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 third time.

It is an honour and a privilege to have been custodian to shepherd this bill in this House. This bill started with a conversation with Mr Soane Foliaki, a senior solicitor at the community law centre in South Auckland. In 2019, Mr Foliaki shared with me the experiences of a man with a disability who was a judgment debtor and that the court bailiff turned up to seize his mobility van and that it was put up for auction, and it was through Mr Foliaki taking the matter to court that his van was returned. A story about a disabled person from whom the District Court bailiff seized a mobility van to be sold at auction to pay for a debt had touched my heart. Without hesitation, I agreed to bring this matter to Parliament, to champion it, and to take it as far as I can to change the law.

Mr ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa has given his approval for his story to be shared. He had two wishes: one, that this would never happen to anyone again, and, two, an apology from the District Court. Mr Tanginoa at the time was in receipt of the invalids benefit and he could not afford a taxi, nor had he the means to attend his medical appointments. He ended up in ICU, in hospital, and he needed surgery.

I would like to thank the submitters whose views helped the committee with the enhancement of this bill. One of the submitters, the Disabled Persons Assembly NZ, said to me yesterday—and I quote: “We are pleased that the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill is having its third reading and will be passed into law. We strongly support the bill, and we are pleased to see the suggestions we made around the disability communication and assisted technology systems were added to the bill.” I would like to thank the chair, Ginny Andersen, and the Justice Committee for their collegiality and due diligence in the scrutiny of this bill. They have enhanced the bill.

At present, the principal Act requires good judgment to be exercised and the bailiff to act fairly and reasonably. The Act does not prohibit the bailiff from seizing property that enables independence of a disabled person, such as their mobility vehicle. Mr Tanginoa’s experience has proven that good judgment and acting fairly and reasonably has failed to protect a member of our disability community. Today, I am supported by all members of this House, and we will no longer leave it to good judgment. Instead, the bill will amend the District Court Act of 2016 to protect people with disabilities who owe money under a court order—a judgment debtor. It comes into force the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

In the committee of the whole House, the member Nicole McKee asked for clarification on clause 4, the amendment to section 167, and which I will now clarify because it is really important that I do that. It is about warrant to seize property. In the new section 167(2)(a)(iii): “if the judgment debtor is a disabled person or is a principal caregiver for a disabled person, any item that is necessary for the care, support, or independence of, or to promote the inclusion and participation in society of, the judgment debtor who is the disabled person or, as the case may be, the disabled person for whom the judgment debtor is the principal caregiver (for example, without limitation, any mobility device, specially adapted motor vehicle, or medical equipment);”. It also covers any item necessary for the care, support, or independence of a disabled person who is in the care of a judgment debtor. It is important to understand the example provided, that it is without limitation; it means that this example given does not limit it to these examples. Therefore, it also futureproofs any new technology that is yet to be invented.

The committee recommended amending the proposed definition of the “disabled person” to align with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This would allow for the wider disability community to be included in the group that the bill will provide protection for. The committee noted that the rights of persons with disabilities definition focuses on how an environment can be disabling for a person with impairments rather than framing it in terms of a disability alone. The definition is provided in new section 167(5): “ ‘disabled person’ includes 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”. I’m also pleased that in clause 5, amending section 168(2A), a motor vehicle to which section 167(2)(a)(iii) applies may not be immobilised under this bill.

In the spirit of working together, I am grateful to the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and our Labour caucus for approving this bill to go into the ballot.

I’d like to make special mention of the Hon Simon Bridges, who, without hesitation, at our first meeting, agreed to take this matter to his caucus. Thank you, Simon Bridges, for your leadership and for gaining the support of your National Party caucus for this bill. In 2019, New Zealand First’s support was dependent on whether or not National was in support, so, again, thank you, Simon Bridges.

Thank you to Jan Logie and the Green Party for their firm support of the bill, and I am grateful that the member has spoken at the first and second readings of this bill, and I have appreciated her contributions.

I am grateful for the ACT Party’s support of this bill. Thank you to Nicole McKee for asking me that question, which led to me today clarifying some parts of section 167. Also, kia ora koe, Te Paati Māori. Thank you for your tautoko. You have arrived here in Parliament and you too have lent your support to this.

Although they are no longer here, I just want to thank Darroch Ball and the New Zealand First Party, who also, in the end, after Mr Bridges’ support, said that they would support it too. It is an example of it being possible to work together in this House.

I have heard from Mike Potter, CEO of Disability Connect Auckland, and he said, “the loss of equipment and technology essential to the daily lives of disabled people and their families, no matter how brief, is debilitating, dehumanising, and, in some consequences, life-threatening. Recovery from the setback of not being able to access healthcare, support, or respite takes much longer for disabled people and can be a trigger for long-term dependency.” He continued to say that he is grateful for the protection that this legislation offers to vulnerable children and adults from being further disabled by the impact of financial difficulties. Hopefully, it will support communities to be better placed with wellbeing and belonging.

The journey of this bill has, as I said before, restored my faith that members of Parliament can put differences aside when we believe it is the right thing to do. This is an example of that. I have enjoyed my relationship and engagement with members of Parliament from conversations on this member’s bill.

Mr ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa had two wishes: that this would not happen to anyone else, and, secondly, he wanted an apology. I hope that the passing of this bill with agreement of all members across the House can suffice as an apology. Thank you, ‘Una for allowing your story to be shared. This is your bill. Mālō e Fakakoloa ‘o Aotearoa.

I did, on the second reading, conclude with the New Zealand Disability Strategy: “New Zealand is a non-disabling society—a place where disabled people have an equal opportunity to achieve their goals and aspirations, and all New Zealand works together to make this happen.” It has been an honour to add my voice to enable protection of people with disability in Aotearoa. Mālō ‘aupito. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, if National was minded to change its view on this bill, we couldn’t after all those nice words, could we. In seriousness, National will be supporting this bill, as we did at first reading, through select committee, and the committee of the whole House, and now the final hurdle—although not much of one—for this bill. I showered the member in charge of the bill with praise at the earlier reading. I even quoted Scripture. The only thing I think I didn’t do was dance a jig, so I’m not going to do—

💬 Ginny Andersen: Away you go.

Well—no. So I’m not going to go through all of that again.

It’s a well-intentioned bill and New Zealand is a compassionate society. We’re still a relatively prosperous society, noting, of course, there are disparities and inequalities, and I believe—and I’m sure many members do—that we judge a society, and one measure at least is on how it treats the least, and that certainly includes those with disabilities. As I say, we could see that from the member who’s just spoken, who was at times, and understandably so, emotional talking about the story of one of the people who is part of the genesis of this bill, if you like. So I say, again, it’s a well-intentioned bill that shows and reflects what a compassionate society New Zealand is.

