Bills

Enforcement of Judgments (Garnishee Orders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 August 2014.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (10:33): It is my pleasure to rise today to speak on the Enforcement of Judgments (Garnishee Orders) Amendment Bill 2014 put forward by the member for Hartley. This is an excellent example of a newly elected member of parliament coming forward and proposing something that he has thought out very seriously to actually help the government enforce what we all consider to be a very standard principle, and that is that people who have debts have to pay them.

It is also very important because it includes the capacity for a repayment program where people's ability to repay the debt is not immediate. While we would all hold to the principle that if money is owed it needs to be repaid, I am sure every single one of us can have sympathy for people who may get themselves into situations where repaying the debt as and when they should, for one reason or another, may just not be possible.

Using the garnishee system is a very good way to try to do both, to stick to the principle and also show some understanding because, of course, the garnishee mechanism does not have to be used for the entire debt to be repaid immediately. It can be used to put a payment program in place. That is one of the many reasons why this proposal by the member for Hartley is very positive.

As the law stands, a garnishee order with respect to salaries and wages can only be issued to a losing party if that party consents to the order. That consent is seldom given resulting in many rogue defendants racking up huge debts that remain unpaid leaving the state and creditors empty-handed.

There is a system in place where garnishee orders can be used when money is owed to the state so that the state can support families. This was my first experience with the garnishee system, many years ago—probably 15 years or so ago—when I first became an employer, and I was never aware of this, of course. At that point in time I had 15 or 20 staff members. Occasionally, one or two of them ran into strife, and difficulties they might have had in their past caught up with them.

As an employer it was incumbent upon me to deduct from their wages and pay it to the government so that the government could contribute to repaying their debts. Those debts were, typically, with regard to spouse or child maintenance. At the time I thought it was a bit of red tape; a bit of a hassle. It was extra admin that I had to do every week in my wages calculations, but I did not mind the principle of it because in that situation somebody in government was trying to make sure that the former spouse, or the children, were getting the support they deserved.

One thing that is very important here with the member for Hartley's proposal is that this could be extended to non-government debts, and we would all agree that the principle of whether or not a debt should be repaid is not really based on whether or not it is owed to the government. The member for Hartley is trying to propose that parliament adjusts the law so that in appropriate circumstances, an appropriate amount of money—which fits into an appropriate payment plan—could be forced to be taken out of somebody's wages, salaries, or in fact any other income they might have.

I think it is a very positive contribution that the member for Hartley is making, and I think the government should consider it very seriously. It has a genuine enforcement capacity, but it also has a very, very genuine aspect of flexibility so that the enforcement could be used to implement an appropriate repayment plan. I wholeheartedly endorse the member for Hartley and his proposal. I think it is a very well thought out, very sensible proposal from a newly elected member of parliament with a strong legal background who is drawing on that and trying to make some positive suggestions, and I hope the government will see its merits.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Digance.