Yule LawrenceINSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to principal ActLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to speak to the Insolvency Practitioners Bill at this stage of the proceedings and we do so generally in support. This bill has been before this Parliament for a number of years and if I look back at the notes really this started in 2010. It's fair to say the aim of this bill is to make sure that there is a proper and decent insolvency industry in New Zealand. I'd outline to the House that this is a specialist skill made up of a very small number of practitioners but they do provide a vital service to companies and to creditors when companies get into distress or are in financial dire straits.This bill fundamentally seeks to tighten up the industry. It also puts a regulatory regime over the top of the industry and it seeks through some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) actually to work out how that regulation is funded. There was quite a lot of debate and there has been quite a lot of debate as to how that could occur. In many cases it's unlike many other professional entities. For a lot of other professional entities—doctors lawyers and accountants—there are a large number of practitioners. But in this case the number of practitioners is relatively small. The skills are very specialist but they do make a real difference to the outcome for creditors and how the process is managed.During the select committee stage we had a variety of submissions and presentations from a variety of people expressing different views as to how this should be done. It's my view that after listening to those this bill arrives at a reasonably fair position. We believe it's quite pragmatic. To the Minister sitting in the chair Stuart Nash I think your Government and your people have done a reasonable job in getting us to this point.Can I say though that it is different—how this is going to be approached—in terms of how the regulatory arm of this is going to be funded from what might normally be the case. As it's proposed—as I understand it—there's likely to be a small charge to each company in New Zealand to fund the regulation of these services. That is very different from doctors and lawyers who may pay their own charge but I think because of the small number of people involved that's a very suitable thing to do.I also know that during the select committee process there was some debate about—for want of a better word—who the insolvency practitioner was actually acting for; so whether you could go into voluntary liquidation forced liquidation and all the measures that are around that and—for want of a better word—a gaming of that system and the conversations around whether that could happen. I believe we have reached agreement and I think this Parliament can be proud of the fact that for probably the first time since 2010 when this was first considered we're actually going to have a regulatory regime around insolvency practitioners which strikes the balance in providing a regulated industry full of a small number of highly qualified professionals which will actually mean that creditors are treated fairly and appropriately in the process.It's not many years ago that there was a large number of insolvencies and there are still some.Hon Member: And there will be more.LAWRENCE YULE: And there will be more. But what happens is that—particularly for the last five years—there has been an awful lot of media interest in people who have not felt that their rights as creditors have been adequately dealt with. This bill seeks to tidy that up and those that are involved in corporate affairs or business at the passing of this bill once we've made the necessary changes in the SOPs should feel a lot more comfortable that their rights are protected and that their innocent rights are actually protected against what can be large corporates. Thank you Madam Chair.