Of course, the substance of the bill—it’s actually not lengthy. It’s not complicated. This bill has five clauses and what it does is, effectively, say that, look, in the case of collecting debts, bailiffs may not go after certain items that are around communication and the ability for a disabled person to live a fulfilling life. We can all obviously think of those pieces of equipment—a mobility scooter, a medical device, a Braille communication device, for example—which this bill will clearly cover.

There was discussion at select committee, though, as you, I suppose, in a sense always get—but certainly particularly with this bill—around the possibility for unintended consequences, or for side effects, if you like, from the medical prescription we were putting in place, if we can use that as a metaphor. There were issues that we were interested in somewhat—I wouldn’t say “hugely”, but somewhat concerned about. Would this mean—and we had submissions from the finance sector—that there would be less credit going to disabled people? That would be an unintended and indeed a very regrettable consequence if it were so through the provision or the making of this bill into law.

How would the bailiff know, actually? I know it may sound obvious at one level, but it isn’t necessarily in every instance. How would they know whether the person in question that they were going to was disabled, in fact? How would they know what they could and couldn’t seize? It’s not the case here that we’ve given a comprehensive list, a shopping list of things you’re not allowed to take. What we’ve instead done is been more—as we are in modern times in the law—values-driven here, but that does lead to some grey areas and some issues around these things.

So there were these disputes—or not disputes, but issues that were present with the bill. Where we got to, I think, in the end is that we worked—as the member said herself—collegially through those issues in the bill and, in some cases, we found workarounds. In some cases, perhaps they weren’t the issue that was a problem, or in the end, actually—I think really in relation to most of the ones that I have discussed—it was probably a case of, well, even with a few of these problems, possibly unintended consequences, overall this is a good bill. It will work at a level, and so it is worthwhile. It is good to pass it, and that’s the position that everyone on the committee and all of the parties, in fact, in Parliament—not even all of which were represented on that committee—have come to.

So it’s a small, not perfect, but well-intentioned and well-formed proposition. I don’t need to talk, really, any further. I mean no disservice to the bill or the member. It is a discrete one. It deals with the issues I’ve discussed, and National is happy to support it.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the third and final reading of the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. She has been a passionate and strong advocate for her community, and I think examples such as this bill really speak to the heart of what democracy is: it is a member of Parliament being able to represent his or her community and to identify gaps in the law that cause everyday people difficulties or problems or obstacles that they cannot counter without a law change.

So to have people like ourselves, no matter what side of the House they sit on, to be able to be in our communities, working alongside people, to identify opportunities such as this one is exactly what we are here for. So I would like to acknowledge Anahila—her emotion today is apparent for the fact that a small change can also mean a huge amount. It confirms to people at home, in everyday life, that you do matter, and if there are things that prevent people from having inclusion and full enjoyment in society, they are the sorts of issues that this House is here to remedy.

So what the bill does is it makes a small but necessary change in order to provide that inclusion that we need to enable. We really heard at select committee many submissions that confirmed what the initial thoughts were—that there needed to be an express prohibiting of seizure of goods from a judgment debtor if there was someone with a disability who relied upon that item for inclusion, and who relied on that to be able to engage in the community and live their life.

So what was interesting is that while it was a small legal change, one of the points that I would like to pick up on is that we actually heard from the front line of bailiffs who have that role of knocking on somebody’s door and having a court order which they are required to enforce. When you are a bailiff, you are operating under operational guidelines, and sometimes it’s at the discretion of the bailiff to determine whether it would be appropriate or not to uplift a certain given item. It is always a discretionary call at the time; it is difficult to understand.

So one of the reassuring things for me through this bill is that we heard from bailiffs that as a result of Anahila’s bill, there would be a rewriting and a review of those operational guidelines.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will use the member’s full name.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki—apologies, Madam Speaker. We heard the requirement in this bill that there would be a review of those operational policies to make sure that those front-line people who are undertaking the work of uplifting goods would be paying full attention to the requirements.

So, essentially, what this bill has done, what this member’s bill has achieved, is really codifying and reinforcing certain rights that we knew were there, that we know exist, whether they be human rights or other undertakings through disability conventions that exist. It codifies those areas to really make sure that we are providing people with those rights, but also, on the front line, making sure that when the law is being enforced, all of those parts are being taken into account.

Existing operational practice in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act already provides some of those protections, but what this this bill does is it essentially codifies the protection of disabled judgment debtors into the District Court Act. It will ensure that bailiffs respect the rights and needs of disabled New Zealanders, and that is an important thing to be able to do.

I’d like to also reflect upon how this bill contributes to a body of work that’s been taken over the years to continue to push for greater inclusion and for greater accessibility for those in the disability community. I would like to particularly pay tribute to the Hon Ruth Dyson, who was a champion for many years in this space, and to acknowledge her recent acknowledgments in the Queen’s Honours List. Ruth was one of the people who has championed pieces of legislation such as this in the past.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will use the member’s full name.

Hon Ruth Dyson—sorry, did I say “Ruth”? Ruth Dyson—apologies, Madam Speaker. So I think it’s important to take this bill as not standing on its own, but it contributes to a body of work.

A similar member’s bill under the name of Chlöe Swarbrick, formerly Mojo Mathers’ bill, enabled greater inclusion in terms of standing as a candidate in the general election, to be able to enable full inclusion and accessibility to the disability community in those aspects. I’d also like to acknowledge that work has been undertaken through having a disability strategy in New Zealand and being able to make sure that we continue to push for greater inclusion in those areas.

In the select committee process, we heard some excellent submissions from a range of people. We heard from Age Concern New Zealand, Auckland Disability Law, and we had the Disabled Persons Assembly. The Human Rights Commission gave an incredibly helpful submission in terms of enabling the committee to consider what was to be done next. Based on these submissions, and the consideration that the committee gave it, we unanimously recommended several changes to the bill in order to make sure that its objectives were successfully achieved, and I think that it was good to do that, with the full agreement of the whole committee.

There were no arguments in terms of what was right or wrong. There was always a strong sense that this needed to be done, and the committee worked collectively to enable that to happen in the best way possible.

