Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora te Mana Whakawā thank you. And can I commend the last speaker Nicole McKee for her speech which I must say is clearly well researched and covered in fact a lot of the material I had intended to cover—[Interruption] I know; I found it very good and very much on point. I absolutely agree that the distinction between a credit contract seizure repossession and a warrant to seize is actually of critical importance but really the day goes to Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki. I think your community can be rightly proud of the work you've done here but also of course a much wider community as well. I watched your speech today and you choked up and rightly so because this is a piece of legislation which will touch the lives of many people.I guess what I wanted to touch on though is that I think you've really hit a nerve. It wasn't that long ago in New Zealand in real terms that people could be imprisoned for not repaying their debt. And whilst there's still some powers under the legislation to detain the idea of being imprisoned simply because you can't repay something that you borrowed is rightly relegated to Charles Dickens. But we do need to think carefully about how we balance what goes on when someone has got themselves into trouble or through sheer bad luck in these troubled times can't repay their debts. And this is one example: I mean it did strike me as interesting that up until the passage of this bill that we hope will be very soon a tradie could keep his or her paint brushes and ladders or circular saws what have you—the tools of trade—and yet at least notionally although we hope not in human terms someone could have their wheelchair repossessed. That is a truly bizarre nation where we have that kind of situation happening.I noticed in the select committee report there was a suggestion that the bailiffs had to act fairly and reasonably. I actually couldn't find that anywhere in the legislation. It may well be that as a matter of practice they do or perhaps as a matter of common law they're expected to but I'm not sure that they have to go in and enter into some kind of deliberation over whether it's fair or reasonable to seize goods once the threshold is passed that they're not excluded in the legislation and they do belong to the judgment debtor.So I think the larger question here is not simply that we absolutely should protect disabled people from having essential items for them participating in society seized but a slightly wider question about how we approach debt recovery. As has been noted a number of times this piece of legislation does not apply to a bank or second tier lender or loan shark that lends money on a motor vehicle. And so if any financial institution were to lend money on a motor vehicle that is specially altered for a person with a disability to drive that is absolutely subject to repossession the moment a repayment is missed and that's something we need to think about.The other thing that strikes me is that there's a whole lot of other kinds of debt collection or enforcement methods and some were mentioned by Nicole McKee—for example garnishee proceedings: an old fashioned word but basically it means that if one person owes money to the judgment debtor then the judgment creditor can get the court to order the money to be paid to them; or an attachment order: an order which says to the employer of the judgment debtor Don't pay the judgment debtor their wages; pay them to me."SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. This is now at the third reading—a relatively narrow piece of education. I think I was pretty lenient with the previous speaker as to a general description of the law around it but she at least kept on coming back to it. And while this is an interesting speech it is beyond what is allowed on the third reading and I'd say to the member save it for a lecture and just focus on the bill. And I will remind the member: there's no obligation to speak for 10 minutes.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: First of all thank you for noting the fascinating nature of my contribution but I will—SPEAKER: If the member wants to continue he won't reflect again on one of my rulings.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well I commend again Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki for this bill and just note then that I think a really good job has been done by the select committee in tidying up a couple of those particular items including making sure that where the items in question are in fact owned by a third party—perhaps a family member or someone else living in the residence who may themselves have got into trouble and are unable to pay their debts—those items are still protected. So doing essentially the same job notwithstanding the fact that in fact they're not owned by the disabled person themselves because in many cases of course we can imagine situations where for example a child or a parent is under the care of someone else who actually may be owning those items. So that's a good tidy up. And also of course it's making sure that there doesn't have to be some long and involved inquiry into what amounts to a disability and whether in fact this person is disabled. So as has been noted already the fact that the definition of disabled has in fact been made consistent with that in the Human Rights Act gives a degree of certainty to that and I think that is in fact a really important aspect of it. I just will note that Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki has really picked up the torch here in some ways from Ruth Dyson in terms of speaking for the disabled community and recognising that things need to be a little bit different for them that we need to take a slightly different approach and those are certainly big shoes to fill.But look the bill's a very very good one; it's one which I think moves forward. I congratulate the member on it and I only wish I was allowed to say a few other things. Thank you Mr Speaker.Joseph Mooney: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Sorry I think I've just been accused of a breach of privilege but—Joseph Mooney."