Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this member's bill the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill in the name of Dr Duncan Webb. I congratulate him on his advocacy and the work he's done. But we here on this side of the House believe that there are enough protections in place to protect our most vulnerable while balancing up their responsibilities in and around debt.This District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill first reading comes to us this afternoon and we've had a lot of considered speeches from my colleagues Rima Nakhle from Takanini Paulo Garcia from New Lynn and from many others as well. But fundamentally we do not support it.The fact is that the bill amends the District Court Act to provide that if the debtor receives a benefit the amount deducted under the attachment order cannot be more than 5 percent of the person's earnings. This is intended to help protect debtors on benefits from being subject to excessive deductions. But we believe that there are protections in place already. If you look at the District Court Act it already provides for a protected earnings rate (PER) below which a person's net earnings from all sources including benefits cannot fall after any deductions including any civil debt attachment orders and if you look at the District Court Act it already provides for a protected earnings rate and the PER is set at 60 percent meaning that no more than 40 percent of a person's net earnings can be deducted. That protection is already in place.And of course deductions can include a range of Government or court orders including child support tax administration student loan repayments Working for Families overpayments benefit overpayments recoverable assistance and fines or reparation payments. These deductions have priority over civil debt. We believe also that the fifth Labour Government introduced the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act or the CCCFA legislation in 2003 during the Clark years and then it was heavily amended in the Jacinda Ardern years and of course it's unworkable for a lot of people having to present their Netflix accounts to their bank manager at the ANZ. But we know that it ensures that the most vulnerable Kiwis make more informed choices. That's what it was aimed at and that's who it is meant to protect and to some way it is protecting them in a greater form. It's just been an overreach by the previous Government. But these people that are going to loan sharks which are heavily monitored and regulated these days know exactly what they are agreeing to. So we cannot take people's financial responsibility as citizens away with this bill. It's something that the National Party is embedded to—the financial responsibility of an individual—and it extends to everyone. This bill we believe will not encourage self-responsibility to those already in debt. It simply reduces the amount that can be recovered.We believe looking at our priorities as a new Government that we're focused on victims. The justice system is going to be switched around so that the focus stands squarely on the victim not on the criminal. We're focusing again on self-responsibility on localism and on individuality. As you heard during question time today from an outstanding justice Minister the Hon Paul Goldsmith colloquially known as Goldie" we're stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 cultural reports. We're enabling more virtual participation in court proceedings and we're abolishing—aren't we I say to the member for Pakuranga—the previous Government's prison reduction. I do not support this bill."