As I already mentioned, the submissions from Age Concern looked particularly at this issue—Auckland Disability Law also argued the same—where we could have a scenario where something essential for the care of a disabled person was uplifted by a bailiff because the caregiver was owning that debt. So that was an important extension that was agreed by all members—that if there was a caregiver to a person with a disability, it would also apply in that context, because uplifting it from the caregiver would also have an impact upon the inclusion of the person with a disability within the wider community. So it was important to extend it to that further level.

In terms of where the next steps are in terms of this bill, I think it’s important to note that this House has a strong record of always working collectively on issues that affect the disability sector—making sure that when we see issues such as the one that the member in charge of the bill has identified we are able to pick up on these issues, engage with them, and make our law fit for purpose to enable full inclusion in New Zealand society and community. I think that the more that we are able to do this, and work collectively, the stronger our community will be. I know that those people who submitted on behalf of the community impacted and affected, and who have to work and continue to be a part of our community with a disability, acknowledge when legislation is specifically passed to promote inclusion, and I’m proud to see that we have a bill that continues to do that.

I would like to conclude today by acknowledging that this is not kindness. This is not in any way a do-good thing in general; it’s the right thing to do. We know if there is an ability for someone to be prevented from being included, we need to amend that law, and that is exactly what this bill does. It is not a major legislative change, indeed, but it will make life a lot easier so people can live and be assured that items that they rely upon for inclusion cannot be uplifted by a bailiff and that they cannot be prevented from being included in New Zealand society. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, third reading. May I start by congratulating the member in charge of the bill, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki.

💬 Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Oh, mālō, Simeon Brown.

Thank you. But congratulations. It is impressive that you have brought this bill all the way to its third reading, and I think that deserves acknowledgment for the way that you have brought it to the House, brought a very important issue to the House, taken it through the select committee, engaged all the parties of this Parliament, and are now bringing it to a third reading and bringing it into law. And that is something that I think is very important. I think it recognises the importance of the member’s bill process in bringing issues which are important to New Zealanders and which make a real difference in their lives. This piece of legislation is important because it does make a meaningful change to protect some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders, and that is something which I think the member should be commended for doing.

This bill will protect disabled New Zealanders by prohibiting the seizure of goods of a judgment debtor with a disability where the item proposed to be seized is required for the judgment debtor’s care, support, or independence. This is critical to ensure that those New Zealanders who do have items which they rely on for their independence, their care, cannot have those items seized by a judgment, by a debt collector, in these instances. The previous legislation—or the current legislation, which will soon be changed—gives bailiffs the opportunity to exercise their own discretion and requires them to act fairly and reasonably. And, whilst that is something which, I think, is helpful, having it specifically laid out in legislation that they must not take certain items, I think, makes the law much clearer. And this piece of legislation goes a long way to improving that situation.

This bill also ensures that if the item is held by somebody else for the assistance of that person, that person cannot have that item taken off them if that is going to stop the other person from being able to be included in society. And, again, that is important, because we must ensure that these people are able to continue to contribute, to partake in society, without those items being part of what can be taken by a bailiff.

This legislation also includes the definition of disability that aligns with the Human Rights Act and also inserts a definition of “mobility device” that aligns with the Land Transport Act. So I do just want to say that this piece of legislation has gone through the select committee, and we’ve heard the submissions of submitters. Whilst we have raised some concerns—my colleague Simon Bridges has raised a number of questions—the new code, hopefully, will be able to address some of these issues. But, most importantly, this sends a very clear message to our disabled community that we will be standing alongside them and making sure that the legislation protects them from being penalised in these instances, and I think that is a very worthy and important goal, and I commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tuatahi māku, e tuku mihi ana ahau ki te mema nāna i mau mai tēnei pire ki roto i te Whare Pāremata. Nō reira e taku hoa, e Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koe e te tuahine, e te tuakana, i mau mai tēnei pire ki roto i te Whare Pāremata, hei tirohanga, hei whakaarotanga mā tātou katoa. Tēnei te mihi ki a koe me tō kaha, ki te mau mai i tēnei kaupapa, ki te kōrero ki tērā atu taha o te Whare, kia whiwhi tautoko mō tēnei pire. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe e hoa. Ka huri ahau ki te pire ināianei

[Madam Speaker, greetings to you. Firstly, I give acknowledgment to the member who brought this bill into Parliament. Therefore, my friend, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, I congratulate you, my sister, for bringing this bill into Parliament, for us all to examine and to think about. This is an acknowledgment of you and your strength, to bring this initiative here, to speak to the other side of the House, to gain support for this bill. I strongly acknowledge you my friend. I turn now to the bill.]

I did want to start my contribution by acknowledging my friend, my colleague, my tuakana for bringing an issue which—and I said this in earlier contributions. You know, as members of Parliament, we’re here to represent our communities, and it really is wonderful when you can bring an issue from the grassroots, in your community, here to the House of Representatives, to Parliament, and actually effect some change. Sometimes it feels like that process can take a really long time. Sometimes we are not able to achieve that. But I hope today—and I don’t want to jinx it—that we are going to be able to do that alongside of you.

I have listened to the contributions so far, and it’s quite early on in the debate, and I am just aware that for those that are listening in the gallery, maybe tuning into Parliament TV—and I’m always surprised when I meet somebody and they say “Oh! We’ve seen you. We watch the parliamentary debates.” So I thought I might, for their benefit, give them a little bit of background to, yes, what is quite a small bill with some quite simple changes. But those that might have been watching from the beginning may have seen the emotion in the member, because this is actually about real people and real people’s lives.

So I referred to the earlier contribution that this issue arose because a lawyer who was acting for a person with disabilities, Mr Sione Foliaki, came forward to the member with this issue and brought it to her attention. It was a very sad case. I think it highlights the importance of why we have used this House’s time, why the member put it in as a member’s bill, to address this issue. And I hope, as was the wish of the person who experienced this, that it now means that it will not happen to another person.

So that is talking about Mr Tanginoa. He was the person whose case, in 2016, came to the attention of us through the media. In his case, he had accrued rent debt to the amount of $5,117, unknown to him. The landlord had taken the debt to court to get recompensed for it and an order was given. Then what happened was that in his case his modified mobility vehicle was seized. First it was clamped and then it was seized. And what happened also in this situation was that his health deteriorated. And as we heard in the first contribution, he didn’t have the financial means to be able to get himself to the appointment with the medical specialist, and, in his case, he ended up in intensive care and his health was in a very precarious situation. And, really, it was just fortunate that he survived that ordeal.

So we are making changes to the law, which in this person’s situation was life or death. In other cases, it’s quality of life, and I think that that too is important when we talk about the members of our disability community. I do want to acknowledge that the Minister for Disability Issues has just arrived in the House too this afternoon, so e te Minita Carmel Sepuloni, tēnā koe.

