An interesting issue came up in discussion for members: there was a concern that there might be a perverse result from making this change in law. There was a concern that somebody who had a disability may potentially be prevented from getting credit, from being able to be entering into a lending situation, if there was a provision that those items could not be repossessed. So some members of the committee raised that issue and we got quite good advice back. They were advised that the bill does not prevent repossession of goods provided for in a credit contract pursuant to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. Also, in the event that a lender did decide to undertake a civil debt enforcement action to the courts, there are other options available to get back that debt, such as attachment orders that deduct money from wages or salaries. Interestingly enough, that was the very point that Mr Tanginoa made—that his preference was for those deductions to come out of his weekly income as opposed to repossessing an item which he relied upon to participate in society. Other items not essential to the debtor with the disability can still be seized. They are not protected by this bill, and that's important to note. It's not all items; it's just those that are identified as being critical to enable that participation as the bill defines. So for those reasons laid out, the committee did not recommend amending any changes in relation to that. 