Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well it's been an interesting debate on this bill. I would like to thank the Greens and the ACT Party and my colleague Andrew Bayly for their words in support of what we're trying to achieve here.Now the last member spoke of stringent requirements. We've had members on the other side of the House who have spoken about honesty and integrity and trustworthiness and you can have requirements and you can have people filling out the documentation and you can have all of those things in place but there's nothing like an extra piece of insurance in legislation that says that practitioners are unable to do this and that is the conflict that we're talking about.Now I think it's really important to recognise that the people on this side of the House—and that includes the Green Party tonight who have spoken in support of this bill—do realise that things can fall through the cracks and we are not frightened of sunshine. We are not frightened of having a look at things to see if they are working.The Government members seem to be so sure that the Insolvency Practitioners Regulations Act which yes the National Party supported is perfect. It seems to be what the Labour members are saying tonight is that We did something perfect. It's got no cracks in it. We are not prepared to go and put what we thought at first glance was a good bill in front of a select committee so that we can have members of organisations who work in this field every day and are far more knowledgeable than any of us that sit in the House here tonight or stand in the House tonight to come in and have a look and point this out."I actually said in my initial speech that some Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association of New Zealand (RITANZ) members may not agree with this and we have heard that. I said "some" and I think some of the speakers on the other side of the House have taken that to mean "all". Now if those RITANZ members are so certain that the Insolvency Practitioners Regulations Act is working then they would not be scared of actually having a bit of sunlight displayed. I don't want to question the integrity of the majority of those people but I think when we're making legislation we've always got to be making sure that there are some people that are not falling through the cracks of the legislation. As much as we can put stringent requirements in front of people and expect that everybody will fill them out to the best of their knowledge and the best of their ability we must I think as regulators and legislators accept that there is a chance that someone will go through the cracks of those systems. I'm sure many of us have had people come to our offices who have had problems. If you happen to be the person—not you Madam Speaker—but if the person who comes to our office and complains is the person that's been caught out in a situation like this where somebody hasn't acted with the honesty and integrity and trustworthiness that the customer would expect then that's when we see these things happening at the worst.So I think that it's very short sighted of the Government and Labour MPs here tonight to think that any piece of legislation that any of us put in place—and yes we agreed to the legislation two years ago. But because the Labour Party members haven't seen any evidence that what they did was broken it is now perfect and there is no need to actually underpin it and improve it by putting a couple of clauses both in the Companies Act and the Receiverships Act that says that we could make this a lot more watertight than it already is. I think that the openness and sunshine of a select committee would have done this a huge favour. But unfortunately it looks like unless in the next 10 seconds the Labour Government members are going to change their mind we're not going to have the opportunity to do that. Thank you Madam Speaker."