So what then does this bill do? Other speakers prior to me have spoken about that already, but I’ll just give a brief summary and just a little bit more background and context. I think the reason that we ended up in that situation—and I’ll talk about bailiffs as well—is that for the bailiffs the law is not entirely clear. It is too vague currently. But with this bill going through, it will be clarified. It required judgment and discretion, and I think we have seen through this case that people can get that wrong and that it can have serious consequences. So when it is of such an important nature, I don’t think that we should leave it to judgment and discretion, and if we can provide that clarification and do that by amending the legislation, then that’s what we should in fact do, and that’s what we are here doing today.

So I wanted to acknowledge the bailiffs, and particularly the one in this case. They are just out there earning a living to provide for their families. They are doing what they have been directed to do by the courts. I don’t believe they go out there with malicious intent to make somebody’s life as difficult or as miserable as possible. That’s not what they get up to do when they go out to do their mahi every day. They are simply following a process. So what we have here today is the opportunity to provide more certainty, more clarity, for them so that they are not put in that really difficult position of having to exercise judgment and discretion.

So we are doing that by amending the District Court Act 2016 to protect disabled people who are judgment debtors, people who owe money under a court order, and it does so by expressly prohibiting 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, or to promote their inclusion and participation in society. I do want to acknowledge the Hon Simon Bridges, who talked earlier about how he believes, and I agree with him, that we have a compassionate society. We are a compassionate society here in Aotearoa, and we approach this with kindness, but it’s also the right thing to do.

I was a member of the Justice Committee. I often subbed off the committee so that the member responsible for this bill could sit in and be part of that process. I didn’t hear all of the evidence, but I did hear enough of it to know—and was part of writing up the final report—that there were 21 submissions, the majority of which—18—were in support, and that there were eight submitters who presented orally. I thank all of those who took the time to be part of this process, and I really want to highlight the fact that by being part of a select committee process, putting in submissions, you can influence the ultimate decision that we make and the final piece of work that we bring back because, actually, in this case it was through submissions that we, as the committee and the member who accepted the recommendations, were convinced that we actually needed to broaden those captured by this piece of legislation. So it wasn’t originally intended to cover this group of people, but through the strength of the submissions and the select committee process, the select committee was unanimous and they saw merit in broadening those captured by this Act to include caregivers of those with disabilities.

So I’m really grateful to those submitters who are on the ground and work with this community and understand the issues through the strength of their advocacy, for being part of the select committee process. Our select committee was able to take on board that feedback in terms of the draft bill, and to get unanimous support around the table and include that into our final report. And that has been included here now in the final draft of this bill.

So, really, I just wanted to take this final 30 seconds to once again thank Mr Tanginoa and Mr Foliaki for bringing this issue to their local MP in the hope that she could come to Parliament and change things. She had the benefit of it being drawn from that biscuit tin—some get more luck than others, in that case. It has been through the full process of Parliament, and today we are here at the third reading celebrating, hopefully very shortly, its passing, and, as the person who experienced this, his wish shall be granted; it won’t happen to somebody else ever again. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start by thanking the member in whose name this bill has come to the House, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki—I hope I got that right; I practised.

💬 Hon Member: Yes, you did.

Kia ora. I want to also stand here in this House and say what we don’t often enough say, which is disabilities rights are human rights. This bill is about rights. Others have said it, but I think it bears repeating: that this isn’t about charity or compassion—although there is a lot of compassion contained in the work that went into this bill—but these provisions and the changes that this will bring, and the changes that this bill will, in practical terms, bring to people’s lives who are impacted by it, are in fact upholding fundamental human rights for our disabilities community.

I will restate what the bill does, for those watching, which is that it prohibits the seizure of equipment or anything that anyone who suffers from a disability has that may be subject to a judgment debtors provision of the District Court Act, if that is something that’s needed by that person for their care, independence, participation in the community, or the support that they need in the healthcare system. That is to say that it’s about upholding our fundamental rights. I say “our” because I think that I speak on this bill as someone who has a very real chance of being impacted by it later in life, because I do suffer from multiple sclerosis (MS), and that’s a chronic illness that may, in future, mean that I need to access a wheelchair, a mobility support item, and other types of equipment or expensive measures that may otherwise have come under the legislation. When you’re diagnosed with MS now, because the treatments have gone so far in the past decade or so—and I’m incredibly grateful for that—you do get told repeatedly, at every stage of that diagnosis process and once you start on the treatment, “Don’t worry, this is a different kind of illness. We have different treatment for it now; you probably won’t end up in a wheelchair.” What I wish we said was that it’s OK, even if you do, because we’ll do everything we can as a society to make sure that you are, in fact, included, that your independence isn’t affected, that your health will be taken care of, and you will be who you are still.

This bill represents one of the very specific measures that we do need to take as a House of Representatives to acknowledge that our laws and our institutions have thus far marginalised those who suffer disability or live with chronic illness in a number of ways, that we have discarded their needs, that we have catered to the needs of the status quo, and that we have been ableist in the ways that we have applied—even in our justice system, even in this very specific way—our law. So I do thank the member for bringing that to the House’s attention, and I want to say that it’s also an acknowledgment that we, none of us, whether we suffer from chronic illness or disability, want to live in a society where our fundamental rights can be taken away, where our basic needs can be discarded, where we might not have access to life as we know it, whether it’s visiting friends or whether it’s literally accessing a hospital, because we couldn’t afford the next payment on a debt. We none of us want to live in a society where the courts can be weaponised against us to protect the profits of those whom debtors owe rather than those who need basic equipment for their daily life and their basic healthcare.

So this is a systems change moment, even though it is a very particular, very specific change. It’s about disabilities rights. It’s also about acknowledging, I guess, that we keep calling the disabled community the most vulnerable members of our community, and I agree—we are vulnerable. But we’ve been made vulnerable, and I want us to change that language. We need to call it what it is. We’re talking about a community that has been systematically and systemically marginalised, as others have been. Because my disabilities community is anything but passively vulnerable. They are active lobbyists, they are activists, they speak their truth as loudly as anyone ever can. It is just that they’ve not been heard, for so long, on access.

