Carter David: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Insolvency Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5737] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I rise with pleasure to take a brief call on the Insolvency Law Reform Bill. I listened with interest to the previous speakers Kate Wilkinson and Chris Finlayson and I thank Chris very much for the history lesson around the earlier ways of solving insolvency difficulties. I am pleased that the legislation as proposed by the Labour Government does not include some of those more historic means of sorting out these problems. 
I think it is a shame that National is in a position whereby it has to oppose this legislation. Law that has been on the book for such a considerable length of time clearly needs to be revised and it is a pity because a reasonable idea around voluntary administration has actually been corrupted by this legislation which is basically incompetent. The legislation introduces voluntary administration which is a process used widely around the rest of the world but it will fail in this country because the submissions to the Commerce Committee have been largely ignored despite the fact that the committee did not receive a lot of submissions—there were 11 submissions only. I understand from National members on the select committee that they were significantly in support of the principle of voluntary administration but said that where it will fail is in the greed of the Government and the Minister of Finance in maintaining the priority status of the Inland Revenue Department. 
I think the Minister in the chair Lianne Dalziel should take a call in the Committee stage and tell us what other countries around the world have established insolvency legislation incorporating voluntary administration while still retaining the priority right of the revenue department of that country to get the first claws on the money. I would be grateful if the Minister would answer that question because I suspect the legislation is before the House with special preference being maintained for the Inland Revenue Department for no other reason than the Minister of Finance being able to come in at question time and crow about a Budget surplus of $11.5 billion. Surpluses of that magnitude it seems to me are one good reason why in this legislation the Minister in charge Lianne Dalziel could have given thought to accepting the work of the select committee and the well-researched well-regarded submissions received by the committee acknowledging that voluntary administration could work and in fact would work if the principle of priority status being given the Inland Revenue Department were removed. That is the major point that I want the Minister to take a call on. 
It is all very well for the National members of Parliament to come in and work hard at opposing the bill in the Committee stage but a Minister who either does not understand the legislation or just cannot be bothered answering the questions legitimately raised by National members is frankly not good enough. So I say to the Minister that she should give us a very simple answer to the questions I have raised. Which of the countries where voluntary administration works and works successfully have maintained a preferential status for the revenue department of those countries? That is the essence of the debate. That is the reason the National Party finds itself having to oppose the legislation. It simply will not work practically or fairly because of that preference being retained by the Inland Revenue Department.