Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm not sure that I would share the previous speaker Tamati Coffey's description of it as an amicable bill. I don't know quite what an amicable bill is in the sense that it imposes a new regulatory regime on part of our economy but it's something that we kicked off some time ago. That was purely and simply to improve the confidence that people have in the conduct of our companies and liquidators and liquidation is an important part of the company cycle—the formation of companies companies doing well. Companies come to the end of the lives at some point and they can be solvent at that time in which case they've got more assets than they've got liabilities and they're just being wound up and that's a relatively straightforward process although there can always be complications. Then there are insolvent liquidations when the company doesn't have the assets or when something's gone wrong and you have a bunch of creditors out there who are owed money by the company and there needs to be a good robust mechanism for ensuring that is dealt with properly.It was a fair assessment of the situation in New Zealand that the arrangements to ensure that happened were insufficiently robust. There are some excellent liquidators out there but there have been some poor practitioners out there who have been excessively friendly to company directors when the company has been wound up—excessively friendly to them as opposed to the creditors and making it too easy for unscrupulous company directors to keep cycling through companies and avoiding their responsibilities—and this has a flow-on effect to many industries across the economy. It's certainly related to complications in the housing and construction area where people haven't been able to successfully hold people to account for liabilities left by companies that have been wound up in the past and this is one element of it. So bringing some better robustness into the insolvency regime by requiring the licensing of that group and having some ability to hold very poor practitioners to account and get them out of the industry is I think a positive move.Now there'll be all sorts of complications in the way this is being set up and I think it's something that we're going to have to look at closely over the next few years because unfortunately in these regulatory regimes that are set up quite often the details are not quite right and only time shows that. So we can't expect that this is going to be the final word on how this has been set up but we hope it works well. I do think it's appropriate in the Supplementary Order Paper brought by the Minister that the costs of this regime—because there's such a small number of practitioners in this area the fees on them would be very high—are better to be borne by all companies which benefit from having a good regime in place. So in that regard I think this is a small but positive move in terms of both strengthening the robustness and trying to maintain that excellent reputation the New Zealand business community has in terms of its relatively low levels of corruption and high levels of trust which is one of the most precious assets that we have. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.