Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I just want to start by saying the National Party and the Opposition treat this bill very much in a similar way to the last bill and that is that we will support it to select committee. We think that it's absolutely well intentioned and purposed. I know what the member has said that Gandhi quote—you know it's absolutely right. Judge society on how it treats those who are most vulnerable with disabilities and the like—to paraphrase that quite significantly but you get the point and that's absolutely true. So we support it at this stage. We support the intentions of it. Can I say I also appreciate the member taking the time yesterday to meet with me and to discuss her bill. She's also thanked Mark Mitchell. Can I just say I said yes; Mark Mitchell didn't. So you just remember that in your future speeches if the member pleases.But I say again a response to a very real issue and you know the member's talked about that case 'Una Tanginoa—a very real situation which I think we can all be concerned about and have compassion for—where Mr Tanginoa is a quadriplegic in a wheelchair. He by necessity required for any sort of mobility and independence and travel a modified van that the news story I've read tells us was about a $30000 van with its modifications. In fulfilling his debts it was seized by the bailiff in that case. That kind of brings us to the current law and where we're going with this bill. Under the current law prior to this bill and the question of whether it becomes the enacted law of this country as I understand it there is a discretion there is some fairness provision there and that is that. Whereas what this law does is it takes away that discretion and it leads us to a position where the bailiff on behalf of a creditor cannot seize goods for a debt where they're necessary for the debtor's care or support independence".I come back to it. It's hard to disagree. In fact we don't disagree at all. We agree with the intention from the member in light of the very real case that she's brought forward and it's led her to bring this bill in. But what I would say in addition to that is that it's very difficult to get a law like this perfect right? Between discretion on the one side—where the problem with that is it can in particular cases and the case of 'Una Tanginoa is one in point be unduly harsh because actually whilst there's a discretion the people and the bailiff in this case—and I'm not sure if there was ever a court case about this; there probably wasn't—they took the van with the modifications for his mobility. And that seems unfair. That seems wrong. That doesn't seem just in his particular case.So that's the problem there. But what I identify—and I don't actually form conclusions on it yet. I think it's something for us to flesh out at the select committee. In light of the people we hear from the cases and the stories we hear and maybe some of the more technical submissions I hope we get at least we can draw a conclusion on whether the law that is being proposed here by the good member is potentially—I emphasise that word: potentially—too wide. Yep it's compassionate at one level for the debtor—for in this clear case the disabled debtor or debtors that will be affected or impacted. But I would just say well what about the creditor—what about the creditor? Because we have to be quite clear in my view that not all creditors are created equal. Not all creditors are the fat cats that perhaps we might stereotype them as. So the law needs to be as appropriately—dare I say it—narrowly drawn to be just as we can get it and not too wide. You know it could be—I simply pose the question—in this case too wide. We need to ask that question. We need to see what the submissions are at select committee.I use the thought—and I want to take care here not to be in any way insensitive about the issues we're talking about but—of a relatively minor disability but where this law is used in that circumstance or where the item in question is "necessary" because that's the word used in the bill but in a relatively loose sense of that word. And you know you might say "Well 'necessary' is not loose." and that's actually true but there's always issues here and we wouldn't want to see this over-used in a sense—a way of getting around legitimate creditor-debtor issues. It does need to be necessary—absolutely necessary. Not only that it needs to be necessary to those purposes in the bill here which as I say are care support or independence.So I simply say in summary this is a good thought and a good thing the member has done in bringing this before the Parliament. It's well-intentioned. That's why we support it to select committee where we can think the practical effect through and that's what needs examination—just on that spectrum between as I say on the one hand full-bore discretion—saying no never—and just whether we've got that practically right. Where is the line to be practically drawn? We'll be looking at that as an Opposition very closely at select committee so that this law comes out the other end we hope as a good well-purposed not just well-intentioned but well-scoped law for New Zealand."