Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well I feel enlightened by that speech. That was an enlightening speech in general. The District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill—first of all I would like to acknowledge the member in charge of this bill Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki. Thank you very much for bringing this to the House. In the same level of acknowledging the member in charge of the bill I think it's important that we take note of the person who also brought this instance to our attention.So we know that 'Una Tanginoa who was a member of the public was put in a situation where they were left without their mobility device. In this instance it was a van that had been specifically modified for his disability. He'd been a victim of a rugby injury and is a quadriplegic and he needed this van in order to go to the doctor to get out of the house to do his daily duties. So once he got behind on paying his rent the vehicle was repossessed. When he managed to get a lawyer and go back to court and have the vehicle returned to him what the judge in the case did say was that it wasn't an illegal ruling. So that really drew attention to this particular anomaly in the law and it's been largely the reason why this member's bill has been drafted. So what this bill does is it amends the District Court Act 2016 to protect disabled people who are judgment debtors—people who owe money under a court order. And it does so by expressly prohibiting the seizure of goods of a judgment debtor with a disability where an item is necessary for that person's care support independence or even to promote their inclusion and participation in society—and all members agreed that that was the right thing to do. This is a somewhat belts-and-braces approach because as committee members learnt during the course of considering this bill although existing operational practice both in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and operational guidance for bailiffs there is provision here for unreasonable seizure of property. This bill in fact codifies the protection of disabled judgment debtors into the District Court Act. So it will help to ensure that bailiffs respect the rights and the needs of disabled New Zealanders therefore being a belts-and-braces approach to what's already in place. As the District Court Act currently stands there is no specific protection. So what we are doing—what the member's bill is doing—is to protect the basic rights of disabled New Zealanders and it's good that we've got agreement from across the House. This bill will ensure that such an event does not happen again by making it clear in the District Court Act that bailiffs cannot seize such items. I won't go into detail of all of the submissions that we received but I will say that we are particularly blessed in the Justice Committee. We are particularly blessed because we have an abundance of lawyers. Now some people may think that that's not a good thing—and maybe on occasions I would tend to agree. But it's also a good thing because we have a wide range of infinite knowledge around the legal profession and I think that that knowledge and that background that members bring to the Justice Committee came to the fore in looking at how this bill can be improved. We saw two changes to the bill which I felt made it a better bill in itself.The first one was to amend that a disabled person in the care of a judgment debtor—it would not just cover items of that person but also if you are a principal caregiver. So quite often as in the case of the person who brought this bill in Mr Tanginoa he had someone who lived within the home whether it's a caregiver or a family member who assisted him on a day-to-day basis. So this amendment in the bill will mean that it covers items that another person would need to ensure that the person who has the disability has full access and they are not prevented from that in that way. So several submitters we heard including Age Concern New Zealand and Auckland Disability Law argued a scenario where a person who has a disability would be impeded by the fact their caregiver would be penalised in the way that I've outlined. The committee considered this issue and agreed with the concerns and so it now covers a disabled person who is in the care of a judgment debtor and the bill has been amended accordingly.Secondly we looked at the definition of disabled person" and so we had quite a robust discussion in this space and it was a learning experience too for members to see the different definitions and where they sit. The Justice Committee considered all of the different definitions and we heard from different submitters. We amended the bill changing the definition of "disability" from that laid out in the Human Rights Act to—and I'll quote because I think this is important—"disabled person includes a person who has a long-term physical mental intellectual or sensory impairments that in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others"—in new section 167(5) set out in clause 4(2). So that was the other significant change that we made through this bill. An interesting issue came up in discussion for members: there was a concern that there might be a perverse result from making this change in law. There was a concern that somebody who had a disability may potentially be prevented from getting credit from being able to be entering into a lending situation if there was a provision that those items could not be repossessed. So some members of the committee raised that issue and we got quite good advice back. They were advised that the bill does not prevent repossession of goods provided for in a credit contract pursuant to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. Also in the event that a lender did decide to undertake a civil debt enforcement action to the courts there are other options available to get back that debt such as attachment orders that deduct money from wages or salaries. Interestingly enough that was the very point that Mr Tanginoa made—that his preference was for those deductions to come out of his weekly income as opposed to repossessing an item which he relied upon to participate in society. Other items not essential to the debtor with the disability can still be seized. They are not protected by this bill and that's important to note. It's not all items; it's just those that are identified as being critical to enable that participation as the bill defines. So for those reasons laid out the committee did not recommend amending any changes in relation to that. I'd just like to wrap this up by stating that this bill fits in very well with the Government's wider plan to target debt-related poverty. We know a large number of New Zealanders are very affected by debt-related poverty. We've had instances where there's predatory lending and we've made quite significant changes to the credit contracts Act in order to be able to ensure those people who can be preyed upon in situations of poverty—and I think this nicely adds to that suite. We brought forward changes under the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Act to strengthen protections for vulnerable borrowers. One of those examples was the red trucks you see travelling around. So I would like to finish up by acknowledging the excellent work of Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki at representing her community at bringing everyday people in our community who encounter issues—to bring a bill to this House and change the law to ensure that we are doing the best we can as parliamentarians. I commend this bill to the House."