Insolvency Law Reform Bill

I will take just a brief call to explain this part. It provides for the application by a debtor for his or her own adjudication and bankruptcy. Previously a debtor had to apply to the High Court for adjudication. Now the application will be made to the official assignee. As was the case before, the adjudication is automatic on the application being made. The only procedural requirement is that the debtor must first file a statement of affairs with the official assignee, which allows the official assignee to advise debtors of alternatives to bankruptcy and of their best option. The reason I am spelling it out is that this part is a very technical restatement apart from the change to that one aspect of the existing law.

I will take just a brief call on Part 2 of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill because, as the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, says, it deals with the essential nature of bankruptcy and the process for being made bankrupt.

Although the National Party is opposing this bill for reasons we have already elaborated on, one of the good things about it is that it does away with old-fashioned terminology. Under the old regime one needed—

Hon David Carter: Would Winston have understood it, then?

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I will explain the Winston hypothetical in a few seconds. Under the old regime one needed to petition the High Court if the bankruptcy notice was not complied with within a particular time. Now, of course, that terminology has gone and the High Court Rules will need to be amended.

Part 2 deals with what happens if someone fails to comply with a bankruptcy notice. Let me give the Committee this example. A person has proceedings struck out against a member of Parliament in a defamation case and incurs costs. The plaintiff is told to pay those costs, but refuses to pay them. Time goes by and the impoverished and excitable defendant gets upset about that. So how does the defendant go about recovering his or her costs? He serves a bankruptcy notice in accordance with clause 29 of this legislation. The bankruptcy notice obviously has to be in the required form, and it sets out the amount that the successful defendant in the defamation case wishes to recover from the plaintiff. If that notice is not complied with, then the actual bankruptcy proceedings may begin.

There are a couple of points on adjudication that I want to address briefly. The court has a discretion as to whether to adjudicate a person bankrupt. I refer to clause 36: “The Court may, at its discretion, adjudicate the debtor bankrupt …”. Indeed, the court may refuse to adjudicate in certain circumstances, and they are set out in clause 37. It is sometimes thought that bankruptcy will follow, simply because the notice has not been complied with. Well, that is wrong. I can recall at least one case where the court looked at the situation after the time for complying with the bankruptcy notice had expired and decided that it would not be just or equitable to declare the debtor bankrupt.

I have one or two concerns about the debtor application procedure. It seems to me that it is almost too easy for a person to go into bankruptcy under this legislation. Clause 45 sets out the circumstances when a debtor may file an application. A debtor may file such an application with the assignee if he or she has combined debts of $1,000 or more, which is peanuts. I wonder whether the figure should be more substantial, particularly bearing in mind the costs to the Government of administering bankrupt estates, and the steps, for example, that the assignee must take after bankruptcy, which are set out in this part, as well.

One or two changes have been made to the legislation as it has gone through the select committee. For example, clause 24(2) talks about execution process. As the majority report stated, the term “charging order” has been deleted because it is not a form of execution process. I wonder whether the Minister ought to check whether the terminology referred to in that clause will continue for very much longer—writs of sale, possession, arrest, or sequestration—because I have an idea that the High Court Rules Committee is completely redoing Part 6 of the High Court Rules dealing with execution. I have a feeling that some of that terminology will change. So if the terminology is going to change in the High Court Rules it should also be changed in this legislation, and a couple of Supplementary Order Papers may be required—although I suppose it will be a bit too late to do that.

Part 2 does not contain anything too magical; it simply sets out the nature of bankruptcy and the process of being made bankrupt. Apart from some of the minor points I have made, I have no particular objection to this part, but, of course, we have overriding objections to the bill that colour the way we will look at it.

I was not going to take a call, but I was again intrigued at the contribution made by Chris Finlayson, who talked about a member of Parliament being sued for defamation and having to move the case to the High Court and seek a strikeout—with some success. I assume that Chris Finlayson was referring to my action involving the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

My question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, is whether there is any change to the way in which bankruptcy papers are served on the person from whom one is chasing money. In my particular case I had huge difficulty serving the bankruptcy papers on the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Of course, after this case was successfully struck out in the High Court, costs were awarded to me of about, from memory, $13,000-odd—

Shane Jones: Oh, chicken feed!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, it might be chicken feed if one double-dips in the way that Shane Jones does, but in my case it was quite a significant amount of money.

