Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak with reference to this bill that's before us the District Court (Protecting Judgment Debtors on Main Benefit) Amendment Bill. I'd like to say that like a few of my colleagues on this side of the House I acknowledge the intention behind this bill and it's a good intention. And I'd like to say despite this we are opposing it. And I want to explain a number of reasons—but I'm going to focus on about three—why we're opposing this bill today.First the bill by way of synopsis seeks to ensure that an attachment order on its own can't lead to a deduction of more than 5 percent of the net earnings of a judgment debtor who is on a benefit. Now the first reason why I'd like to discuss we oppose this bill is because the bill only affects attachments issued under the District Court Act even though attachments and deductions exist in other legislation.The second reason why I'd like to highlight that we oppose this bill is that there already is a mechanism in the civil court system where 40 percent of a debtor's net income can be deducted. So yes there are mechanisms that already exist so the court could change the amount of it if it thinks the debtor won't be able to keep up with the payments. This is a mechanism that already exists and either party can apply to vary this and to suspend or cancel the attachment order. This is a mechanism that already exists.Now the third reason I'd like to highlight as to why we are opposing this bill today is that limiting the amount the creditor can receive through attachment orders may also incentivise them to pursue other methods of enforcement. And we're talking about methods such as seizing property. Now while I studied law—and I used to work in the court system—there were a number of times that I came across people defendants that were going through the court system and one of the worst things that they could experience was having their property seized. And they used to come and plead—plead with the judges plead with the magistrates. It's something that affects their person in a way that we can't describe.So with this bill even if we were to support it there are those other mechanisms that exist and so we oppose it for those three reasons amongst others. Now I want to say this: Mr Webb I understand again the intention behind which you are speaking to this bill. The National Party we unashamedly align ourselves with the value of personal responsibility. You've heard it called around and I know that people refer to it so flippantly on the other side of the House but it is something we feel strongly about.But personal responsibility for us here also comes along with being mindful of people's circumstances and when I look to what we are as a Government focusing on we're focusing on abolishing the previous Government's prisoner reduction target we're focusing on stopping taxpayer funding for section 27 reports and we're focusing on enabling more virtual participation in court proceedings. This here—this bill before the House today—is a bill where there already exists mechanisms in place where people that find themselves in situations where it is hard to pay can apply for redress—for recourse rather. We do not support this bill today as I said. I've mentioned three reasons why we don't support it today. I acknowledge the intention behind the bill with the former MP that is no longer here Anahila but we don't support the bill in this form today.