District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill

I move, That the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

I am heartened to be the sponsor of this bill before the House. I thank Mr Soane Foliaki of the community law centre in South Auckland for this opportunity to address a gap in the law. It’s a privilege to be a member of Parliament and, in doing so, bring the voice of the community to this House. Today, it is the voice of the disabled, through the collaboration with the Community Law Centre in Papakura.

This bill protects those with disabilities. The bill prohibits the seizure of goods of a judgment debtor with a disability where the item proposed to be seized is necessary for the judgment debtor’s care, support, or independence. At present, the principal law requires good judgment to be exercised by the bailiffs to act fairly and reasonably. The principal Act does not prohibit the bailiffs seizing property that enables independence of tetraplegics, such as their modified mobility vehicles.

About five years ago, ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa, a New Zealander with a disability, a tetraplegic who was a judgment debtor, had his modified mobility vehicle seized by a bailiff to be sold at an auction to satisfy a debt which was a quarter of the value for the vehicle. The bailiff had initially locked the wheels of the vehicle to enforce payment of the debt. The judgment debtor could not afford to pay the debt and, despite the protest from the judgment debtor’s community lawyer, the vehicle was transported to Turners auction for sale. During this time, the judgment debtor was no longer able to attend his doctor’s appointment, as he could not afford the taxi fare. He became very ill and ended up being taken to hospital by an ambulance and admitted into the intensive care unit at Auckland hospital. For a period, he was in a precarious situation, and he was most fortunate to survive his ordeal. His lawyer, Mr Foliaki, had managed to bring the matter before the court, and the court directed the return of the vehicle to the home of ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa.

Section 167(2) of the District Court Act 2016, the principal Act, states, “By the warrant, the bailiff or constable is authorised to seize—(a) the goods of the judgment debtor, except—(i) his or her tools of trade to a value not exceeding $5,000; and (ii) his or her necessary household furniture and effects, including clothing for the judgment debtor and his or her family, to a value not exceeding $10,000; and (b) money, bank notes, and securities (that is, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties, or other securities for money).” There was an international incident where a German pedigree pup, seized by authorities for unpaid tax, was sold on eBay. It was reported that in Germany, officials initially wanted to seize the wheelchair but ended up taking a dog. In other words, the tools of trade of a carpenter, a plumber, a motor mechanic are protected under the principal Act as life necessities. However, the modified vehicle of a tetraplegic or a disabled person, and his or her very expensive high-tech wheelchair, are not protected under the principal Act.

It is an injustice that the State is empowered to seize the necessities to the life of person who has a disability, such as a modified vehicle or even a high-tech wheelchair that provides for daily transport needs. As his lawyer, Mr Foliaki, argued, in this case, the modified vehicle was an extension of the legs of ‘Una. The wheelchair, the modified vehicle, enabled the tetraplegic freedom of movement and independence to attend important appointments, especially with his doctors. The proposed amendments will ensure the protection of disabled persons such as tetraplegics from seizure of his or her property that is necessary for his or her care, support, and independence. This would promote inclusion and participation in society.

Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 did not provide sufficient protection to protect ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa; nor did the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities help him. I want to acknowledge Angela Desmarais, who is the kaituitui from Disabled Persons Assembly New Zealand Inc., for her support in sharing her insights and widening my world view of the disability community. She stated that a disability is not a sickness; it’s a disability. Also, to Mike Potter and Colleen Brown of Disability Connect, who informed me of the views of parents—a TV to us is just a TV, but it’s a tool to parents of certain disabled children.

Lastly, I acknowledge the Disability Rights Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero. They wanted to include the Treaty of Waitangi and for this bill to consider using the United Nations conventions on the rights of disabled persons’ definition of disability, as this defines and includes the wider disability community. The definition used in this bill is that of the Human Rights Act. This is something the select committee may address.

