Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Speaker. Speaking to the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill on this side of the House as the Hon Simon Bridges has mentioned we support the bill at least to select committee. We acknowledge the work that the member has put in in compiling a piece of legislation that is not only worthy in terms of its subject matter but also is I would say a good member's bill subject in the sense that it is relatively tight in terms of the reworking of the law. Therefore it is not overly ambitious if I may say that not at all in a pejorative sense but it does of course have the potential to significantly affect particular New Zealanders.The disproportionate effect of such practices as we have heard of today is one that as a Parliament as a House of Representatives we should take very seriously indeed. I acknowledge in that space the advocacy of the Disability Rights Commissioner which the member herself has already acknowledged and other advocates. I do also want to give a mention to the work that's been done by community law centres in relation to this. I think it's always worthwhile to note the contribution they make to our legal system and indeed our society these pillars of the community these law centres who provide a great service to those who would otherwise not have the access to justice that should be considered a right and not a privilege.The explanatory note to the bill talks about the implication of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act not fully recognising the problem that the bill seeks to solve. I think perhaps an issue is more that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act doesn't make law that can be applied in a black letter sense. It's more that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has general principles of rights and freedoms that it protects. But she's right of course to point us in the direction of section 21 in relation to unreasonable search and seizure. And she is obviously arguing—and so far the House is agreeing—that we should regard as unreasonable a seizure of assets that are necessary to a person who has a disability to live a good life. The living of a good life is not a concept that is exactly encapsulated in the bill but I hope the member will not mind me taking a liberty with provisions that she's got in front of us because I think that is really the essence of what she's looking to achieve. I suppose also I should add that it's a matter of safety as well as the goodness of the life that one wishes to lead if we're talking about such things as specially adapted motor vehicles and so forth and therefore again it's something we should take very seriously indeed. Others have already noted the tension between the desire to have certainty and to take away discretion or to require less of the good judgment which we see in the general policy statement. As the member who spoke on our side of the House leading off our contribution to the debate Hon Simon Bridges has noted that is something that will be appropriately discussed at select committee and I for one if I should be returned to this place in the next Parliament and to the relevant select committee would relish the opportunity to be part of that discussion and debate and to hear exactly where is the right place to draw the line particularly when it comes to such concepts as promoting inclusion and participation and enabling independence and so on. So anyway as others have already said it is a very worthwhile concept and let's discuss the detail in due course. We look forward to doing that on this side of the House.