Despite repeated attempts through solicitors to get Mr Peters to front up and pay his due bills, it became a matter whereby the only way we could make progress was to try to serve some bankruptcy papers on the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The Minister may be interested to know that in my particular case it was quite difficult to do so, because the officer serving the papers asked where he lived in Wellington. We looked up the electoral roll and, of course, Winston Peters was not on the roll in Wellington. He appeared to be of no fixed abode, which made it quite difficult.

Craig Foss: Hummingbird.

Hon DAVID CARTER: In fact, I suggested that the guy go to Courtenay Place and just hang out there for a while and eventually he would find him.

The long and the short of it was that on one occasion we were able to find him, when we knew he was going to have a beer at the Back Bencher.

Hon Member: Did that work?

Hon DAVID CARTER: It did work. Ultimately, after a lot of soul-searching and a lot of time—and, no doubt, more cost—we managed to catch up with the Rt Hon Winston Peters to serve bankruptcy papers on him as he walked into the Back Bencher on Molesworth Street.

My simple question to the Minister in the chair is whether this legislation in any way makes it easier to serve bankruptcy papers on any member of the public or any Minister of the Crown who owes money and repeatedly refuses to pay it. From my recent experience, when a person lives a fairly nomadic lifestyle—as the Rt Hon Winston Peters does—it becomes quite difficult to track that person down. So it is a relatively simple question for the Minister. She struggled to answer the question we put to her earlier, but in this case we hope she is a little better briefed on the legislation. We ask whether this legislation in any way changes the current provisions for the serving of bankruptcy papers on any person, particularly the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he does not pay his bills.

It is great to take a call in the Committee stage of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill. Parts of this bill seem pretty reasonable. We have heard from Mr Finlayson that he agrees in principle with the part we are on to now, but some parts of it seem absolutely ridiculous. Let us talk a little about voluntary administration.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, it’s not in this part. You can talk only about the part we’re dealing with.

NATHAN GUY: It is great that the Minister in the chair, Lianne Dalziel, is keeping up. It is interesting that 27 submissions were received on this bill but those submissions were not actually heard, in essence. The considerations they made were not taken into account in this part, at all.

The concern I have is about the priority status the Inland Revenue Department will have around—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s not this part—wait until you get to it.

NATHAN GUY: I am just pre-empting it, I say to the Minister. I am just warming up for that part. My concern is that the Inland Revenue Department will still have its hand out. With this priority status, it will still be there, clipping the ticket. In fact, when we look at the tax take of this Government, at $11.5 billion—that is a “b”, not an “m”—surely it would consider that for those individuals who are under financial pressure, the department should not be there, being the first cab off the rank.

I will talk a little about the no-asset procedure. Giving individuals the ability to write off debt reduces down—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Clauses 7 to 100—would the member speak on anything relating to those clauses, please.

NATHAN GUY: They are all related to that matter, Mr Chairperson. Actually, the paramount concern is that this has been reduced down from 3 years to 12 months, and the write-off to $40,000, when, in fact, personal responsibility should be the essence. What will happen is that small businesses, those creditors—the electricians and the plumbers—will all be punished under this bill. Small businesses will be dealt a cruel blow.

In speaking to Part 2, the interesting thing for those start-up businesses is that they are struggling under regulation and compliance costs now. It was interesting that the results of the survey—which the Minister will know all about—recently done by 1,400 businesses showed that the compliance costs for small businesses are $3,000 per employee. This is shocking, and it is causing small businesses a whole lot of unnecessary red tape. The big thing is that we need less regulation. My concern for the small businesses is that when debtors hang them out to dry on the 20th of the month and they are waiting for a cheque to come—and I have been in that situation in a small business, when a truckload of bulls has been sent off to a meat company, and we wait and wait to see whether the cheque will come from the meat company—it can be extremely nerve-wracking. Mr Roy, I am sure, has also been in that situation before. Debtors are a big concern for people in small businesses.

