McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand to speak today in support of the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill and I'd also like to commend the member in charge of this bill Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki—well done. I'm going to take a little bit of a different approach and I hope that you bear with me while I explain a few things about the court processes and then move on to how it's affected or going to affect this particular bill. So please bear with me while I just take a bit of a different stand on this—or stance I should say.I am part of the Justice Committee and we went through a process where we are now at the third reading where we're going to make some legislative changes so that certain items cannot be seized under warrant if they are necessary for the judgment debtor's care support or independence of that person or the person that they rely upon. We extended some of those provisions to take into account the item necessary for a person with a disability in the care of that judgment debtor. Then we aligned the definition of disability" with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So we got three things going on here which are really minor but quite important.Now where I'm going to just defer a little bit is explaining to those people at home what this actually means for them in real time. So when you get to a point where you're actually taken to court or a disputes tribunal for an unpaid debt it has to meet certain thresholds. So for a threshold of $30000 or less it goes to the disputes tribunal. If it's up to $350000 it goes to the District Court and anything over $350000 can go to the High Court. So what we have is all these different jurisdictions that are looking at debts and quite often for the person who is in debt that in itself becomes quite harrowing for them because they don't understand what's going on. At this stage I'd like do a shout-out to the community law centres out there because they give wonderful advice to people who are struggling to navigate their way through this system. And they also have an online facility that helps people to understand the processes and what they need to do. People often get confused in those processes and the community law centre outlines and gives assistance on processes procedures how to fill in a claim how to write a statement of defence to that claim if you're the one that's being claimed against. There's also quite a lot of different ways of enforcing a judgment debt and how to recover it. So first of all there's financial assessment hearings that allow a person to be able to come in and say "Well I can't actually afford to pay off this debt. Let's try and figure out how to work our way through it." There's attachment orders. So if you're employed the judge can order attachment to your wages so that money's taken that way. There's charging orders which can stop the sale of land and property should that be the case until a debt is paid. And then if you cannot pay that debt you also could be given community work be ordered up to 200 hours if the court sees fit. And then there is the warrant to seize property. The warrant to seize property is where the warrant entitles a person to come on to your property to seize property. And this is where we are making a change because currently we cannot seize items that are necessary for the tools of trade necessary household furniture and for effects like your fridge and your freezer as an example—even your clothing cannot be seized—and the goods that are seized under the warrant to seize property can be sold to help pay off your debt. The reason why I've gone into this detail is because I think it's really important that we differentiate between a warrant to seize property and repossession. The warrant to seize property is what gives the bailiff the ability to come on to the property to seize but repossession is something different in itself. Repossession happens when there's hire purchase goods or goods listed as security under a loan contract and if a person defaults on that loan contract and payment of it then those goods could actually end up being repossessed. The lender can take those goods because they don't belong to the creditor. And it can also happen to the guarantors. I'll give you an example. If a car has been smashed up—and this is about a vehicle a mobility vehicle that was taken away—in an accident but it's subject to a credit contract and it's written off then that can be repossessed. However if the car is not subject to that loan then it can't be. So the guarantors can be implicated in this way as well but the guarantors—for those people out there—can't take your stoves and your fridges and your clothing either. But repossession can only happen when there's a credit contract that explicitly allows this to occur. Now it is important that the creditors and the financial institutions are made aware of these changes that we're about to introduce and that they fully understand the difference between the warrant to seize and the repossession because we're effectively making a law that if a warrant to seize goods is given then it is the intention of this Parliament that items that can be shown to be needed for the—and I quote from the legislation—"essential care support or independence of or to promote the inclusion of participation in society of a person with a disability" cannot be seized. But where there is a credit contract that has been signed then those goods can still be repossessed. So we have not made any provisions to change that particular aspect of the legislation.I'm very pleased to have clarity from Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki on the blind and hearing impediments that we spoke of earlier. During the committee of the whole House I had queried whether or not those people with those disabilities could have essential items seized and we weren't sure at that stage but you've clarified that for all of those people today. That comes about from the change that I mentioned earlier that was made to "disability" because it actually now includes those with sensory disabilities as well. I am sure that those with the hearing and blind impediments will feel some relief that certain equipment that they need—like their cell phones to be able to blind read and hear and have directions on—will be safe under this bill as long as there is no credit contract signed to purchase it. We've upgraded that definition of "disability" so that it aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So to summarise those seeking loans those that are guaranteeing loans those that are lending—we have to make a slight change to what can be seized under a warrant to seize property. If an item is required for the care the support or the independence of the debtor or the disabled person the debtor directly cares for or promotes their inclusion and participation in society then that essential item cannot be seized under that warrant. Therefore a disabled person or a caregiver of a disabled person should know the difference between their obligations when signing a credit contract and the obligations when taking a loan without a contract.ACT are pleased to support a change in legislation that defines "disability" to make it more inclusive of a wider range of disabilities to make change that supports those people with disabilities in a time of need for them and to clearly differentiate between what can be seized and when it can be seized. Clearly we ask those that are in debt that are struggling to get in touch with people who can help you. You don't have to be alone and the community groups like the community law centres are there to help you. In that regard again Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki—well done congratulations and we are proud to support your bill."