I would like this opportunity to thank the members of this House through my journey of talking about this bill in the last two very busy weeks of this year. I want to take this opportunity to thank Jan Logie for her support. When I asked her for a time to meet, without hesitation she said, “I support this bill. The Green Party will support it.” I want to thank the Hon Simon Bridges. Despite all the fears of what I’ve read about the Hon Simon Bridges, it was actually a very pleasant conversation and a one-on-one, down-to-earth conversation with a member. I want to acknowledge him for his support. Prior to that, it was the Hon Mark Mitchell. I want to acknowledge him, too, for accepting my request. I want to address this because often in this House, we call each other the Opposition, the Government, the supporting partners, but when we’re going for a member’s bill, you’re wanting everybody to support your bill. So it is my intention to thank everybody that I spoke with. And, of course, I want to thank Darroch Ball, who said to me that it’s common sense for his support of this bill. In those respectful conducts, I want to acknowledge everyone that I’ve spoken to, especially my caucus, who approved this to go into the ballot.

In conclusion, I want to thank Community Law South Auckland, Mr Soane Foliaki, and, of course, they’ve opened a community law Centre in Papakura. I want to thank ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa. This is your bill. This is your story, and I know that he has stated to Newshub that he does not want any other person to go through this. I want to thank all the members for their support.

Mahatma Gandhi once stated that the true measure of any society can be found in how they treat its most vulnerable members. Today, I’m seeking every member of this House to support our most vulnerable members. I eagerly anticipate the support of the House for this bill, and I commend this bill to the House. Mālō ‘aupito.

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 $30,000 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.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Can I first acknowledge the author of the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, and also acknowledge Mr Foliaki from Community Law Centre in Papatoetoe and also Mr ‘Una Tanginoa, who actually started this process by seeking support from community law, who did go to the court.

So for the previous speakers, I’ll outline the context of his mobility vehicle being removed from him. It was a rent debt. It was a landlord that went to the court to have $5,117 repaid, and this man, Mr Tanginoa, was a pensioner on an invalid’s benefit. He had assumed that Ministry of Social Development were paying his rent and they weren’t. So between October 2014 and April 2015, when that rent wasn’t being paid, the landlord then sought recompense and did that through the courts.

I’d like to, I guess, affirm something in our law already, which is that the law currently says that you can’t take a tradesperson’s tools to repay a debt because they are vital to their livelihood. I guess my contribution within the context of this proposed legislation is that you can’t take a disabled person’s tools to repay a debt because they are vital to their lives.

I think, when we look at this specific example, the consequence of the court enabling that debt to be collected saw the bailiff, I guess, exercise their judgment. There is scope in the law to make a determination about what is fair and reasonable seizure. So it seems that, in this case, they deemed that the access of a modified vehicle for Mr Tanginoa was not fair and reasonable. They confiscated it, they sold it, and, as a consequence of him not having his vehicle, he was unable to go to the doctor. Now, normally, I suppose, that wouldn’t be a life and death situation. But for Mr Tanginoa, who is a quadriplegic, it resulted in an infection that led him to the hospital, to ICU, and there was a threat that he could have lost his foot. Therein lies, I guess, Mr Tanginoa’s story, his willingness to share that story, to become vulnerable: with the intent, with Mr Foliaki and my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, that this never happens to anybody else again.

In looking at what are helpful tools for quadriplegics, we, I’m sure, are not surprised that modified vehicles are helpful tools, as are specialist wheelchairs, as are, I think, technology. There’s a list of other things in terms of daily needs and tools for quadriplegics. But I can presume now that the House will support this bill, based on the contribution of the Hon Simon Bridges.

So is there an issue? Yes. The previous Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, asked for a report on whether a change needs to be considered. I actually haven’t seen that report; hopefully we can source it from the Ministry of Justice. But I presume that the Ministry of Justice officials actually said, yes, this is an issue, and, in fact, what the system is waiting to do is to review the Act. In lieu of us waiting as a Parliament to review the Act, I’m pleased, as is my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, that this Parliament has an opportunity to rectify this issue now. We don’t have to wait for a review of the District Court Act to ensure that disabled peoples are prioritised, that they are actually considered to be special citizens, special New Zealanders. If we can do that for tradespeople, then surely we can do that for our disabled citizens.

