HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-12-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Enforcement of Judgments (Garnishee Orders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:08): I rise and am motivated to speak on this very simple, very positive amendment bill on garnishee orders. Can I say from the outset that not long ago a wise man said to me that private members' time is a fantastic way to progress small matters that may not otherwise get attention during government business, that private members' time is a place for these types of bills to be prosecuted and put forward. That very wise man said that often opposition and independent members can do things that the government themselves cannot do or do not have the time or the priority to do.

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: Can I say, member for MacKillop, that the wise man I am talking about sits on the other side of the chamber. This is precisely the type of bill that I believe the member's advice pertained to. We are talking about a very simple amendment that simply seeks to give courts the ability to enforce the judgements they make and to enable the courts, with a great deal of flexibility and a great deal of scope given to judges in the way that they enact this amendment, to be able to garnish wages and salaries.

I have been through this process in a previous life. I have had to chase people for debts that have been duly and fairly owed. As the member for MacKillop stated, as a small business owner, every single cent of those outstanding debts would otherwise have gone on to paying debts that my business had, paying wages of people or re-investing further into the business so that it could grow and employ more people, and hopefully generate some much-needed tax revenue for this state so that members opposite can wilfully fritter it away.

However, I understand that the government is not going to support this amendment, and the message this sends is absolutely disgusting. The message this sends to those who wish to obfuscate and move away from their obligations is: 'If you are indebted to somebody and if the court gives judgement against you that you indeed need to pay up that debt, do not worry about paying. There are plenty of loopholes and mechanisms by which you do not have to pay your debts.' It is basically flouting the authority of the courts by not giving them the ability to effectively enforce their judgements. It is basically saying, 'We want an independent judiciary, but we do not want you to actually be able to follow through in this instance on the judgements that you make. We would like you to be as toothless as we can make you.'

I do not understand how the government believes that standing up for people who legitimately owe other people money is a valid way to go about business. I do not understand how they can stand up and say that it is okay not to pay your proper and fair debts, as has been judged by a court. I do not understand this logic; it is extremely flawed and it is something I believe the government needs to be held to account on, because it undermines our democracy, it undermines private property rights, it undermines our judicial system and its ability to create order and peace within our society, and for people to live up to their responsibilities and obligations, and to make good on court-enforced judgements.

I will close my remarks by saying that this is a fantastic, simple common-sense piece of legislation that the member for Hartley has brought to this place. He is a first-term MP who is making his mark and really helping, in small community ways, to improve the fabric of our society, and I think it is an absolute disgrace that this bill will not be supported by the government.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:13): Firstly, I would like to thank those who assisted in putting this bill together, from the government's legal team. I would also like to thank those who were readily available when I sought some consultation on this bill: the magistrates out there know who they are, the lawyers out there know who they are and residents know who they are. I would like to thank them all for their input into this bill, from both the profession and also outside.

Let me say that this was a bill that originated from the electorate. This is not a hobbyhorse of mine. Many members of this place do put their hobbyhorses into practice time and time again in this place, but I have not done this selfishly. This has come from the electorate and I reiterate to the house that this is a real bill that has been driven by someone—by many parties, in fact—who have gone to court and who have sought judgement, in their favour mind you, then when they apply that judgement and seek payment for something that is duly and legally owed to them, they are not able to obtain that judgement amount. It is not because the other party cannot afford to pay, it is because the system allows these people to get away with it.

What we are here to do is to stand up for the little person out there. We are here to stand up for the people who are mortgaged to the hilt, who are starting small businesses. It is not only them; what about the tradies out there who do plumbing work, electrical work, sewerage work and they do not get paid? They do not get paid because of scumbags out there who abuse and rort the system because we allow them to. And what are we doing? We put a bill before the house.

A backbencher in opposition puts a bill before the house in a statesmanlike manner. He goes to the Attorney, sits in his office and says, 'Attorney'—I admire the Attorney. The statesman will be on the bench before too long—that is okay—but while he is still here I say, 'Attorney, I plead with you, please help these people out.' He says to me, 'Vincent, I haven't got a problem with this bill. It should be okay. It shouldn't be controversial. Yes, we'll support it.' Then the member for Picton comes up, the member for—what is he?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TARZIA: I get confused—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TARZIA: —I am sorry, I get confused with—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is Thursday, but that does not mean that we have to be ridiculous. Let's conduct the business of the house in the manner to which the house is due, which is with dignity. The member for Hartley.

Mr TARZIA: The member for Kaurna presents an ignorant submission and tells me that welfare is going to be attacked under this bill. Welfare will not be attacked under this bill. We in this state parliament do not have the power to tap into something which is in the federal jurisdiction. It is ultra vires our power. It will not touch welfare. It will touch people's salaries in cases where a magistrate thinks that they are able to pay but do not pay, and at the moment they do not have that power in South Australia, and that is what this bill is about.

This government has absolutely no credibility when it comes to the economy. What do they do? At the eleventh hour of a by-election what do they do? They come up with some economic plan to reform taxes. This goes to the heart of the ignorance of this government. They understand absolutely nothing about business, about small business, about the engine room of the South Australian economy. And the Independents? Well, call it Independents' day. Call this moment right now the Independents' moment. Where are the Independents on this bill? Where are the Independents—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TARZIA: The member for Frome will be listening. He told me that he wanted to speak on this bill. Why has he not come up? I will tell you why—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is actually very poor form to draw attention to the absence of a member from the house.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

Mr TARZIA: I withdraw that remark. I—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on; the member for Morialta has a point of order.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order: the member for Hartley at no stage has referred to whether members were in the chamber or not, only on whether they had spoken or not. We understood that the member for Frome wanted to speak on this bill and the government has denied him the opportunity by demanding that we do not adjourn.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will check Hansard. We will see.

Mr TARZIA: But I will ask the question: where was the member for Frome on this bill? Where was the member for Waite on this bill—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I do not know that we are really getting any further.

Mr TARZIA: Deputy Speaker, this is a bill that has gone out for consultation. It is from the electorate. And in the last 30 seconds let me just say that the government wants to have a go and say that this is a capricious bill. What government wants to put caveats on people's properties when they do not pay their overinflated ESL bills? This government. What government wants to clamp people's cars when they cannot afford to pay their fines? This government. Therefore, I ask the government and the Independents to stand up for the little guy out there on the street, the one taking a risk, the one who has done the work and deserves to be paid when a court of law says that they should.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 20

Noes 22

Majority 2

AYES
Bell, T.S. Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A.
Gardner, J.A.W. (teller) Goldsworthy, R.M. Griffiths, S.P.
Knoll, S.K. Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. Pengilly, M.R. Pisoni, D.G.
Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.
Tarzia, V.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J.
Williams, M.R. Wingard, C.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Caica, P. Close, S.E. Digance, A.F.C.
Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K. Hughes, E.J.
Kenyon, T.R. (teller) Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R.
Snelling, J.J. Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W.
Wortley, D.
PAIRS
Treloar, P.A. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.

Second reading thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT