Arbuckle Jamie; Pugh MaureenJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take this call for the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill. Firstly I will thank the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for putting this bill together. It is something that is new in front of me today seeing this. I haven't had any consultation on this so I've just read today and heard from Mr Webb what the bill's intention is. As Mr Webb has just said the intention would be to take this to the Justice Committee so that is one thing that we probably would agree on if we got to that point.But my question quickly when I started to observe this bill was why would we want to do this? And it isn't very well explained throughout this bill. Probably the intention is good because I think we are looking at people that are struggling with the cost of living. We've got people that we've heard about today in this House that are on benefits that are finding it hard to get by and I think Mr Webb has tried to put this bill together in that frame of mind.As we know cost of living is a struggle for people in New Zealand at the moment; it's a struggle for all of us. It's a cost to pay rent—I understand that. From what Mr Webb said through his introduction it's a real hard thing at the moment to put food on the table. So I understand when we're looking through this bill and we're looking at 86 percent of attachments are to beneficiaries—that in itself speaks loudly.Also we look through the bill and we get to the point where we make this nominal figure of 5 percent but there is no reason why we've got to 5 percent. I think I heard Mr Webb say he would have zero but to get this bill up to the House a 5 percent nomination was put forward. So when I was reading through this I was thinking Well what about the victims of crime?" We've got the beneficiary who has caused the crime and now we are going to say to them "We will give you only 5 percent. You will only need to pay 5 percent of your benefit to that victim." That's where this starts to fall apart because in our society we want law and order to actually do the right things; and that's what we all want from our society. So all of a sudden if we passed this legislation we are actually saying "If you're on a benefit you go ahead and you commit a crime and it doesn't really matter because the highest amount you'll get is 5 percent." I think and New Zealand First thinks that's wrong because what about the victims?So as we progress through this the attachments we understand—is because it's around being attachments to beneficiaries this 5 percent figure that's pulled out of the sky but it's the victims of the crime that will actually suffer here. Actually probably for a lot of people there will be no incentive to stop causing crime and that's the whole reason in this case if you can go up to—and I heard from the member on our side of the House 40 percent is the maximum amount the court will actually put. So it is about personal responsibility. If you do a crime you pay—it's as simple as that. Putting a minimum of 5 percent I just do not think is appropriate. So yes the ability to pay if you're a beneficiary is low I understand that but don't do the crime in the first place. So New Zealand First will not support this bill. It does not make any sense. For that reason going forward we will not support. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to."