Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm taking this call to say that we won't be supporting this bill. Can I acknowledge the member in charge Dr Duncan Webb. It's good that you have taken on this bill. And can I also add that I can clearly see that the intention behind this bill is a good one but that intention won't be delivered through this bill that the member has on the Order Paper. That's the reason that we have decided not to support this bill.Clearly the member is concerned about people those who are on low incomes those who are on benefit; if they incur civil debt they have to repay that. And the attachment orders yes will make a judgment on how much should be returned and what kind of instalments. We can fully understand that. But what this bill does is it's going to create a division between people: those who are on benefit versus those who are in employment. This kind of limit won't work when people are in employment. In our view it's going to actually create a disincentive for people to get into employment. For example if somebody has incurred a huge amount of civil debt while being on benefit they will know that if they take up employment they will have to pay that money back sooner or in bigger instalments than it would be because of this legislation. So overall it's not going to actually do good for these people because the overall wellbeing of people is going to be better if they are in employment rather than staying on a benefit.And not just that. As I was listening to Dr Duncan Webb he mentioned that yes when people are in hardship they might need more money they go out and borrow some money and take some loans. That is the reality of life. Yes people do borrow money. But if these lenders—the reasonable lenders I'm talking about—see that this individual is on benefit and that this legislation will apply to them they'll know straight away that if they lend money to that individual who is on benefit then getting that money back will be really hard. Or it would take ages and ages for that person to get that money back. So why would they lend that money to that person who is on that benefit? Actually it's going to create more hardship for that person because that person will not be able to borrow that money or take that loan when they really need it. So I would like to put a big emphasis on this that people do sometimes borrow money but people will not be reasonable lenders will not be lending money to people if they are on benefit because of this legislation if it goes through.The other point I would like to make is that courts make a judgment based on individual circumstances. So it's not like everybody who is on one type of benefit—that their circumstances personal or family circumstances are exactly the same and courts can judge that. So putting this percentage on whatever amount they are getting through Work and Income actually considers that everybody's circumstances are exactly the same which is wrong. Because individual circumstances can be judged by judges in courts and that amount can be decided; it could be less than 5 percent it could be more than 5 percent. We should leave this kind of decision to courts rather than putting this percentage and seeing that everybody on one type of benefit should have the same kind of circumstances if they have civil debt.So in our view this bill as I said yes the intention is good but it's not going to deliver what it intends to. It's not actually going to give any financial relief to these people those who are on benefit and have civil debt. Actually it's going to create more hardship for these people and that's why the ACT Party opposes this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker.