Page 3128 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is not, you might say, Madam Speaker, the sort of legislation that the former Minister for the Territory, Tom Uren, might have introduced into a chamber such as this. One remembers, of course, his announcement as Minister that he was not going to evict anybody for non-payment of rent and the resulting explosion in debt by the predecessor of the Housing Trust. I think it is possibly arguable that, coming out of a recession, it is a little unfortunate that we still need to counter this kind of difficulty, this kind of problem that has to be dealt with by our courts. One hopes that, because the recession is apparently ending, the number of people who will be caught by these provisions will be reduced.
As I said, there are some allowances made in favour of a judgment debtor. His financial position should be sought by the court or the registrar before an enforcement process is applied, and that information has to be taken into account before orders are made. A garnishee order must leave him, that is, the judgment debtor, between 75 per cent and 100 per cent of the minimum weekly wage - 75 per cent, if the person has no dependants; 100 per cent, if he does. A person has the right to seek a variation or revocation of an order where that person would be occasioned exceptional hardship should the order remain. I think the significance is in the improved outlook for creditors. In particular, many orders can be obtained more reasonably in these proceedings by application to the registrar rather than to the court. Orders will be made, therefore, which have more bite. The high failure rate, which is a feature of the present system, might be brought down.
I want to conclude by just proposing a question, indicating a reservation I have about the legislation and making a comment. First of all, Madam Speaker, I note that proposed section 278A includes a definition of what are earnings. I hope that the Minister takes note of this question so that he might be able to respond to the question I pose. Perhaps he is examining the latest instalment of shocking poll figures for the Government - I do not know - but if he is not too busy he might, just for a moment, listen to the question I was going to pose. As I said, proposed section 278A refers to earnings and defines earnings as meaning a sum payable to the person by way of wages or salary; by way of pension; an annuity; periodical payments in respect of compensation for the loss, abolition or relinquishment of any office; periodical payments in respect of compensation for the loss of wages or salary because of illness or injury. It does not include, according to this section, payments made under the Social Security Act or the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 of the Commonwealth.
Madam Speaker, the question has been raised with my colleagues and me about the payment of Austudy to individuals. I understand that there is a question about whether Austudy payments count, for the purposes of calculating the amount of income a person has, when assessing the eligibility for Housing Trust accommodation or the extent of their rebate when they are in Housing Trust accommodation. I think, Madam Speaker, it would be useful if the Minister could indicate what his view about the question of Austudy is. Would that count as a payment which would be deemed to be earnings for the purposes of this legislation?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .