The second amendment that I wanted to talk about was the actual definition of a disabled person. In many bills that go through this House, we take great care to actually define, put in place proper definition, agreed definitions, as to what constitutes things like the definition of a disabled person. In the bill as it came to the committee, the definition of disability had the same meaning in the definition of section 21(1)(h) of the Human Rights Act 1993, but there were two submissions that came before the committee which argued that the definition instead should be taken from the United Nations  Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, because it is a broader social model of disability, as opposed to the narrower, more clinical one that's outlined in the Human Rights Act. The Auckland Disability Law submission noted that it believed that the legislation should align its definition of people with disabilities with that in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 1 – Purpose, which subscribes to the social model of disability rather than the medical model as seen in the Human Rights Act. It focuses on barriers that may negatively impact participation in society, which fits well with the purpose of this bill, and would allow better inclusion assistive equipment that is not limited to medical purposes. So they recommended that the Act have that definition of disability. The Justice Committee considered that argument and agreed that the definition was indeed preferable in this case, because it would allow for the wider disability community to be included in that group that the bill would provide protection for. The committee therefore amended the bill, changing the definition of disability from that that was laid out in the Human Rights Act.