What I love about this is that, although this bill is—as we keep saying—very specific, it does something else that I think brings the voices of the disabilities community into this House as much as the substantive change that the bill introduces to the District Court Act, and that is that the change and expansion of the definition of disability goes further than the Human Rights Act. That came about as part of the work of the select committee. I really want to acknowledge the members of that committee for hearing the voices of that incredibly diverse community. There’s not just one kind of disability, one kind of person who suffers from disability, and anyone who does suffer from a disability doesn’t always suffer from just one type of disability. These are layered issues, and this definition, which I will read out, is now expanded to include people who have, “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”. This is a watershed moment in New Zealand’s law, because it is, for the first time, at least a step towards recognising the modern experiences of this very diverse community. Everyone across Aotearoa will know someone who’s impacted by this type of long-term—we can call it impairment or marginalisation. Because, actually, once we recognise that it’s our participation on an equal basis with others that’s hindered, and that that can be done through long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment, that’s when we start to look at all of our laws—our education system, our housing, our roads, our system of justice—in multiple other ways beyond this bill. So it is a good day in this House, and I do commend the bill.

The next call is a five-minute call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased, actually, to be standing here and contributing to the summation of what’s been a journey for this bill, the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, on its way through Parliament.

Can I note the collaboration that’s been involved, because this stuff doesn’t happen by itself. There is a select committee process that needs to happen, there are officials that need to be appointed, and I know for a fact that we have our officials out the back, and they are a mixture of people from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice, and they have worked diligently on making sure that this is the best piece of legislation that we can be putting through. It’s not part of the work programme of the Government, but this is what members’ bills are all about. Members’ bills are about opportunities for us, as non-executive members, to be able to bring something forward and put it on the agenda, albeit via a lucky dip ballot box. But that’s the process that we have, and that’s what’s happened right here: the collaboration from the officials but also from all of those members of the Justice Committee, who took the bill, saw the bill, considered the bill, listened to all of the submitters that came forward that were relevant to this debate, and came to a consensus, together, without too much compromise, about trying to sort out an issue that had come before my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. That kind of harmony where everybody agrees on a committee is rare in this place, so it needs to be acknowledged when it actually does happen. And it’s happened on this particular take.

Can I acknowledge the disabled community out there across Aotearoa who were part of this consideration as well. You don’t know about being disabled until you are landed in a wheelchair or you have something that affects your own abilities. I remember, actually—the Minister for Disability Issues is here in the House—the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, when she did a bit of an experience and she stepped into the shoes of our disabled community not long ago, a couple of years ago, and put herself into a wheelchair and got herself around our Parliament and realised just how inaccessible our Parliament is to those people that are in wheelchairs. You’re presented, as you walk into Parliament, between the foyer and heading up to select committee rooms, with the stairs there. You have to go the long way, and this is what disabled people have to do and have to build into their lives. They go the long way; they make those concessions because it’s what they have do. So can I acknowledge the disabled community who have been part of this conversation. Their motto, which is “Nothing about us without us”, continues to ring in my mind, and I’ve heard this adopted by Māori communities, by rainbow communities, by any kind of minority group that looks to get a say in the policies that affect them. And that’s what happened on this particular occasion.

When I tell the whānau back home what this bill is about, I say that it’s about doing what we can to protect our disabled whānau and their caregivers when the debt collectors come knocking. That’s what I say, and they get it really simply, because that’s, essentially, what it is. Anything that we can put in place to be able to protect our disabled whānau and their caregivers has to be acknowledged, and that’s what we’re doing here today. Previous speakers before me have gone through the nuts and bolts of this bill, and I want to thank them for that; so I’m not going to delve into that kind of detail.

It’s safe to say I just want to finish by acknowledging the hard work that’s gone on from my colleague to the right of me over here. Anahila is a hard-working Labour—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

TĀMATI COFFEY: Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki is a hard-working Labour Party MP. She is a worker for the labour movement and has been all of her life. And can I note this as well before I sit down: last night, I left this building at 11.30 p.m., after having done my readings, after having got through a bunch of emails, after doing the kind of stuff that we all normally do in this House. At 11.30, as I walked out the door, I saw, peeped, into my neighbour’s office and she was still there in her office preparing for today. Today is a very big day. It’s a very special day for her. This is the third reading of her member’s bill, and I want to congratulate her for bringing it to the House, for ushering it through the select committee process, and for bringing us all together today for the benefit of a constituent that came forward and asked for his rights to be looked after and represented. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, and can I acknowledge Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki and just begin where the previous speaker, Tāmati Coffey, finished, and that is to really congratulate my colleague on a fantastic piece of work here. I came into this House not knowing Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki and quickly learnt that she was one of the MPs who really knew the people of where she was from really, really well. She made no doubt that she was a person of the people and that she understood not only where she was from but where the communities that she lived, worked, and played in were from. So it comes as absolutely no surprise that a bill like this has come to the attention of the House.

I was excited when this was drawn from the ballot box, and I remember then saying, “What is your bill about?” And when she talked about Mr Tanginoa and went further on to say, “Look, this is the situation that has inspired me”—and the one thing I love about Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki is her desire to always fight for those who are most in need.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What’s another thing you love about her?

You’re about to find out more. But I do want to say this: the thing that does underpin her value system is her strong Methodist roots, and I know that that is something—look, if you need to know where Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki is on a Sunday, it will be at the Onehunga Tongan Methodist church. I believe that that is what underpins her desire to get Mr Tanginoa’s issue resolved, and she explained it here in the House, the third reading, with some emotion. You don’t often see that with our friend—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Ha, ha! There you go, Simon Bridges—that’s another thing I love about Anahila: she can show emotion when it counts, and she did today. But in all seriousness, this is a serious issue, and Mr Tanginoa, as we heard with her speech, said he does not wish this experience on anyone else. Secondly, he wanted an apology. Those are the things that underpin someone who is decent and acts with dignity, and that’s the Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki I know. I know that she’s accessible, she’s approachable, and she’s visible, Mr Bridges—three more things that make this bill one of the bills that I know mean so much. When you look at it on the surface, it looks so easy to do—and so it should be, because sometimes the people who are most vulnerable in our society don’t want much, but it makes such a difference to get that little bit more. Mr Tanginoa, I know, on behalf of many of those who are vulnerable, those who are disabled, those who don’t have much, will be really appreciative of what this bill encases.

The detail has been covered. There are many people to thank. I’ve most enjoyed the other parties from across the floor who have come not only with concerns but, obviously, with support, and that makes, I think, a really good bill. I want to finish, because today I’m wearing this wee badge, and I think the Auckland Tree Council gave one out to many MPs. I don’t know what this tree is, but in my mind this is the kahikatea. It’s the tallest of all of our native trees in Aotearoa New Zealand, and that’s what I think of Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. She is probably not the tallest, but I think she is this evening—

💬 Hon Member: She is with that hair.

