Enforcement of Judgments (Garnishee Orders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2014.)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, if he speaks he closes the debate, that is why I am going here.

Mr TARZIA: Deputy Speaker, I move:

That this bill be adjourned to the next available day of sitting, being Thursday 30 October.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Why can't—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Is there a problem with the member for Kaurna speaking?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Not the member for Kaurna. The member for—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We understand that, if he speaks, he closes the debate. We understand all of that. But he was on his feet.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: The call was given to the member for Hartley—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I actually called the member for Kaurna first.

Ms CHAPMAN: —on the basis that he had stood in his place first. There obviously has been an issue raised about the question of closing the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on! I saw him stand up. I did not see him. What is your point of order?

Ms CHAPMAN: I know, Deputy Speaker, how attentive you are to this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I am looking. Let's hear the point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: In light of the fact that there has been a statement made that this could close the debate, it is not the intention of the mover to close the debate. Accordingly, to ensure that there is no suggestion of that, I stand to move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that, but I am just asking why the member for Kaurna cannot speak and then you close the debate.

Ms CHAPMAN: Because that is the view of the mover to want to move—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I actually recognised—what is the story here? Can I recognise the member for Kaurna—he was on his feet?

Ms CHAPMAN: And I put the point of order—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, but the member for Kaurna was on his feet. I gave him the call, then this all happened. I cannot see a problem with his speaking.

Ms CHAPMAN: As I have indicated, Madam Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no issue. You can adjourn it as soon as he has finished. The member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (10:50): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. There must be some great concern and worry about what I am about to say. I rise to give the government's response to the member for Hartley's bill, the Enforcement of Judgments (Garnishee Orders) Amendment Bill 2014.

The member for Hartley's bill amends section 6(2) of the Enforcement of Judgments Act 1991 to allow the court, on application by a judgement creditor, to order that money owing or accruing to the judgement debtor from a third person, or money from the judgement debtor in the hands of a third person, be attached to answer the judgement and paid to the judgement creditor, a garnishee order, without the consent of the judgement debtor or any other person—that was quite a sentence.

The government cannot support this bill. We currently have before the other place a bill which seeks to bankrupt serious and repeat drug traffickers. That is a bill I have spoken on, and it is a bill that a number of people on this side of the house are very passionate about, and it is a bill that—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order, member for Bragg?

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Kaurna is now canvassing a bill which is before another place. It is still a live bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen with great intent and, if he does that again, or if he has indeed done that at all, I will pull him up. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: In previous bills we—the Labor Party, the government—have put up trying to bankrupt serious drug offenders, we have seen that the opposition has opposed these bills time and time again. Yet, on the other hand, we now have the member for Hartley choosing to introduce this bill which quite possibly has the effect of bankrupting people on low incomes, rather than serious drug offenders. Considering the member for Hartley's bill, as against the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Traffickers) Amendment Bill, shows two things, firstly, that those opposite—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Kaurna is now quoting the bill which is before the parliament, of which he is proudly displaying—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He will not do that, will you member for Kaurna?

Mr PICTON: Absolutely not, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr PICTON: I think what we are seeing is that the opposition does not have a strong tough on crime policy by evidence of their actions, and—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be seated, member for Kaurna. The member for Finniss has a point of order and it is only—what is the time?—10 to 11.

Mr PENGILLY: The member for Kaurna and the government are not responsible for the opposition's policies.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you member for Finniss. Member for Kaurna.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will not have people talking over each other. I have the option to leave the chair, which is what I will do. I ask you all to cooperate and not to lower the tone of the house any further than it has been already this morning. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: The other thing that we see is that the member for Hartley has failed to consider the social implications of this bill. Although in his second reading contribution the member for Hartley states, 'People's welfare will not be touched—let's be clear about that,' this bill fails to acknowledge—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hartley is called to order.

Mr PICTON: —what the significant impact garnishee orders will have on people with low incomes.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley is called to order.

Mr PICTON: It is not clear what, if any, consultation the member for Hartley undertook before introducing this bill, whereas here in the government we are happy to help out and we have consulted widely on this bill with interest groups—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley will have to be warned.

Mr PICTON: —representing those people who are likely to be affected. For instance, the South Australian Financial Counsellors Association provided feedback, voicing significant concern as to the implications of the bill, including concerns that (a) courts already have a number of means by which an order for the payment of moneys can be enforced; (b) garnishee orders may prove to be an extra administrative burden on employers, particularly small business (which you would think that people on the other side would care about), as a garnishee order would require employers to administer deductions from payroll; and (c) a garnishee order may force people into bankruptcy where reduced income means that they will be unable to pay debts which arise subsequent to such an order.

The government will not support this bill, which has the potential to adversely impact on low-income earners, whilst the Liberal Party continues to oppose serious drug offenders who—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order. This is the third time—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Vince, please. This is the third time that the speaker has referred to the drug offenders legislation which is currently under consideration.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I shall have to ask the member for Kaurna to desist. If I hear the member for Hartley move his lips, as the Speaker says, 'once more', there will be repercussions. Please do not lower the tone of the house. You have been asked not to interject. Do not interject. Do you understand?

Mr Tarzia: I do.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right. Member for Kaurna, on task. You have finished.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.