Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Mr Chair. I do have three questions for the Minister. The first one I won't labour because it picks up a little bit from the previous section but I do want to have on the Hansard my concern that the same language is used which is in new section 329(1)(hb) inserted by clause 5. It uses the word or" instead of "and". So the particular words here are: "the rate of interest payable on any levy collected by instalments under section 234 or the method by which the rate is to be calculated".Now that does follow logically given that the Minister has declined the invitation to change the wording in the previous section but what it does do is reinforce my concern that this is quite loose for the consultation that needs to happen for something like a levy where it would be preferable I think to make it an "and" so that it's both a quantum and a methodology that is consulted on. So I'd just like that on the record.The second point is under subsection (2)—and it picks up on the previous speaker's question but asks a new question. It was really helpful actually to hear the Minister mention hardship. My question was whether it was even appropriate to have the word "circumstances" which is quite a broad test. I'm assuming from the wording that it's an objective test. That's another question for the Minister: is it an objective test?It just says here that it's sitting in the regulations and yet the Minister himself has brought up the word "hardship". Now those types of equity provisions in my view should be in the primary legislation because that has a very purposeful intention which is to make sure that it is fair and equitable. If it's left to regulation it is not this House enshrining the equity that the Minister is anticipating. It is being left a little bit to chance and so I think in the hierarchy of legislation an equitable consideration like that belongs better in the primary legislation.It's difficult to know especially with the wording "the circumstances". That's quite broad wording and so it doesn't really give any guidance to the wording that should be used in the regulation. That's where my concern is. So I'd really like the Minister to consider whether perhaps we should redraft that or whether we could have the words "hardship" somehow put in there or if we could clarify. If we can't then hearing him say it in the Hansard is at least one step closer. My final question to the Minister is about the proposed amendment and Rachel Boyack has said what it is so I'm not going to repeat that. I'd just like to have on the record again that when it comes to equity there is nothing like having it in primary legislation. We've heard that there is a practice of ACC to make these instalment arrangements available. It's very much at their whim. They are the Goliath here and they've done that in good faith and that's great. There could be natural justice considerations for somebody who was declined an instalment situation to be able to say "Well this is a practice." and therefore probably judicially review that but it would be much cleaner and clearer to have a section in that actually says "ACC is to provide instalment payments." It just makes it clean and clear. It puts the obligation on ACC. It confirms what has already been happening for 20 years and because we have a retrospectivity in this legislation it kind of gives it a nice continuity but it cleans it up. What's happened I think with this practice is that the word "may" has enabled ACC to create a practice that is not really pinned anywhere in law. We're trying to clean that up but we're not really providing certainty about who will be able to have the instalments just like we're not having certainty about who will be able to claim hardship. So I'd really like the Minister to consider my tabled amendment and respond to my three questions please."