Coffey TamatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Very pleased—[Uses sign language] My sign language is rusty but that's OK because actually New Zealand Sign Language Week is another reminder that it is an official language and we should use it as much as possible. There are people out there that rely on us actually bringing profile to sign language so I just want to acknowledge that first off.I'm very happy to stand and take a call on the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill. Now not sitting on the Justice Committee I'm looking at this bill as an outsider but it seems like common sense. This is a member's bill in the name of my very very good colleague over here Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki who has brought forward this member's bill. I really enjoy members' bills because it's a chance for us as non-executive members to be able to advocate for something that we see in our community that needs addressing. She has taken an issue which was presented to her and she has carried it through this House and that's exactly what the role of an MP is to be able to do. So I want to acknowledge the person that brought it before her and I want to acknowledge her work and also the work of the Justice Committee in ushering this bill through the House. Can I also acknowledge all members of the House for supporting this bill. This is not a major change this is not big legislative change here we're talking about a fix to what is essentially a gap in our law and it should be acknowledged. Because actually whilst it's only a small fix this is going to change the lives of many people. In fact I say a small fix but in terms of life and death decisions it potentially is something that fits into that category.This bill would amend the District Court Act 2016 to protect people with disabilities who owe money under a court order that would prohibit the seizure of any item from a judgment debtor with a disability that is necessary for their care for their support or for their independence or to promote their inclusion and participation in society. Now the District Court Act allows bailiffs to seize property from a judgment debtor provided that they act fairly and reasonably in doing so. The bill would codify existing practice and make clearer the existing protection against unreasonable seizure of property that is provided for in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Any discrimination on the grounds of disability would be a violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and currently the Act does not expressly prohibit bailiffs from seizing property that disabled people may rely on such as mobility devices. But things are about to change and as I said before I acknowledge the support of the whole House in ushering this through. It is of course vital that we protect the rights of our disabled community around the country. I think I heard my colleague say earlier that actually of our team of 5 million 24 percent are deemed to have a disability so I acknowledge that. What this bill is going to do is it is going to—sorry through the select committee process that's what I wanted to focus on just a couple of the changes that came through in the select committee process of which I'll note that the committee received 21 submissions on the bill the vast majority of which—18—supported the bill's intent. The committee heard from eight oral submitters and actually some of those submitters had some very important things to say which actually have led to amendments to the initial version of this bill. As the bill came to the committee the protections added were specifically with regard to seizing property from a debtor with a disability. This meant that they didn't cover items owned by those debtors without disabilities themselves but who were the principal caregiver to a disabled person. Now several submitters including Age Concern New Zealand Auckland Disability Law as well argued that that could lead to a scenario in which something essential for the care of a disabled person is taken by a bailiff because the caregiver who owns that thing is in debt—things like an accessibility van things like a mobility scooter. The committee considered that issue and agreed with the concerns as you've heard from other submitters tonight that the law should cover any item necessary for the care support or independence of a disabled person who is in the care of a judgment debtor and the select committee have agreed to amend the bill accordingly.The second amendment that I wanted to talk about was the actual definition of a disabled person. In many bills that go through this House we take great care to actually define put in place proper definition agreed definitions as to what constitutes things like the definition of a disabled person. In the bill as it came to the committee the definition of disability had the same meaning in the definition of section 21(1)(h) of the Human Rights Act 1993 but there were two submissions that came before the committee which argued that the definition instead should be taken from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because it is a broader social model of disability as opposed to the narrower more clinical one that's outlined in the Human Rights Act. The Auckland Disability Law submission noted that it believed that the legislation should align its definition of people with disabilities with that in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 1 – Purpose which subscribes to the social model of disability rather than the medical model as seen in the Human Rights Act. It focuses on barriers that may negatively impact participation in society which fits well with the purpose of this bill and would allow better inclusion assistive equipment that is not limited to medical purposes. So they recommended that the Act have that definition of disability. The Justice Committee considered that argument and agreed that the definition was indeed preferable in this case because it would allow for the wider disability community to be included in that group that the bill would provide protection for. The committee therefore amended the bill changing the definition of disability from that that was laid out in the Human Rights Act.As I said before it's vital that we look after the rights of our disabled whānau here in New Zealand. The District Court Act as it currently stands has no specific protection for disabled people so the items that they need for their care are not seized. As my colleague Willow-Jean Prime the MP for Northland said just before actually this is not a job that anybody really likes to do. I have a couple of friends who in their past have been those people that have gone around being debt collectors. It isn't the most pleasant job in the world and they've relayed that to me on many occasions. It's a very harrowing process to go and be the person that knocks on somebody's door and tells them that actually they are going to be confiscating some of their property—in some cases all of their property. It's a very tough situation to have to go through but there needs to be a line drawn: a line drawn between what's acceptable to seize and what's not acceptable to seize. What this bill does is it sends a very clear signal out there to bailiffs to those people that go out into properties and seize items that actually when it comes to looking after the rights of our disabled community up and down Aotearoa that actually it's not acceptable to take those things which our disabled whānau depend on. Whether it's the debtor themselves or a person that is dependent on them for those services for a mobility van it actually makes sure that it sends a clear message that it's not acceptable to be able to seize those things.So I want to make a final mihi to my good colleague Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki. She will go down as the person in this House who has the hardest name to pronounce and that many members of this House have tried to grapple with but have failed on many occasions but may they get it right. And when we have languages like we've got this week—it is Rotuman Language Week—in acknowledgment of some of our Pasifika languages hopefully some of our—when it becomes Tongan language week—members of this House will be able to refer back to the good old mālō e lelei but also practise their Tongan trying to say her name. Thank you to the Justice Committee for their consideration of the bill thank you to all of the submitters who have put effort into this but most of all thank you to the gentleman that presented his case to this MP right here to bring this case before the House. I commend it. Kia ora Mr Speaker.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.