Guy Nathan: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6049] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I thought I would even the slate with our colleagues on the other side because what a lot of diatribe we have just heard from Russell Fairbrother the former member for Napier. I think the people out there who may have been listening to that speech would be completely confused so I will take the few moments I have to even the slate and talk about why we are so uptight about supporting Part 5. 
The no-asset procedure seems complete stupidity to me when I read it. This procedure will allow people 12 months in which they can write off their debt and be discharged from it. Up to $40000 can be written off. We heard from the hard-working member for Hamilton East Mr Bennett about the importance of small business and how it is often those people who are waiting for the cheque to come on the 20th of the month and hoping that it will come. They know full well that if the cheque is late it may mean bad news for them. Let us think about the creditors out there—the small-business people who are the heart of our economy. Somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of the small businesses in New Zealand actually drive the economy. 
We need to be mindful of the signal we are sending to the rest of society when someone can come in with a clean slate and write off $40000 of debt. When we think about the culture of savings in this country we are pretty poor. There is hire purchase the credit card debt that people rack up traffic offences and parking fines that are not paid and now in Part 5 we are signalling to those people that they can write off $40000 and live happily ever after. 
 So there is a lot of stupidity around Part 5. It is fair enough that we give debtors a second chance so they can start again but I think it is too easy to allow those people to just chuck everything in and not to take into account the real importance of those creditors that I have spoken about. The creditors—the last cab off the rank when a company goes into insolvency—are left high and dry under this proposal. 
I think it is important that we have a look at the no-asset procedure in clause 359(1). It states: “(a) the debtor has no realisable assets; and (b) the debtor has not previously been admitted to the no asset procedure; and (c) the debtor has not previously been adjudicated bankrupt; and (d) the debtor has total debts that are not less than $1000 and not more than $40000;”. Clause 359(2) refers to section 156 and states: “In this section realisable assets does not include the assets that a bankrupt is allowed to retain under section 156.” I refer to that because it is pretty important and I would appreciate the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson taking a call. Clause 156(1) states: “The bankrupt may choose and retain as the bankrupt’s own property certain assets up to a maximum value.” I would appreciate the Minister taking a call on that. I ask him to let us all in the Committee this evening know what is a certain asset up to the maximum value. I look forward to him taking a call on that. 
Clause 156(3) states: “The assets and their maximum value are—(a) the bankrupt’s necessary tools of trade—”. I think it is important to realise that for those people their tools of trade are extremely important. The examples given in clause 156(3)(b) are: “necessary household furniture and effects including clothing for the bankrupt and his or her relatives and dependants—the maximum value is fixed in the Assignee’s discretion:”. It is interesting to see that a motor vehicle is valued at $5000. When the Minister takes a call about my previous question I would really appreciate it if he could tell us how he has come to the value of a motor vehicle at $5000. For a lot of small businesses $5000 is a very small amount for a vehicle.