So I think this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. I just want to join with my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki about the reference to other things, such as the Treaty of Waitangi, such as what was highlighted by Paula Tesoriero in terms of other definitions and human rights, I guess, doctrines, that compel us to have extra protections and special protections for our most vulnerable, which includes peoples with disabilities. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, on this side of the House, as the Hon Simon Bridges has mentioned, we support the bill, at least to select committee. We acknowledge the work that the member has put in in compiling a piece of legislation that is not only worthy in terms of its subject matter but also is, I would say, a good member’s bill subject in the sense that it is relatively tight in terms of the reworking of the law. Therefore, it is not overly ambitious, if I may say that not at all in a pejorative sense, but it does, of course, have the potential to significantly affect particular New Zealanders.

The disproportionate effect of such practices as we have heard of today is one that as a Parliament, as a House of Representatives, we should take very seriously indeed. I acknowledge in that space the advocacy of the Disability Rights Commissioner, which the member herself has already acknowledged, and other advocates. I do also want to give a mention to the work that’s been done by community law centres in relation to this. I think it’s always worthwhile to note the contribution they make to our legal system and indeed our society, these pillars of the community, these law centres who provide a great service to those who would otherwise not have the access to justice that should be considered a right and not a privilege.

The explanatory note to the bill talks about the implication of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act not fully recognising the problem that the bill seeks to solve. I think perhaps an issue is more that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act doesn’t make law that can be applied in a black letter sense. It’s more that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has general principles of rights and freedoms that it protects. But she’s right, of course, to point us in the direction of section 21 in relation to unreasonable search and seizure. And she is obviously arguing—and so far the House is agreeing—that we should regard as unreasonable a seizure of assets that are necessary to a person who has a disability to live a good life. The living of a good life is not a concept that is exactly encapsulated in the bill, but I hope the member will not mind me taking a liberty with provisions that she’s got in front of us, because I think that is really the essence of what she’s looking to achieve.

I suppose also I should add that it’s a matter of safety as well as the goodness of the life that one wishes to lead if we’re talking about such things as specially adapted motor vehicles and so forth, and therefore, again, it’s something we should take very seriously indeed. Others have already noted the tension between the desire to have certainty and to take away discretion or to require less of the good judgment, which we see in the general policy statement. As the member who spoke on our side of the House, leading off our contribution to the debate, Hon Simon Bridges, has noted, that is something that will be appropriately discussed at select committee, and I, for one, if I should be returned to this place in the next Parliament and to the relevant select committee, would relish the opportunity to be part of that discussion and debate and to hear exactly where is the right place to draw the line, particularly when it comes to such concepts as promoting inclusion and participation and enabling independence, and so on. So anyway, as others have already said, it is a very worthwhile concept, and let’s discuss the detail in due course. We look forward to doing that on this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t intend to take a very long call. I think it’s actually a bit crazy that we have to debate a bill like this, when—look, it says in the general policy statement that the Act requires good judgment to be exercised by the bailiffs. We’ve heard the examples, the particular example about why this bill is put forward, and it just amazes me that a situation like that would occur when we’ve got our most vulnerable people in situations that they are in being treated the way that they are. That’s what it comes down to: the way that individuals want to, and have been, treating people—and whether it’s written in black and white, unfortunately, it seems to matter. That’s why New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to select committee. It’s just unfortunate that we have to get to this stage where we have to put this into legislation.

New Zealand First supports both sides of the House’s comment, actually, and the reasons for this bill and why we need to support this bill through, and also some of the concerns, or rather questions, that were raised, and questions that, it has been stated, will be raised during the select committee. I think that’s important, that we hear from the stakeholders and the people that are involved with this, both from the implementation side but also the receiving side, so we can iron the law out and make sure that we get what we want, which is an improved result of the implementation of the law as it’s written. We look forward to the select committee, and hearing from the experts and hearing from the advisers on how we can make this a good one. Thank you.