We have a bad culture in this country of spending beyond our needs. We have a low-growth economy and a high-spending Government. It is no wonder that individuals become bankrupt. It is interesting when I look at a statement made by Michael Harper, a partner with Chapman Tripp. He summarised it pretty well: “However, what is most disappointing and ironic is that the most significant risk to the government ambition of introducing and implementing a successful rehabilitation procedure will be the government itself.”

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Part 2.

NATHAN GUY: So we have some concerns about this bill. For the reasons I have just alluded to—in speaking to Part 2—we will not be supporting it.

Can I just say that I was rather interested, while listening to the radio and not being in the Chamber, to find that one of the most critical issues concerning the National Party in respect of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill is the question of service. Apparently, a fellow colleague who is usually in this House at the same time that I am—probably to no effect, whatsoever, mind you—decided that he could not find his colleague, so he had to come to the launch of the Back Bencher exhibition, which I was launching, to serve notice.

It takes a certain type of character and a certain type of personality to think that the right thing to do is to attack a parliamentary colleague—but not while he is in the House and can defend himself. Oh no! He waits until his colleague is not there. It is a sort of “ambush ‘em in the back” tactic. He is the kind of person who would, if he were in the army, demand a job as a sniper a long way away from the action, where he could shoot from a position of safety, without ever having to confront the enemy.

It takes a certain type of character to decide that despite the fact that his colleague is a very well-known New Zealander—I might just say that humbly myself—he could not find him in New Zealand. He had to come to the launch of the Back Bencher exhibition, which I was launching, because that was the only place he and his lawyers could serve notice on me. Does anybody in New Zealand believe that?

Shane Jones: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, they do not.

Hon David Carter: I raise of point of order, Mr Chairperson.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, he cannot take it—I knew that. He can dish it out, but he cannot take it.

Hon David Carter: I am happy to take it, but the member might also like to tell the Committee that parliamentary laws do not allow the service of such documents in the precincts of Parliament, which is where we would have wanted to do it if the member had allowed us to do so.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member should not have raised that point of order; it is a matter of debate. I say to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that we are debating Part 2.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know, Mr Chairperson, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am still talking. I have allowed the run-in to that, because I know the member will get to it. I have allowed whatever the member is saying as being in rebuttal—fine.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In the circles in which I mix, we talk of nothing else, and that is why I am taking part in this debate.

Here is the point. Briefly there, for a while, every good New Zealander would have thought we had a problem with the issue of service and our insolvency laws. That, of course, is the last problem we have. We have problems in other areas, but the country yokel does not know that. And now David Carter tells me what the rules are in respect of the Parliamentary Service! I make it very clear, that every parliamentarian can waive his or her rights to not being served in this House, as I have done. In fact, when Russell McVeagh sued me, I went down to their offices and got the writ off them. Mind you, what happened to the case? They sued me for millions in a gagging writ—[Interruption] One of Mr Carter’s friends, of course.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which friends?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Russell McVeagh—they are friends of Mr Carter. Of course, a while ago Mr Carter yelled out: “Pay your bills!”. Well, let me just tell members about this issue. Mr Carter thinks he is winning because I had to pay him $8,000, which I did happily. It was not a problem; it was a mere bagatelle—I am only a poor country boy!

I will ask you a question, Mr Chairperson, because I know you are a man of the law. How much do you imagine Mr Carter has paid his lawyers so far? Who is winning here? I gave him $8,000; he paid his lawyers $95,000, so who is winning? It ain’t Mr Carter! More important, let me tell members what happened in this huge matter on which he wanted service. He went to the court and said: “You know all those horrible things I said about Winston Peters when he was away from New Zealand? I didn’t mean at all that he was a corrupt human being, in any way, shape, or form.” Mr Carter is a big lion in the media and a lamb when he is faced with—

