Insolvency Practitioners Bill because it goes back to the brilliant work done by LianneDalziel when she was Minister of Commerce. She is of course now in another office. She finds herself down in Christchurch sorting out some of the mess down there. The unfortunate thing I guess about this bill is that we find ourselves in a position where 2 years 4 months and 18 days I am told after the bill was reported back it is receiving its second reading.Dr Rajen Prasad: How many hours and minutes?Dr DAVID CLARK: I am not clear on the number of hours and minutes which my colleague is asking about. The current Minister of Commerce has five bills on the Order Paper that were introduced before 2012 and here we are again doing something that we will support because we think it is good progress but it is very slow progress. That is a sign I think of a Government that is distracted. It is busy worrying about scandals in the police it is worrying about the Chorus copper pricing it is worrying about Skycity deals and it is worrying about getting the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill through.Dr Rajen Prasad: Simon Bridges.Dr DAVID CLARK: It may well be worried about Simon Bridges and his media appearances. That is probably beyond the scope of this bill but only slightly—only slightly. It is only slightly beyond the scope of this bill.Grant Robertson: He’s nearly insolvent.Dr DAVID CLARK: My colleague suggests he might nearly be insolvent. This bill is to restrict or prohibit certain individuals from providing corporate insolvency services. We would support appropriate measures in that area. These are common-sense steps and obviously this legislation has a long history in coming to this point. The new system will apply to liquidators administrators and receivers and will target those practitioners who lack the requisite skills and knowledge to undertake insolvency work competently or who perform badly in this field of work. It is very hard to disagree with that proposition. Why would you want these people operating in this area?Supporting the new system there will be tighter statutory disqualification criteria and wider court powers to replace a practitioner who has a conflict of interest and lacks independence in a particular insolvency case. The reforms will enhance transparency and accountability. Those are values that we on this side of the House take very seriously. We do question whether these values could not be applied perhaps a little more consistently by the other side of the House. I am reminded of the recent debate on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill where transparency was very much a secondary consideration in that tender process and we have seen a very poor outcome for taxpayers. I am sure that we will see more than one or two insolvencies result from that legislation in which the burden of the Skycity Casino rebuild is paid for off the back of problem gambling. That is something that many of us on this side of the House opposed—in fact I think all of us did. It was a conscience vote but as far as I am aware people on this side of the House opposed it universally because we believe that decisions made in that way and decisions around funding new initiatives—convention centres be what they will—should be done in a transparent way. They should not be deals done behind closed doors and they should be done transparently and with accountability.We do praise the Government for undertaking reforms that are aligned with transparency and accountability in this respect. It should be praised when it gets things right. Goodness knows on this side of the House we see that there are rich pickings for a Government that wants to do deals with the likes of Chorus Skycity and other big interests. We on this side of the House prefer transparency and accountability and we will continue to fight for that.Simon O’Connor: You do deals with the unions Dr Clark.Dr DAVID CLARK: The member opposite suggests deals with the unions. That is really getting off track. It has nothing to do with this particular bill. I am sure the member is coming from somewhere but just where that is is a mystery to those of us over here—his own special place.The investigation and enforcement of the new Register of Insolvency Practitioners will be managed by the Registrar of Companies. Again that is a sensible step. The Registrar of Companies will also be able to take action against an insolvency practitioner who has not behaved appropriately. Again there is little to disagree with in that.The bill as originally introduced proposed a negative licensing regime for insolvency practitioners liquidators receivers and voluntary administrators. Insolvency practitioners who did not meet the required standard of competence would have been banned or placed under supervision. It would have empowered the Registrar of Companies to maintain a publicly accessible electronic register of people who had been banned or placed under supervision. The Commerce Committee report found that it would be preferable to prevent practitioners who would be restricted or prohibited from providing corporate insolvency services before undertaking insolvency duties instead of waiting until the damage is done. Effectively then the bill was completely rewritten in the select committee. The bill that we have before us does seem to achieve those basic aims.I return to the point though that it is a long time since it was introduced. It does not seem to be a priority for this Government to address these measures which are about accountability and transparency. Indeed on this side of the House we would strongly favour decisions that were a little more often taken in line with accountability and transparency. So with those concluding comments I wish to say that Labour will support this bill through its second reading and wish you a very good weekend Mr Deputy Speaker when you get there.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.Bill read a second time.