I am pleased to take a call on this quite detailed minor amendment bill, the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill. I am happy to be supporting the bill to select committee. We’ve done a lot of work through this Parliament in improving the rights of people with disabilities in New Zealand, and it’s proper that we work at laws like the District Court Act around ensuring that its provisions are appropriate for the full diversity of people, including those who have disabilities that need care, support, and equipment for that purpose.

One of the things the select committee will need to have a careful look at is that sometimes when we seek to help a particular group by removing the capacity for debts to be collected, you may well have a situation where people won’t provide finance for that particular group. I think it’s OK, but at select committee, what you wouldn’t want is to create a situation where this law change resulted in people with disabilities being unable to access finance for purchasing mobile scooters and those things as a consequence of removing the right of the person that provides that finance to be able to recover the property. So we have to try and navigate a way through improving our debtor laws so that we don’t get the almost inhuman situation of a person with a severe disability having their mobile scooter or other equipment that’s essential to their wellbeing being removed. On the other hand, you are always, with such laws, looking for unintended consequences.

I’m also interested that as we try and “micro-write” the laws for every possible circumstance—we currently say in the law that bailiffs need to act fairly and reasonably. I will be interested at the select committee to see how many examples there are and whether there is the scale of problem where people are having scooters or other essential equipment or property removed. Part of me thinks that when the law already prohibits behaviour that is unfair or unreasonable, why is that not working in holding back bailiffs from doing such unconscionable acts as removing equipment that’s essential for those New Zealanders that have these sorts of disabilities?

I commend the member on introducing the bill. I’m pleased to have it go to a select committee—and they are some of the issues that the select committee, in detailed consideration of this bill, will need to consider in determining whether these are appropriate law changes to make to the District Court Act.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. I was honoured by my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki to actually take my call on this bill. She’s aware that I’m a father of a disabled son—that is why she invited me to do this. One thing that I might say is that as anyone who’s been involved in the disability sector knows, it’s somewhat of a parallel existence that when you are confronted with day-to-day situations that normally we can get through without having to think about, there’s all of a sudden another criteria, another threshold that must be met just to perform day-to-day duties. So that’s why bills like this, which do make some recognition of that need to parallel exist, are important.

There’s another important part of this bill, too, that hasn’t really been brought up today: that actually, this will be very good for the bailiffs. I mean, bailiffs are an often maligned group of people; however, they are people who are out there just doing their job. Most of them I don’t think leave school wanting to be bailiffs. It’s something that many of the people who get into that job do because it’s a way of putting food on the table. So this actually gives them that protection as well, because the law as it stands, as has been pointed out, does require such bailiffs to make good judgment. But as we will know as lawmakers, good judgment is one thing that while many of the courts have tried to define by precedent, at the end of the day each situation will be taken on its merits. So now those bailiffs who are confronted with a situation who do end up having to exercise the powers that they do as bailiffs will now have the security of this bill to fall back on and say, “Actually, we can’t seize that vehicle, we can’t seize that motorcycle, we can’t seize that mobility device that is absolutely essential for that person that we are dealing with.” So as I say, spare a thought for those bailiffs and see that this is something that will certainly protect them.

Again, one of the previous speakers brought up the fact that there are bigger issues around where such a device or vehicle is put up as security in any way for a loan, perhaps even a loan to actually obtain that vehicle in the first place. There may well be issues that, I think, the select committee, as Dr Smith has pointed out, may well have to address to ensure that happens at the same time. However, it does—again, I go back to what I said before about a bill like this—give cognisance through the difficulty added to life as a disabled person.

There are those who have become disabled after a life where they were actually able to operate freely in society unencumbered. Those people probably get a better appreciation of how difficult it is than those who have never known any different. So it’s essential that we as a House, we as legislators, where we find these gaps—and again, I congratulate my colleague, who has clearly, through the situation exposed by Mr Tanginoa, now stepped up, seen that’s a situation that does need repair, that does need fixing. And you only have to hear the speeches here today—often, when a bill like this comes before the House, we sit back and think, “Well, how come nobody’s ever thought of this before?”