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This speech is way out of order. You have properly given to the Rt Hon Winston Peters an opportunity to make some short rebuttal comments. This has no relationship at all to Part 2. He is abusing the privilege of being a member of Parliament in not speaking to the part.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I distinctly heard Mr Peters draw to the Committee’s attention the need for one to pay one’s bills, and various things like that. If one cannot pay one’s bills, that leads directly to the issue of insolvency. The member opposite, Dr Worth, is a lawyer; I would have expected him to make the connection. But I am happy to outline it for him, and I am sure Mr Peters is, as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for helping me out there. The right honourable member was speaking in rebuttal, but he has touched on matters that are relevant to this part more than most members have done so far in the debate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to be frank here. I never thought for a moment that in all the halls of jurisprudence in this country the issue of service was what was concerning them. I never thought for a moment, given that there are lawyers in the National Party like Mr Worth—

Hon Member: Who?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Worth.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Dr Worth.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, Dr Worth—on a good day! I never thought for a moment that Dr Worth had appraised his party of the fact that this was the No. 1 issue concerning insolvency law reform. But, you see, this party is split three ways. That is why the C-team came along today and said: “You’re qualified, Dr Worth. I know nothing, but I’ll take this issue on and have a go in the Chamber.” That is why I have responded.

I am trying to address the issue of service, because apparently it is a huge issue. I want to make one little point though. The service was effected. There was no problem paying the bills. But it is amazing that someone who is so bold outside the House and all around Parliament should say—in the conniving, sneaky way that bespeaks his whole professional life—of all things, when he gets to court: “I never meant any of the words I said about him. I cannot understand how it came about.”

There is another little thing. It was reported to me that this man said about Gerry Brownlee: “If you’re talking about the fat fella from Fendalton, forget it.” That is what Mr Carter said recently.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You’re joking!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes. He was asked about the leadership of the National Party, and he said: “If you’re talking about the fat fella from Fendalton, forget it.”

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You cannot allow the member to go on in this fashion. It was brought to your attention previously in the 5-minute speech that he is completely out of order. We are debating a bill—quite specifically, what the bill is about. I ask that you instruct the member to be brought back to the bill.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: In speaking to the point—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: This is very important. This goes towards decorum in the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Are you trying to help?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am, indeed. You know me. I just ask for your advice, given that Mr Peters told the Committee what Mr Carter said about his own colleague, which I will not repeat. It is unparliamentary for a member to say such a thing, and I take offence on behalf of Mr Brownlee. I call on Mr Carter to withdraw and apologise to Mr Brownlee.

Hon David Carter: I can assure the Committee that I did not ever make those comments. Mr Peters cannot prove that, at all. I did not make those comments.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I know where we are on this matter. David Carter quite correctly tried to use examples in speaking to Part 2, but he did refer to another member of Parliament specifically for his example, and I think it is right that I allow the counterargument from Mr Peters, in the time that he has. I have done that, and he has referred many times to issues in Part 2. He is entitled to have time for a rebuttal, and he is doing that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Part 2 is about the nature of bankruptcy and the process of being made bankrupt. Because that is not “service”; it is the process of being made bankrupt. I, for a long time in my legal career, have been very concerned about the total process of insolvency and some of the unfairness arising from it. I am bringing to the Committee’s attention the character of a person who would have a go at a guy who is not in the Chamber, when he knows he could have waited or given me some notice and I would have been here.

But let me say why I am not surprised. When that member was the National Party whip, whose duty it was to support his leader, he was the numbers man for Jenny Shipley against Jim Bolger. His whole career is filled with that sort of behaviour. That is why I mentioned his quotes to somebody inquiring about the National Party leadership, when he said: “If you’re talking about the fat fellow from Fendalton, forget it!”. That is what he is like. He is probably as nice as pie, in the caucus, to Gerry Brownlee. He is probably as nice as pie to everybody else. But he is a seething mass of discontent and backstabbing when he is away, in private.

