Chauvel Charles: Insolvency Bill Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill — Third Readings 
Chauvel Charles: Insolvency Bill Companies Amendment Bill Insolvency (Cross-border) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:634;Page:6184] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of the third reading of this legislation. I joined the Commerce Committee on 3 August only a week before the committee reported back the Insolvency Law Reform Bill so unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to participate deeply in the consideration by the committee of the legislation. But my having joined the committee and having taken an interest during my time in the House in these matters and in the business before the committee it is something that I have had the chance to consider somewhat. 
I think it is a great shame that the National Party is not supporting the legislation. It is apparent from the report back from the committee that there are really just two rather thin pretexts for this lack of support and they are as the previous speaker Christopher Finlayson said an objection to the no-asset procedure scheme and also objections to the fact that the voluntary administration regime will not do away with the Crown priority for the Inland Revenue Department. 
It was interesting to attend a meeting in Christchurch with the Minister Lianne Dalziel last week of the Insolvency Special Interest Group practitioners—a group of accountants and lawyers who came together and wanted to discuss provisions of the legislation and associated matters. The interesting thing was that almost to a person those practitioners were highly supportive of the legislation and were quite happy to acknowledge it as the most thorough reform to be attempted in this area for some time. They really did welcome it and they also welcomed the Minister’s announcement made to them that there would be a proposal to regulate the insolvency practitioner profession. Obviously it is important particularly with the advent of the voluntary administration regime that only the most ethical and capable practitioners be they accountants or lawyers should be practising in this field. 
I will say one or two words about the Crown priority issue. I know that my colleagues on this side of the House have already mentioned the matter but I think if one looks at the history of insolvency law reform one can see quite plainly that whether the idea of retaining the Crown priority for the Inland Revenue Department works is very much in the department’s hands. If the Inland Revenue Department uses its priority in the voluntary administration regime responsibly if it allows companies in trouble to trade out rather than insisting on a very strict revenue-gathering approach then the reality is that the regime has a good chance of success. If the Inland Revenue Department is responsible about its powers which we all hope it will be then the voluntary administration regime as contained in the legislation should work fine. The reality is of course that if it does not—if a responsible approach is not taken by the Inland Revenue Department to the powers and the priority it retains—then no doubt this House and the Commerce Committee will have to look at the legislation and the provisions again. 
To me that is an appropriate way of looking at this sort of change. It ought to be incremental. A radical step such as removing the Inland Revenue Department’s priority ought not to be taken in a hurry. One ought to see whether it can be made compatible with this new voluntary administration regime. If it can well and good. If it cannot there is the opportunity for further consideration. 
I think this is an appropriate juncture at which to welcome this legislation. Many members of the profession both accountants and lawyers who are working in the insolvency field welcome it. I welcome it. It is a shame that the National Party is playing politics with it.