Alex White (Labour)

I understand but I do not accept the notion of balance the Minister of State is advocating. A person has the right to apply to have the order varied. No question arises in that respect. The point is, however, that the person will not be provided with this information in the summons. The balance for which the Minister of State argues is that it would create imbalance if the debtor were to be provided with information that is available to him or her in any case. He does not argue that the person should not have this information but that he or she should not be told in the summons that he or she can apply for a variation in the order. It is ludicrous to suggest that this information be withheld from someone in the interests of maintaining balance between debtor and creditor. If that is the case being made by the Minister of State, it is not acceptable and I do not buy it.

While I may not agree with the following scenario, I could understand if a particular opportunity, entitlement or right were withheld from someone on the basis that it is necessary to do so to keep the scales balanced as between a debtor and creditor and that the former would only be given a certain latitude in a certain circumstance. In this case, however, the Minister of State is arguing for the implementation of some balance by means of not informing a person of a matter that is his or her right when he or she comes before a court. If this is a person's right, why can he or she not be told about it in the summons?

I referred to the use of ordinary language. There is no point trying to reduce this matter to being one of ordinary language alone because it is only one aspect of the argument being made by Senators on this side. While we all agree on the need to have ordinary language, it does not dispose of the point under discussion.

As the Minister of State indicated, the District Court rules committee will have to meet to draw up a new rule and perhaps advise as to how precisely the summons will be constructed. Notwithstanding this, the legislation mandates the inclusion in the summons of certain matters, not all of which are being left to the District Court rules committee. It provides, for instance, that the summons include details of the consequences of a failure to comply with the instalment order and, specifically, the possibility of imprisonment. The section also mandates that the summons should state that the debtor may be arrested if he or she fails to appear before the District Court, as directed. The legislation therefore mandates the inclusion of certain matters in the summons. I cannot understand the reason the legislation cannot, in the same spirit, provide that the summons include a provision, in plain or ordinary language, that a variation will be possible if and when the person comes to court.

By reason of the lengthy debate on this legislation, I somewhat misrepresented the position in respect of the proposed section 6(5) because it does not, as I stated, include a provision on variation. In mixing up the threat of imprisonment with the issue of a right to a variation, I may have misled my colleagues, although I note that no one spotted the oversight.