Tremain Chris: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5748] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 “Nature of bankruptcy and process of being made bankrupt”. It is interesting that the New Zealand First leader came into the Chamber during the debate on this part. I am surprised that he left the Chamber but he had obviously left Mr Woolerton in control. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member cannot comment on a member’s absence from the Chamber or otherwise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that point. It is correct. I ask the member please to desist from that. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I will continue and I will desist from referring to the absence of the member who is no longer here. I will perhaps refer to New Zealand First. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Do not compound it. I asked you to desist. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Don’t be a plonker. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Thank you Mr Cosgrove. I will move on to subpart 1 “Bankruptcy and its alternatives”. We are talking here about two key parts—clause 7 “Nature of bankruptcy” and clause 8 “Alternatives to bankruptcy”. The nature of bankruptcy clause talks about bankruptcy affecting the legal status of a person and that it has important consequences. Indeed it does such as the stigma that comes with bankruptcy. If someone becomes bankrupt he or she effectively loses everything. This is the point I want to make to members on the other side in relation to getting into business. There are 360000-odd small businesses throughout this country and it is the small-business people who go out there and put everything on the line to try to take this country forward in terms of growing their lot. I think the statistics are that 90 percent of small businesses over a 5-year period struggle to stay in existence and they will face potential bankruptcy. There is a lot of stigma attached to being bankrupt. People can lose everything—their house; their relationship along the way which is something we should all take into account in this instance; and their family; a whole heap of things—and it is not good. 
I will move on to clause 8 “Alternatives to bankruptcy”. A debtor who is insolvent may have an alternative to bankruptcy and three points are made in the clause: making a proposal to creditors paying creditors in instalments under a summary instalment order and entering the no-asset procedure. That might be something that Mr Woolerton may want to think about. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Yes I can’t wait. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: He might be interested in this. Given the $150000 of debt that his party may face in the very near future listening to this bankruptcy procedure section might be quite a good use of his time. When New Zealand First has to face fronting up with that $150000 Mr Woolerton may have to consider some of the provisions in this legislation. There are three options that could be open to New Zealand First and the first is making a proposal to its creditors. I guess that comes back to making a proposal to the taxpayers of New Zealand. That will be interesting. 
Secondly New Zealand First could look at paying creditors in instalments under a summary instalment order. What it could do is take the $150000 and perhaps pay it over 15 months—maybe by $10000 a month. That might get it across the line of paying the money that should be paid back to the taxpayers of this country. 
The third option is entering the no-asset procedure. I am not aware of the balance sheets of New Zealand First or the Labour Party. Quite frankly I do not have time to look at them. But the balance sheets of both parties would be something that anyone would look at in considering any of those three procedures. The balance sheets will be a huge thing. I say to Mr Woolerton that it will be interesting to understand whether there is enough equity in the New Zealand First balance sheet to cope with a $150000 debt. 
In continuing with alternatives to bankruptcy I now want to focus on entry to the no-asset procedure. I tell the member that the no-asset procedure is a 12-month procedure. It is an alternative to personal bankruptcy which is probably quite a good thing because in that particular situation New Zealand First could actually have a look at bankrupting the party rather than personally bankrupting each and every one of its members. New Zealand First is sitting on—what is it at the moment? One percent in the polls? Two? Not even that. I guess that is bankruptcy of a nature in itself is it not?