Sorry, with the hair counted, therefore she is. So there we are, Mr Speaker—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Oh, sorry, Mr Speaker. I do want to finish with a quote that I think sums up this very well. “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long”—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak today in support of the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill and I’d also like to commend the member in charge of this bill, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki—well done. I’m going to take a little bit of a different approach and I hope that you bear with me while I explain a few things about the court processes and then move on to how it’s affected, or going to affect, this particular bill. So please bear with me while I just take a bit of a different stand on this—or stance, I should say.

I am part of the Justice Committee and we went through a process where we are now at the third reading where we’re going to make some legislative changes so that certain items cannot be seized under warrant if they are necessary for the judgment debtor’s care, support, or independence of that person or the person that they rely upon. We extended some of those provisions to take into account the item necessary for a person with a disability in the care of that judgment debtor. Then we aligned the definition of “disability” with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So we got three things going on here, which are really minor but quite important.

Now, where I’m going to just defer a little bit is explaining to those people at home what this actually means for them in real time. So when you get to a point where you’re actually taken to court or a disputes tribunal for an unpaid debt, it has to meet certain thresholds. So for a threshold of $30,000 or less it goes to the disputes tribunal. If it’s up to $350,000 it goes to the District Court, and anything over $350,000 can go to the High Court. So what we have is all these different jurisdictions that are looking at debts and, quite often, for the person who is in debt, that in itself becomes quite harrowing for them because they don’t understand what’s going on.

At this stage I’d like do a shout-out to the community law centres out there because they give wonderful advice to people who are struggling to navigate their way through this system. And they also have an online facility that helps people to understand the processes and what they need to do. People often get confused in those processes, and the community law centre outlines and gives assistance on processes, procedures, how to fill in a claim, how to write a statement of defence to that claim if you’re the one that’s being claimed against.

There’s also quite a lot of different ways of enforcing a judgment debt and how to recover it. So first of all, there’s financial assessment hearings that allow a person to be able to come in and say, “Well, I can’t actually afford to pay off this debt. Let’s try and figure out how to work our way through it.” There’s attachment orders. So if you’re employed, the judge can order attachment to your wages so that money’s taken that way. There’s charging orders which can stop the sale of land and property, should that be the case until a debt is paid. And then if you cannot pay that debt, you also could be given community work, be ordered up to 200 hours if the court sees fit. And then there is the warrant to seize property. The warrant to seize property is where the warrant entitles a person to come on to your property to seize property. And this is where we are making a change, because, currently, we cannot seize items that are necessary for the tools of trade, necessary household furniture, and for effects like your fridge and your freezer, as an example—even your clothing cannot be seized—and the goods that are seized under the warrant to seize property can be sold to help pay off your debt.

The reason why I’ve gone into this detail is because I think it’s really important that we differentiate between a warrant to seize property and repossession. The warrant to seize property is what gives the bailiff the ability to come on to the property to seize but repossession is something different in itself. Repossession happens when there’s hire purchase goods or goods listed as security under a loan contract, and if a person defaults on that loan contract and payment of it, then those goods could actually end up being repossessed. The lender can take those goods because they don’t belong to the creditor. And it can also happen to the guarantors. I’ll give you an example. If a car has been smashed up—and this is about a vehicle, a mobility vehicle, that was taken away—in an accident but it’s subject to a credit contract and it’s written off, then that can be repossessed. However, if the car is not subject to that loan, then it can’t be. So the guarantors can be implicated in this way as well but the guarantors—for those people out there—can’t take your stoves and your fridges and your clothing either.

But repossession can only happen when there’s a credit contract that explicitly allows this to occur. Now, it is important that the creditors and the financial institutions are made aware of these changes that we’re about to introduce and that they fully understand the difference between the warrant to seize and the repossession because we’re, effectively, making a law that if a warrant to seize goods is given, then it is the intention of this Parliament that items that can be shown to be needed for the—and I quote from the legislation—“essential care, support, or independence of or to promote the inclusion of participation in society of a person with a disability” cannot be seized. But where there is a credit contract that has been signed, then those goods can still be repossessed. So we have not made any provisions to change that particular aspect of the legislation.

I’m very pleased to have clarity from Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki on the blind and hearing impediments that we spoke of earlier. During the committee of the whole House, I had queried whether or not those people with those disabilities could have essential items seized and we weren’t sure at that stage, but you’ve clarified that for all of those people today. That comes about from the change that I mentioned earlier that was made to “disability” because it actually now includes those with sensory disabilities as well. I am sure that those with the hearing and blind impediments will feel some relief that certain equipment that they need—like their cell phones to be able to blind read and hear and have directions on—will be safe under this bill as long as there is no credit contract signed to purchase it. We’ve upgraded that definition of “disability” so that it aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

So to summarise, those seeking loans, those that are guaranteeing loans, those that are lending—we have to make a slight change to what can be seized under a warrant to seize property. If an item is required for the care, the support, or the independence of the debtor or the disabled person the debtor directly cares for, or promotes their inclusion and participation in society, then that essential item cannot be seized under that warrant. Therefore, a disabled person or a caregiver of a disabled person should know the difference between their obligations when signing a credit contract and the obligations when taking a loan without a contract.

ACT are pleased to support a change in legislation that defines “disability” to make it more inclusive of a wider range of disabilities, to make change that supports those people with disabilities in a time of need for them, and to clearly differentiate between what can be seized and when it can be seized. Clearly, we ask those that are in debt, that are struggling, to get in touch with people who can help you. You don’t have to be alone and the community groups like the community law centres are there to help you. In that regard, again, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki—well done, congratulations, and we are proud to support your bill.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, I think I’ve just been accused of a breach of privilege, but—Joseph Mooney.

I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in support of the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, and I will take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the member Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki on bringing this bill to the House. It is a relatively short bill in that the main amendment to it comprises eight lines, and then there’s a definition of four lines in terms of defining what a disabled person is. But it’s an indication that a short amendment to the law can make a big difference.