Just while the Rt Hon Winston Peters is in the House, I have to say that his comments were a gross abuse of the Committee stage of a bill. But I want to deal with Part 2 of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill in a very precise way, and before doing that I will just make two quick preliminary comments. The first comment is that this particular bill merited close consideration by the Commerce Committee, and by a number of Labour MPs on that committee. They were Charles Chauvel, Shane Jones, Winnie Laban, Mahara Okeroa, and Maryan Street. As I look around this crowded debating chamber, I see those people remaining mute, not prepared to contribute to this legislation at all, leaving the hapless and helpless Minister trapped in the middle, unable to respond in a substantive way to some of the more significant points advanced. I think that that is a tragedy, because surely in those names that have been mentioned there was a faint asset reflective of intellectual power, but in the Committee stage it has been completely denied us. That is the first point.

The second point I make is that this particular part, Part 2, has a number of subparts—six altogether. Those subparts are: “Bankruptcy and its alternatives”, “Process of being made bankrupt”, “Appointment of a receiver”, “Adjudication”, “What happens on adjudication”, and “Role of creditors”. I condemn the Government for this method of legislative drafting, because by having one part and multiple subparts it starkly limits the length of Committee stage contributions.

In clause 8 of Part 2, the alternatives to bankruptcy are laid out, but only three are described—inappropriately and inadequately, I would say. The three that are described are a proposal to creditors, paying creditors in instalments under a summary instalment order—and we have seen how in the Part 1 definitions there has now been inserted a definition of a current summary instalment order—and, finally, entry to the no-asset procedure, which is the subject of comment in National’s minority report. But there are, of course, many other options, and I would like to highlight what those other options are, in the context of clause 8.

Firstly, there must be sale of assets, because it is quite possible that people in financial difficulties might solve those difficulties by the sale of some of their assets, and money raised from the sale of assets can of course be used to pay their debts. The second possibility is that of budgeting—of limiting one’s outgoings to what one can afford. Establishing a budget might also identify existing expenses that can be reduced or eliminated, and the budget advisory service is available to provide assistance and support in that regard. Another possibility relates to a creditors’ pool, which involves all of the debts being combined and then repaid by regular payments. Quite clearly, such a proposal must be agreed to by all the creditors involved, and it is normally administered by a third party such as a budget adviser, an accountant, or a financial adviser. Refinancing is another possibility. It might be possible to refinance current debts, perhaps using a mortgage broker, a banker, an accountant, or a solicitor, for suggestions on appropriate financing alternatives.

So there are these other possibilities that must be considered as we look at the Draconian step of bankruptcy, and the impact of bankruptcy on the interests of secured and unsecured creditors—for it is very rarely the case that all the debts are repaid as a result of the formal processes proposed by the Insolvency Law Reform Bill, which were earlier the subject of action by the Bankruptcy Act.

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 360,000-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 $150,000 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 $150,000, 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 $150,000 and perhaps pay it over 15 months—maybe by $10,000 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 $150,000 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?

I move, That the question be now put.

Mr Chairperson, you gave the Rt Hon Winston Peters a very liberal occasion on which to rebut my earlier arguments. I just want to take the opportunity of correcting three or four statements he made. Firstly, in response to an interjection from Doug Woolerton, he said there was a difference between a debt and a proposed liability. In my case, I was talking about a debt; it was costs awarded by the courts. I took every opportunity to get that money from Winston Peters, with a number of accounts being sent to him, but to no avail.

Mr Peters then said that I had had every opportunity—in fact, I think he used the words that I “didn’t have the guts”—to ring him up and say I had served the documents on him in Parliament. I suggest to Mr Peters that he becomes familiar with Standing Order 400(c), which says that such processes are not allowed to be carried out in the precincts of Parliament without the express permission of the Speaker.

The third point I want to correct is that Mr Peters said the matter concerned around $8,000-odd. I cannot remember the exact figure but it was well in excess of $13,000.

The final point I want to make—

R Doug Woolerton: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understood that you allowed Mr Peters a rebuttal, and now you are allowing a rebuttal of that rebuttal. I do not think that is right, and I just wanted to make that point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): You have made it. I was just about to stop the member at his final point.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The final point I want to make is that subsequent to further legal action Mr Peters lost for a second occasion. The courts have invited me to prepare a list of costs and it will be presented to Mr Peters. I hope that on this occasion he will front up and pay.

The Committee has made good progress so far. I seek leave for the Committee to report progress.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for me to report progress. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.