Wall Louisa; Rurawhe AdrianLOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Firstly I'd like to again recognise my colleague Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki for a bill that obviously created quite a bit of discussion in the select committee. And so I particularly want to commend the 21 submissions from groups and individuals and also the eight submitters who chose to speak at the select committee about the relevance of this particular legislation to them. I'm not a member of the Justice Committee but I know that the Justice Committee is incredibly hard-working so I'd like to acknowledge colleague Ginny Andersen and members of that committee for the diligence that they practise. In terms of this particular bill I can see that it did create quite a bit of discussion.From my reading of the report from the Justice Committee essentially what they have done is broaden the definition of a judgment debtor". The original proposition from Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki was that this was about a disabled person and solely about the disabled person. In fact the scope that the select committee have chosen to increase also now includes the carer of a disabled person. The reason the committee did that in fact was because it's about how the property of a disabled person or the family of a disabled person or the person caring for that disabled person is used because sometimes it isn't actually the disabled person themselves that owns the property. So we then started to focus on the use of that property and the instance that actually brought this kaupapa to this Parliament was a vehicle that a disabled person had that was then—through a judgment debtor being determined to be a judgment debtor—taken from that particular individual. So I want to commend the select committee on their work because in fact it would have been neglectful if you hadn't highlighted that sometimes it wasn't the disabled person themselves who owned the property but members of their family or those providing care to them. So I think you've closed what could have been a loophole that in fact would have negated the whole intention of this piece of legislation. So congratulations for highlighting that. I also think the change to the definition of disabled person—so just for members of the public's knowledge a disabled person is now going to be defined as "a person who has 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." I think that definition actually speaks to the commitment that the select committee had again ensuring that the broadest definition of property or as I framed it in my first reading speech the tools that disabled people need to live full and active lives. We're talking potentially about a lot of devices today not only wheelchairs and the different modifications with that but being able to use speaking devices so that instructions can be delivered or tools that enable people actually in their everyday lives that some of us take for granted—they will be included in the definition. We all know that definitions are incredibly important because if we don't get the definitions right then there may be things deemed not to be property that can then be confiscated through these judgment debtor issues. So I want to commend again the select committee for ensuring that all property that disabled peoples may have that are going to actually help remove barriers to them leading full and participative lives will be covered by this piece of legislation. The third issue that was highlighted by the select committee—and they chose not to make a recommendation in terms of an amendment to the proposition—was about the effect on lending and the repossession of goods under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. Colleagues across the House I guess have differing opinions which is why you didn't come to an agreement about what an amendment should be. But in listening to colleague Nicole McKee who has previously spoken I guess some of the consequences are that lenders won't lend to people with disabilities or their families. I find that an incredibly problematic proposition actually because that would reinforce a discrimination that we're trying to address. So I'm hoping that there will not be an opportunity for lenders to now not lend to peoples with disabilities because this legislation is progressing through the House. I'm hoping actually that there will be a broader conversation within the community about how we better support peoples with disabilities to have access to the tools they need as I said before to live full inclusive participatory lives. I do think though as a consequence of highlighting this in your select committee report back to the House there needs to be further work. So I'm hoping that people like Paula Tesoriero—who's our disability commissioner who works at the Human Rights Commission and I know she's been actively engaged in the progression of this bill through the House—will now think about the implications of this being in a report that this Parliament has received and actually proactively working with lenders to make sure that there isn't an issue. Because always we are aware sometimes of unintended consequences but in highlighting this you have actually said "This isn't unintended." You have highlighted it as an issue. And I think we have to get ahead of the game and engage with the sector to make sure that there aren't going to now be barriers to people who need support to buy these particular tools or property that if you are a person with a disability you have access to the resources—like any of us do in terms of the choices or the way in which we want to live our lives.So it's an absolute pleasure to talk to tautoko this kaupapa through the House this evening. I hope that the disability community through the specific focus of this bill feel like this Parliament is actually giving effect to some of their needs and aspirations because we don't really have many bills that are specific to the disability community. And again I want to thank my colleague Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki and actually highlight the relationship that she has with many of the people in our community who are advocates for peoples with disability. It was through her relationship with community law that this issue was brought to the attention of the House in the first place. I think it really speaks to the motivation behind this bill—I mean this is a real issue for a real New Zealander in a community that will actually not solve their issue but they've used their experience to bring it to this place so that we can make sure that it doesn't affect other people in the future. I always find the selfless acts of New Zealanders who allow their experiences to be used as a platform for this legislative reform incredibly empowering because what that speaks to is the fact that we live in a society that continues to evolve.It was quite interesting when I looked at the definition from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because also fundamentally they talk about disability being an evolving concept. I think that our responsiveness as a Parliament to the needs of peoples with disabilities through the progression of this bill—and it seems to be unanimous—makes a bit of a statement about our commitment to making sure that we use the power that we have for good and that in this particular instance we use it for our disabled community in a way that hopefully will empower them and ensure that they know that their needs are a priority for us. Nō reira tēnā koutou katoa.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Joseph Mooney five minutes."