I don’t intend to spend too long speaking on this, but I’ll just say that this is an example of a piece of law that endeavours to achieve the right balance between competing interests. The interest here is the access of disabled people to credit—to lending—so they can purchase items, between the recovery of that debt. And the right balance, I believe, has been struck here, in that the debtor—i.e., a disabled person or a principal caregiver for a disabled person who is a judgment debtor—is protected from the recovery of items that are necessary for the care, support, or independence of that disabled person or principal caregiver for a disabled person and/or to promote the inclusion and participation in society of the judgment debtor who is a disabled person. It is an acknowledgment of the unique challenges faced by disabled people in our society. I certainly have had extended family members who have spent much of their life in a wheelchair. I’ve had enough accidents to spend time on crutches and know how tough it is to get around when you do have a disability—a physical disability, let alone a disability with sight or mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments which are also acknowledged in this bill in the definition of a disabled person.

This is a measure, fundamentally, to protect disabled people from the seizure of items which are necessary for their care or to support their independence. I note one particular item that is protected: adapted motor vehicles, which are critical for the independence of many disabled people in our country. Across much of our country, there is limited public transport, and it is vital to have access to an adapted motor vehicle to be able to get to appointments, to get to supermarkets to buy food, to stay connected with whānau and family. So that is an important particular point that has been noted in this bill in the short eight words that have been used, but it is of significant importance.

Fundamentally, as I’ve said, this is a short bill, but one that will make a big difference to people. I would also just note the recommendation that lenders and industry bodies be informed about the provisions of this bill and what the rights and responsibilities of creditors and debtors are so that there is good understanding across New Zealand’s communities, and the understanding that Parliament has sought to strike the right balance between access to credit and also the recovery of items being excluded, those which are necessary for the independence of disabled persons or the principal caregivers for disabled persons. So with that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand here today and, first and foremost, to acknowledge my colleague and friend Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. Mālō ‘aupito. Mālō ‘aupito for the work that you have done to bring this bill, the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, to the House. This bill spanned across the 52nd and the 53rd Parliaments and, as a consequence, it’s been a long time coming—for something that is relatively simple, but something that is incredibly meaningful. So I do want to acknowledge you, and I also want to acknowledge the emotion that you brought to this House today. It made us all feel so very, very proud of you and proud of this issue being brought to the House. So thank you, my friend.

I’d also like to make a quick acknowledgment to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) and the officials that supported and assisted this bill. As we all know here, a member’s bill is a slightly different process, and so the support and help that the PCO and officials gave was something that I think is really important to note. I’d also like to note, for the thousands of people out there listening tonight, that there is one in four people affected, or 24 percent, or 1.1 million people, with a disability in this country, and 14 percent of those people have a physical impairment that limits them in their day-to-day or everyday activities. So, while this is a small piece of legislation, it can have quite a huge impact across the disability community. I want to acknowledge as well each and every one of us here. We know people, and have friends and family, that are affected or could be affected by this legislation, and so, my friend, I thank you for that.

This bill protects disabled people from having their goods which are necessary for their care, support, or independence seized. I cannot imagine what it would have been like for your constituent when he lost his mobility vehicle because he was unable to pay his debts. I cannot imagine what that sense of helplessness and hopelessness must have been at that time, and in fact, we know that your constituent ended up in hospital, in ICU, because he was no longer mobile and able to get to his doctors appointments. That’s the kind of thing that we as a country should not allow to happen, and that’s why I am delighted that there has been this change, to ensure that that doesn’t happen.

I’m also really pleased, and I am going to take the opportunity to read out the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities definition that is now here in this bill, and I think it is really important to read this again so that people are aware of the broadening of the definition: “Disabled person includes a person who has long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments that, in interactions with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”. The extension of that definition, therefore, doesn’t just talk about people with a physical impairment; it talks about the broadening and the wider, and so that is why it’s important to have that equipment recorded in this bill. It means that someone who is using a cell phone—or, in my nana’s circumstances, she was legally blind; she had a system where she would have talking books played. The loss of her talking books would have been tremendously negative on her as a woman trying to enjoy her life, as we all hope we should be able to do.

Look, I’ve come now to the end of my short five minutes. I would just like to commend this bill to the House and thank the member.

First of all, my acknowledgment to Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe tuahine mō tō mahi, mō tō manawa, tēnā koe.

[I strongly congratulate you, sister, for your work, for your dedication. I acknowledge you.]

I’ve acknowledged the member for the work that she has put into this, which comes from her heart. It was quite profound for me to sit and listen to the members in this House, because I wasn’t present on the Justice Committee when this came before it for the decision to support the bill, with a few significant amendments. The profound element, may I share, is that, as members of Parliament, we’re here to represent the communities that we come from and the investment that they have in us to do so. So the member has well invested in this bill for the constituent that you have represented so steadfastly.

Reflecting on the purpose as to why we are here for a third reading, I’m always mindful of the members of the public who are listening in. As members of Parliament, we listen to each other time and time again, but for those who may be tuning in for this third reading, it’s a summing-up debate on the bill in its final form, and the vote at the end of the debate is the final vote in the House to either pass the bill or reject it. The kōrero this evening, this afternoon is clearly well in support of this bill, and so as it passes through its third reading, it will then go on for receiving the Royal assent for it to come and be enacted into law. Mr Speaker, in addressing you, I’m also mindful of addressing and extending the courtesy to the member Miss Kanongata’a-Suisuiki because this is the member’s bill, as I say, that’s been invested in from the heart.

Having returned to Parliament—and I am the last speaker for the National Party on the list and have returned as the latest on the list for the National Party—I won’t take the full 10 minutes of this, but listening to the kōrero this afternoon, my ear has tuned in and my lens also as a lawyer has tuned in to the definition of a “disabled person”. There have been a number of members in the House, both former lawyers—we still think and we still speak and we still look at the letter of the law through our legal lens—but also non-lawyers, laypeople. That’s the representative nature of this House and what we have to contribute there. So I was particularly interested in the definition of “disabled person”, because when I looked at the bill initially and then I turned to the District Court Act 2016, there was no clear definition around that. And then the Justice Committee’s report to the House obviously extended considerable time to that by making a comparison with a definition under the Human Rights Act.

I refer—and it’s been mentioned in the debate today—to section 21(1)(h) of the Human Rights Act. It there talks about the prohibited elements of prejudice and discrimination. In that, though, it outlines, from one to, I think, six points there, the detail of that. The full extent of that definition has not been captured in this bill, but what I’m leading on to is that the recommendation for the amendment by the select committee to the definition of “disabled person” was so that it aligns with the Human Rights Act, but also aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So the definition under the Human Rights Act is way more expansive in scope than what is encompassed under this amendment to the District Court Act. But in saying that, it captures the intent of ensuring that those “disabled persons” align with those captured under the United Nations convention. It’s beyond more than someone who is just physically disabled. It looks at the impairment or the loss or the abnormality of the anatomical functioning, which is the disability, but it also captures, under the United Nations convention—which I would consider this amendment does as well, because it’s aligned to that—psychological disability or impairment and intellectual disability or impairment.