So going back to my first premise that assisting bailiffs and everyone involved in the whole of the seizure where we have distressed people—people financially distressed—and the timeliness of this bill also must be in mind, because, sadly, post-COVID, we are going into a different economic environment where there will be more financially distressed individuals who will have the inability to pay debts. The bailiffs will be busy—in fact, it will be a bit of a growth industry, I fear. So a piece of legislation like this that gives that protection to the bailiffs so they will know when they do go to a house and they do see a disability mobility vehicle out the front of the house—or that’s what they’ve been sent there to seize—they will be able to pick up this piece of legislation and say, “No, well, it’s quite simple, we can’t.” So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. It’s incredibly important that we provide extra protection and support for the most vulnerable people in our society: those with disabilities. I want to just acknowledge all those who have been advocating for that support and protection, both in this specific instance but also in other wider areas of our society.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to stand here in reply to this District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, which I call the “ ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa Bill”. I want to acknowledge all the members, my parliamentary colleagues, that contributed to this bill, especially the Hon Simon Bridges. I want to acknowledge that he did fly in at 10 past 8 that morning and confirmed with me that he will meet with me at 9 o’clock. Also, Mr Mark Mitchell did say to me that he supports it in principle, but needed to consult others. So I just wanted to correct that tiny little fact. But I want to acknowledge the Hon Simon Bridges’ comments about compassion in terms that it is a “good thought” bill, but he did talk about that the word “necessary” in terms of—it might be slightly wide, which I agree that the select committee can look.

I want to thank my colleague here, Louisa Wall. Her contribution was two words that really struck a chord. She spoke about that you cannot take a tradesperson’s tools that are vital for their livelihood; in comparison with a disabled person, it’s vital for their lives. So there’s a difference between livelihood and lives. So thank you, member Louisa Wall, for that contribution.

Chris Penk—I want to thank Chris Penk for acknowledging the good work that Community Law does and referencing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I just want to acknowledge him for that. The member Darroch Ball—thank you, Darroch. Thank you for your comments in terms of it being common sense, and just because something’s not written in black and white doesn’t mean that it’s not in there. I’d like to acknowledge him for seeking that the select committee look for experts and advisers in this area, and, of course, the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his comments about improving the rights of disabled persons and cautioning us in terms of unintentional consequences.

To my colleague Greg O’Connor—thank you, Greg O’Connor. Sometimes when we think about bailiffs, we forget that they are people delivering a vital service. So thank you, Greg O’Connor, for bringing that side of the argument into the kōrero today, and protection for bailiffs now that if this goes into law, they are protected from applying good judgment, where we’ve seen in this case—in the ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa case—we all agree that that did not fall into “good judgment”.

Just to round off, I want to acknowledge the work of the Community Law office, especially the work of Mr Soane Foliaki, who is based in Ōtara. Of course, they do now have a Community Law office in Papakura. I am honoured to be the member based in Papakura to bring the voices of the people to this House. Also, I want to encourage everyone out there who thinks that this was something that would not happen in New Zealand to exercise the tools afforded to the select committee. If submissions are sought, please, please put a submission in, because we would like to hear the thoughts of those who have gone through this experience or who do not wish for others to go through this experience.

In my opening speech, we’ve referred to the word “tetraplegic” or “quadriplegic”. It’s been reported that Mr Tanginoa was a quadriplegic. His lawyer refers to him as a tetraplegic, but in the end, it summarises our needing to learn more about the disabled community, and that when we’re speaking about a certain disability, we need to be informed of what it means for that person. I also want to acknowledge those who are champions in this area to please bring your voice when submissions are sought. Bring your voice to the select committee. It is much needed. This is the time for this to come to this House. Of course, to my colleague and my friend, fellow rugby coach, Mr Soane Foliaki, thank you for your assisting me in the journey of this bill in the House. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō ‘aupito.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.