Webb Duncan; Pugh MaureenDISTRICT COURT (PROTECTING JUDGMENT DEBTORS ON MAIN BENEFIT) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider this bill.This bill is about keeping people out of poverty and that is a matter which is close to Anahila Kanongata'a's heart and my own. That member was the author of this bill and it's really pleasing to me that I'm able to now continue in this work and bring it to this House. The central purpose of this bill is to limit the amount that can be compulsorily deducted by court orders to repay the debts of beneficiaries from their benefit.Now this Government is in the midst of passing legislation to limit the increases in benefit rates and that's going to compound the problems of people who are on benefits and who struggle to repay their bills. Benefits are intended to be enough for people to get by on and not a great deal more. In fact we know as a fact through the work we've done in child poverty reduction that there are many people who are on benefits who are in poverty. So when things go wrong when there's extra expenses and money is borrowed or credit is run up and the creditors chase them up it causes real hardship.Now obviously when people borrow money they have to pay it back and it's entirely appropriate that the law and the courts provide procedures and systems for the collection of that money. But we have moved on from a repressive system. Debtors' prisons are a thing of the past workhouses are a thing of the past writs of arrest are a thing of the past. We recognise that when we allow people to collect their debt there is a balance to be struck; that we need a humane system a system that doesn't make people go hungry go cold go without shelter and not able to care for their children and their whānau. That's what this does.It is in fact a very modest bill. I have discussed this bill and these problems with a number of entities in the finance sector and certainly some of them would say that there should be no collection of debts against beneficiaries through these attachment orders because by definition they won't have enough to live on. But the member who drafted this bill Anahila Kanongata'a has indicated that she thinks it's appropriate that that amount be capped at 5 percent. So 5 percent of the net amount of the benefit can be deducted but no more. Because at that level it's an indication that their payments are being made but it won't throw them into the kind of hardship that would otherwise be the case.There are certainly plenty of studies where beneficiaries have found themselves in trouble and they have had very significant outgoings deducted from their benefits in a way which leaves them—and of course the first: rent has to be paid. There are other compulsory outgoings and the thing that is last on the list is often food. So they find themselves with only a few tens of dollars a week to feed themselves and their family and we know what then happens: poor nutrition and poor nutrition leads to poor health outcomes. So what this bill does is to cap the amount that can be deducted. It's a very simple bill and the bill itself as can be seen is a very short bill simply amending the District Courts Act 2016 to insert this limitation. So it's a simple bill and I'm hopeful to get the support of this House because all it does is really prevent hardships.We know this new Government has been very clear that it wants to address the cost of living crisis and this is about the cost of living. We know that most of the time lenders act responsibly and there's been a number of reforms to make sure that lenders lend only when it is affordable to repay. That doesn't always happen but the other thing that happens of course is that people's circumstances change: that they might have borrowed money when they had a job but they now find themselves on the jobseeker benefit. Of course they can't then make the payments on their car or whatever it might be and they simply can't make ends meet. They can't pay their rent and their payments on their car and off they go to the court a judgment's entered against them. Having worked in that field I know that once that kind of thing happens penalty interest accrues legal costs accrue and the debt becomes many times larger sometimes than it originally was. Of course that then becomes a millstone around the debtor's neck—a trap from which they certainly can't escape.Now there are procedures—we know there's a no-asset procedure and a bankruptcy procedure—but there's a lot of people out there who for their own reasons and quite good reasons don't want to go down that track. Bankruptcy has its own stigma and of course the no-asset procedure can only be used once and of course people actually want to repay their debts. There's a certain dignity and appropriateness in wanting to repay their debts and they often find themselves in this debt trap going through the courts getting these attachment orders.There are no particular prohibitions in the current law as to the amount of the attachment orders. Judges are expected to undertake an assessment of the ability to pay but there is also an expectation that they will be repaid and quite often those attachment orders—which may only be $30 $40 a week which to most of us wouldn't seem a huge amount but it becomes a crippling burden. So this is a simple piece of legislation aimed at making sure that the impost put on beneficiaries on main benefits when they find themselves in a difficult position with an order of the court—a judgment of the court against them and enforcement proceedings for collection of that debt—that their income their only income isn't reduced to such a point that they are thrown into fundamentally abject poverty.So following some Victorian legislation in Australia it's a very modest move it's a humane move and it's one I hope this House will support. Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.