Williams Arena; Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be able to ask the member a question about this bill which has been so important for our disabled community to see their issues debated in this House and at select committee. I commend her for her work for that community. Now my question is about this confusion which has arisen at the last reading in the House and it has been discussed at length at the select committee. It's to do with this idea about at what point this legislative change would apply to people with disability who wanted to access consumer goods. The question that was raised by a number of submitters and by Opposition members on the committee and in the House last time was about whether this would apply in a way which would have a chilling effect on the debt that was extended to people with disabilities when they went to buy consumer goods. For example that was things where say you have someone with a disability who goes into Noel Leeming and wishes to buy a television on hire purchase. The contention was that maybe they won't be able to have that credit extended because Noel Leeming would be on inquiry as to whether they were someone who they could recover a debt from. Now it's my understanding that this would not in fact apply to people with disabilities who wanted to access consumer credit because the way that the Personal Property Securities Register works is that if you were to buy something like a TV on hire purchase a debt would be registered against your name. Then that debt would be civilly enforceable and a court could order that that particular item which you had a registration against could be repossessed to recover that debt and that wouldn't be touched by this legislation. Where this legislation would apply—my understanding is—is at the point at which a whole civil debt or criminal debt was to be recovered and that was at the court-ordered point where a judge made that decision and it would apply to all assets. So there would be no need for lenders of consumer finance to extend any sort of checks about what our disabled community might be accessing in terms of their products that they wanted to buy. So it's my understanding that this bill doesn't encourage people to need those checks and it doesn't have a chilling effect. Can I ask the member to clarify whether that is the case? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you members. I just want to go back to Nicole McKee's question around mobility devices. The select committee did make changes to the definition of devices. If we refer to new subclause (5) in section 167 in clause 4 in this section it did change it to include mobility device" but it also gave in the definition that it "has the same meaning as in section 2(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998." Anything outside of that is actually not relevant and it's out of scope for this bill. Also to the member Arena Williams and her question about the consumer finance Act those matters were debated heavily at select committee and I again acknowledge the Justice Committee. Questions were asked about whether or not the disabled person should declare that they're disabled when applying for loans or financial hire purchases and that itself was disagreed to by most of the select committee because it disadvantages a person with a disability. We should be able to apply for financial services on our capacity to afford those financial services not on our physicality or on the physicality of any person. So hopefully that addresses the member's question. Thank you."