Smith Stuart; Pugh Maureen; Maipi-Clarke Hana-Rawhiti; Andersen GinnyDISTRICT COURT (PROTECTING JUDGMENT DEBTORS ON MAIN BENEFIT) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know the Māori Party's speaker didn't speak before but we're OK on this side of the House if she wants to give the speech now. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Does the Māori Party wish to take a call?HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Aroha mai we're not speaking on this today. Kia ora.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): OK this is very messy and it's very difficult from the Chair to manage the calls when someone doesn't take it. Very helpful if the party could please give the Chair notice of their intention so that we don't have this confusion. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Yes Madam Speaker I'll bring that up with my co-leaders. Thank you very much. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): So just checking National aren't taking their call because they were after the Māori Party.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Well this is the confusion because technically that was the Māori Party call so now we're up to call number seven which is yours.Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill in the name of my good colleague Duncan Webb. Just acknowledging that this bill was originally in the name of Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki who had done a previous bill also in relation to debt on beneficiaries and had done some great work there in terms of bailiffs reclaiming things such as mobility scooters. This bill limits the amount that creditors can deduct from benefit payments to 5 percent and it's really timely as I think it's been mentioned already today that on a day where the Government is eroding the financial ability of beneficiaries in the future that they're also voting against this bill which would seek to reduce the incidence of poverty by reducing the stress on beneficiaries. So it's a double whammy today for anybody who is on a benefit thanks to the members opposite who proclaim to be fighting the cost of living crisis. This bill does so by amending the District Court Act 2016 to ensure that an attachment order on its own—that is making sure it's discounted any impact the deduction notice may apply to a judgment debtor's earnings—cannot lead to a deduction of more than 5 percent of net earnings; a judgment debtor who is in receipt of a main benefit. I think it's really disappointing that we don't have the opportunity for this to go to select committee to hear submissions from those people who are directly affected by being on one of the main benefits. Generally as we've heard today benefits are typically pretty tough to get by on as it is. When people get into financial trouble and they can't afford large repayments particularly in a cost of living crisis it's really important to give consideration and that's what this bill does. Other jurisdictions in other countries prohibit entirely the attachment orders in respect of benefit payments. So for New Zealand this is an incredibly modest move. So again disappointing to see it's not being supported to select committee when in other jurisdictions you have an outright prohibition on attachment orders. This would be a modest move and it would still require beneficiaries to carefully manage their finances. The way that this bill would work—and its aim—is that there are absolutely no prohibitions right now in New Zealand on attachment orders being made against beneficiaries despite the limited nature of their income and their ability to pay. It would be a good way of ensuring that there is some protection in place that people do not get into debt that is simply unable to be repaid and get into an endless downward spiral in terms of poverty and being unable to repay fines and reparations. Some additional information that might be of use: in August 2023 a man who received $452.74 a week in benefits payments had $96 a week to cover off his own debt repayments. So given the cost of what weekly rents would be I think he'd struggle to find a one-bedroom apartment for $350 or $400. That leaves insufficient funds for food for other main utilities and generally for living. Then he had $30 a week taken for a private debt collector's attachment order $40 went to the Ministry of Justice $11.00 to the Ministry of Social Development and $15 in child support. He was left with $356 a week; $270 had to go on rent giving him $86 a week to live on.I think it goes to the point that those people in New Zealand doing it tough right now don't need bills like this being voted down. They certainly don't need a change to the way that benefits are indexed to make it even tougher for beneficiaries to pay their bills. If those members opposite think it's OK to live on $86 a week I'd like to see them try and do it themselves.