Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): That frankly was an embarrassment—an underprepared member coming along reading the bill and talking from a list of points about things which are utterly irrelevant. If you're going to come to this House treat it with the dignity it deserves.Let's just think about what this bill does. This is a bill about beneficiaries—a 25-year-old on a single person's jobseeker benefit is given $337 a week net. That's how much they get: $337 a week. What I just heard members from the other side of the House say is that it's OK to take 40 percent of that in attachment orders. That would leave them with $202 to live off—another punch down from that side of the House to those in poverty.They're cutting benefits already with their changes to the inflation adjustment and now this is a modest bill and what do they say? No don't worry about it. They can live on $202." The member Paulo Garcia as Dr Tracey McLellan said spoke for eight minutes explaining why it was a good idea and then trotted out the National Party line: individual responsibility it's the debtor's fault. Well maybe Mr Garcia hasn't had the misfortune to lose a job by redundancy or fall sick or have a car break down when you're on a low income and have to borrow money to get the kids to school on time. Things go wrong bad things happen and people get into debt and can't pay it back. But no he would have beneficiaries in poverty children in poverty. We heard today that that Government's actions will see 7000 more children in poverty and here's a tiny thing they could have got on board with—not even asking them to pass it today just to send it to select committee.Dr Parmjeet Parmar talked about it being a disincentive to work—you know as if someone getting $337 a week needs any more incentive to get out to work than that. Poverty is not a choice. Helping people in poverty is not some kind of charity; it's giving them dignity and saying that having to repay 5 percent of that $337 is in some way freeloading is absolutely ridiculous and shameful.Now Mr Arbuckle probably had the most thoughtful comment which was essentially "OK how does this affect reparation payments for victims of crime?" Well in fact they're administered through the Ministry of Justice but that's a decent question. It was the only sensible question from the other side of the House and it's a good question to put to select committee to make sure we strike the right balance there so well done Mr Arbuckle. I don't think it should be a barrier. I don't think it's the hurdle that he thinks it is but that's not for this debate; that's for a thoughtful and informed debate at select committee which the people on the other side of the House have absolutely said isn't appropriate.As for the member Rima Nakhle who seemed to suggest that 40 percent of a benefit could be deducted and that was all right there's already a flaw. Don't worry; benefits are designed to be just enough to get by on and we know that for many people in their circumstances it's not. So to take 40 percent of it away would not just tip them into a bit of poverty it would be abject poverty.Over on the other side of the House they just shrug their shoulders and say "I'm OK. It's called personal responsibility. I don't feel hungry; I don't care." What we have on the other side of the House is an uncaring Government who really doesn't understand poverty and who thinks it's attacking the drivers of crime when it's increasing the drivers of crime. So it's shameful and sad to see that this bill won't see the light of day because on the other side of the House they just don't care."