Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I support the amendment. There is a serious lack of clarity in subsection (12) and Senator White's amendment is trying to make sense of it. If one looks at it carefully, it makes no sense: "If a debtor fails to comply with subsection (5)(a)(ii), without reasonable excuse, the District Court judge may deal with the matter as if it were a contempt of that court." Subsection (5)(a)(ii) is the provision under which a debtor is arrested and brought before the District Court under subsection (3)(a), and the judge fixes a new date and explains to the debtor in ordinary language, under subsection (5)(a)(ii), that he or she must attend before the court at the date next fixed for the hearing of the summons. Presumably the meaning of subsection (12) is to the effect that the only debtor to whom it applies will be one who has been arrested and brought before the District Court under a warrant under section 6(3)(a) and who has failed to attend before the court at the date next fixed for the hearing of the summons. There is a strange gap in the language. Subsection (5)(a)(ii) simply provides, from my reading, for the explanation to the debtor that he or she must attend before the court and does not impose upon him or her an obligation to do so. Again, we are dealing with a relatively serious matter here, where a person may be dealt with as if he or she were in contempt of court. It is important, therefore, to have clarity in the language. A reconsideration of the drafting is required at least to ensure that it is watertight. I am not sure that it is so at present.