Auchinvole Chris: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6045] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 5 of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill. National members are opposed to the bill which in some ways I think is unfortunate because we feel it could have been quite good in so many aspects. But as in so many aspects of the term of office of the current Government it has failed to come up with the momentum necessary to carry through the better parts of the bill. In Part 5 there is again the feature of the Government not being able to carry through the original intention of this borrowed legislation. I say “borrowed” because in its original form it came from Australia. In its original form it concentrated heavily on improving the situation of bankruptcies on helping debtors to recover their situation and in all aspects was quite a solid piece of legislation. But it has been chopped and changed to suit I would suggest the social agenda of this particular Government. 
The problem of major proportions that we have here is the no-asset procedure. Why on earth is the Government even entertaining such a move? There seems to be some suggestion that this is State-assisted debt avoidance. Subclause (2) of clause 367 states: “The debtor must notify the Assignee as soon as practicable of any change in the debtor’s circumstances that would allow the debtor to repay an amount towards the debts referred to in section 366(1).” I cannot find in any parts or subparts of the bill the compulsion that goes with this requirement. 
I do not think it is quite right for the Minister who was previously in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel to blame outright the creditor for the person being in debt as she did earlier. Sure I share the Government’s concern that there is an easy extension of credit to people which for the poorly organised could entice them towards debt. But by the same token here it is providing an opportunity for people to walk away from the responsibility they willingly undertook. I also think it is a bit rich that on the one hand the Government extends credit to students through the student loan scheme but then denies them entry on to the register. They cannot get off without paying the Government back—oh no! 
Pansy Wong 
: Double standards. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: But small businesses will have the debtors strolling off from the debt through this particular clause. As my colleague and mentor in many ways Pansy Wong says there are double standards operating here. In other words the Government is not prepared to extend the same level of protection to retailers that it extends to itself but by gosh it will put them at risk in a way that it is not prepared to put itself at risk. 
Pansy Wong 
: It does not care about retailers. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It does not care about retailers. Small business in New Zealand though is New Zealand’s major business and there are plenty of statistics to emphasise that. To allow a shrug of the shoulders towards personal debt is an odd thing for any Government to do but particularly this one. We understand—and I am not an economist and I do not pretend to be one—that the present level of household debt is higher than ever before in this country’s economic history. 
Pansy Wong 
: Why? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I do not know. Why is it? Does this legislation help? 
Pansy Wong 
: No personal responsibility. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Looking at the lack of personal responsibility is a good start when addressing why. 
Ron Mark 
: Credit cards and hire purchase. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Credit cards and hire purchase—access to easily available credit. A constituent came to see me the other day in my little blue office in Greymouth. He explained just how easy it is to get credit nowadays. He said that all people have to do is keep refusing to take it from the companies that keep offering it and they offer them more and they offer to make it easier. He did not have a problem with that. What he did have a problem with was a weak-willed relative who took advantage of those opportunities then sought exactly as we are saying here to walk away from the responsibilities. That is the danger that is faced here. I notice that Mr Mark of New Zealand First is agreeing with that and I am delighted to think we have reached one point of agreement in our mutual interest. 
We understand that the level of household debt is higher than ever before. Is the Government blind to the reality of this? It has been quick enough to crow repeatedly about how the Government’s debts—and I have heard Dr Cullen give a speech on this particular subject—have been cleared and reduced almost as if the taxpayer had not actually contributed to that being possible.