Now, I’m bringing this back to the days before many of us here in this House, when the Hon Dame Tariana Turia was the Minister for Disability Issues, and it was recommended that the first representative we had from Aotearoa New Zealand for our disabled community was a man called Robert Martin, now Sir Robert Martin, who had been recognised for the contributions that he had made in this space of disabled persons’ rights on a global scale at the United Nations.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to bring the member back to the bill now.

Yes, yes, Mr Speaker. What my point is, is that the disabled rights element that’s been built into this law and the amendment is cognisant on a global scheme. That is just saying that we are up there in the world in recognising the importance and the place of our disabled persons within the community, and the importance, of course, in their role, should they be before the court and required as the judgment debtor to pay the bill, in the capacity not only as the disabled person but if they happen to be the caregiver, as well.

So I commend the member for bringing this before the House. I commend the members of the select committee for the diligence and the due diligence that has been given to this, and in commending that for this third reading, the National Party supports this passage to the Royal assent. Tēnā koe e te tuahine.

What a joy to rise in a House so much of one heart and mind tonight—may that long continue. I rise to take the final call tonight—the final call, with great joy—to welcome to the world, I hope, a bill that was one of the first ones that I worked on as a baby parliamentarian. It was a bill that was well worked over, I think my colleague and my friend Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki will consider. It was so well worked over, in fact—so often did she attend our Justice Committee—that I began to confuse the Justice Committee and the Social Services and Community Committee on which I sit with the member, because we were so often together. To now rise to speak and have not only the chair of Justice have spoken but also the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee increases my confusion, but it also increases my joy, because this bill has been a fascinating piece of work.

It has been a large part of my pre-parliamentary work to look at ways for people living with disabilities to access the courts, and that was the background against which I came to this. I think the other thing we need to think about—and it’s something that’s been referred to a number of times by different speakers—is the experience of living with a disability. It was about 17 years ago that, as the result of a birth injury, I ended up on crutches for six weeks. It was an extraordinary experience to suddenly discover how my mobility was hampered. Fifteen years later, that baby suffered a major accident. My whānau have had, over the last three years, the experience of living with a child with a major physical impairment. Now, we are lucky. We are lucky that our son has recovered his full mobility. But we are also lucky because we were in good, strong financial circumstances. We were able to cope with the need to take time off to care for our child. We were able to cope with the difficulties physically, and we were able to ameliorate the difficulties alongside the truly wonderful ACC regime that we are lucky enough to have in this country.

But when my colleague and friend Ms Warren-Clark referred to the 1.1 million New Zealanders who identify themselves as living with a disability and the 14 percent of those who identify themselves as living with a physical disability, there are further statistics that we should take into account, and they’re ones that directly were brought home to me in my experience as the mother of a child who was suffering a physical impairment. The costs of caregiving for a child with disabilities are such that families often end up under severe financial strain. There is a significant percentage of children with disabilities who end up living in families who have a median wage under $30,000. That is to do with the costs of raising a disabled child. The cost of living with a disability in a society that does not fully accommodate disability at present is also that those children go on to have constraints on their lives as adults. So we are in a situation where 45 percent of disabled adults have no employment, as opposed to the 75 percent of non-disabled adults who are in employment. Thirty percent of disabled women have no educational qualifications, as opposed to 15 percent of non-disabled women. People living with disabilities are more likely to end up with mental health issues. They are more likely to be victimised through the criminal justice system—all of which is to say that while this is a small—and perfectly formed—bill, it is one which addresses a real inequity, and it’s an inequity that affects a considerable number of disabled people in the sense that they are more at risk of being socio-economically disadvantaged and ending up in a situation where they may, in fact, have debts they cannot repay.

The cost of having your vehicle, for example, seized is significant. When you look, for example, at the cost on children whose family own a vehicle that is repossessed, we see in fact that they are then limited in their ability to participate in sport, in ordinary extra-curricular activities, and in education. Those things all contribute to the problems that I’ve already outlined and the ongoing socio-economic, economic, and educational problems that many people with disabilities cope with. So it is fantastic that the member Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki has seen through the normal tendency of us all to ignore what we do not experience and has brought this bill to the House to rectify a small but significant problem.

I want, as a member of the committee that considered this bill, to just dwell on a few things, if I may. The first is to thank those submitters. We had 21, of whom 18 were in support or strong support. Their contributions were thoughtful, they were extremely well put together, and they were extremely useful. They were so useful, in fact, that we made two significant changes to this bill that I think everyone agrees have made it stronger and better.

The first of those was to address the situation of the child who is disabled and whose caregivers own the property. So we amended the definition of debtor to include the caregivers of someone with a disability. Given the limitations that children living with disabilities face, this is extremely significant.

But the final one is, I think, the most significant aspect of what we did. I take the point from the member before that lawyers do tend to believe that the law is the most important thing, and we do tend to believe that our insights are significant. She made the point about noticing the difference between the definition of disability in the Human Rights Act as opposed to this one. She made the point that the Human Rights Act definition looks superficially wider than that in this bill. What I would say is that that is not so. The definition that we adopted—and it was brought to us by submitters, and I am profoundly grateful that they did bring this to our attention—the definition we have included now, is that in the UN convention on the rights of people living with disabilities.

The importance of that is that it changes the definition, it changes the model of disability we’re dealing with under the Act.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I want to pass Anahila Suisuiki’s bill.

I’m sorry, Mr Bridges, that you don’t find this as fascinating as I do. But, really, it is. Just listen for a minute. The social model of disability is what they call the UN convention’s version of this definition. It is a definition that focuses not on medical problems, not on disability as something to be treated, something to be fixed; it focuses on the idea that people with disabilities can live good lives, provided we facilitate.

Mr Speaker, you referred earlier in the House to the fact that you have a hearing aid. As is fairly blatant—

💬 SPEAKER: Two hearing aids.

Two hearing aids. I stand corrected. I, as is fairly obvious, wear glasses. Were I to take them off—as I said, I think, in my first speech—I would be fairly blind. I might even have difficulty leaving the Chamber—something which Mr Bridges will clearly feel was a great loss to all of us. But with my glasses, I’m a fully functioning member of society. This model, this definition, is about changing our view from one that medicalises disability to one that sees it as simply something to be overcome so that people with disability can participate in society to the fullest extent. I fully, fully, fully commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.