Chauvel Charles: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:5000] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Can I join the previous speaker my friend Katrina Shanks in welcoming members of the Otari Probus Club to the House tonight. I am sure they will be delighted to listen intently to the debate on this legislation the Insolvency Amendment Bill as members read it a second time. 
Katrina Shanks spoke in her second reading speech about the length of time a debtor should spend on public insolvency registers. My friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel did the same thing. I will spend a little bit of time addressing that issue because I think it is one of the more significant ones that the House needs to pay attention to. The bill lengthens the time that information about a debtor remains on the public insolvency register from 1 year to 5 years in the case of a NAP or no-asset procedure as it will be called and from 7 years to indefinitely in the case of multiple insolvencies. That is two or more bankruptcies or a no-asset procedure and a bankruptcy. 
The Commerce Committee as I understand it heard evidence that lengthening the time that a no-asset procedure debtor remains on the public register would dilute the important distinction between bankruptcy provisions and the no-asset procedure. That procedure was introduced to provide a one-off opportunity for financially distressed individuals to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy and to rebuild their lives. The Privacy Commissioner’s view and I think it is incumbent on the House to pay close attention to the views of the commissioner on matters of information storage and privacy was that a total of 3 years on the public register for a no-asset procedure debtor would be more consistent with the purposes of the procedure and more proportionate to the period for which individuals should be publicly listed following bankruptcy. But the majority of the select committee members accepted the advice that it is a matter of balancing the interests of debtors who seek understandably to move on with their lives with the interests of creditors who require reliable information about a debtor’s history on which to make informed business decisions. The majority of the members concluded that the approach proposed in the bill does strike a reasonable balance between those interests. The majority said that the diversity of reasons for financial distress means the length of time that information remains on the public registers will inevitably be more appropriate for some debtors than for others no matter what period is plumped for. As Katrina Shanks said there is no international consensus on this issue in overseas jurisdictions. Members on this side of the House believe that there should be further consultation on this part of the bill before we proceed to make what are quite significant changes to the public register provisions. 
It is interesting to note that these provisions were not an essential component of the bill which was designed to deal with fraudulent debts. And there has been a shorter report-back requirement than would normally be expected. On this issue as Lianne Dalziel said Labour members think that there has not been sufficient consultation with key stakeholders and this is reinforced by the fact that the Privacy Commissioner’s concerns have not been adopted by the select committee. We would therefore much prefer that the provisions relating to the public register be separated from the rest of the bill. 
On the rest of the bill members on this side of the House think it is generally a good one. We do support it but we do think that it would be better to prevent more insolvency in New Zealand rather than just tidy up the small number of issues that have arisen since the enactment of the Insolvency Act 2006 which after all is really all this bill does. Members on this side of the House ask where the Government’s plan is to prevent insolvency from becoming more and more of a problem for ordinary New Zealanders. Where is the economic plan? This is a question that is fairly asked in my view of a Government that scrapped the research and development tax credit gutted KiwiSaver trashed the Fast Forward fund and cut contributions to the Superannuation Fund thereby endangering future superannuation entitlements. These are the fundamental questions facing the nation when it comes to how we deal with insolvency how we prevent insolvency from becoming more and more of a problem for ordinary New Zealanders and how we build a wealthier society. It is those questions that Labour members want addressed rather than the Government being too preoccupied with tinkering which is the concern we have about the rest of the bill. We are concerned also about the public insolvency register provisions that I spoke about in some further detail. Thank you.