Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou e Te Whare. It is of course now the season of peace and goodwill and it's lovely to see that at least—Hon David Bennett: That's in a week's time. Not now.Hon TIM MACINDOE: My very fine Catholic colleague beside me is correcting me in the liturgical calendar for which he is noted for his expertise. I was going to make the point that it's been lovely to see the harmony that has broken out in the House at least since the end of question time today in the last three bills and I see no reason for that not to continue. Could I thank the Associate Minister for the very clear summary of this bill that he has just provided in moving this second reading. In fact as I find myself wanting to cover many of the points that he's already covered I am grateful for the fact that I'm taking the second call because I really am left wondering what those at the tail end of this debate are going to find to talk about. But good luck with that. I too was once a new member of Parliament and had that experience and I wish them well. I'm sure because they are members of Parliament they'll find something.But this is a serious matter and it is important I think right at the outset to confirm that. As we did at the first reading when we supported the introduction of this bill the National Party is definitely continuing in its support for the measure. In part of course that is because of the fact that it is a bill that as the Minister noted a moment ago originated under the previous National-led Government. I want to thank the Associate Minister for his generous acknowledgement of the Hon Michael Woodhouse in his speech. Mr Woodhouse is a very diligent member of Parliament and he certainly tackled the ACC portfolio while he was Minister with considerable energy and intelligence. As I say I want to thank the Associate Minister for that generous acknowledgment and it is worth noting that although much of the work was happening under the previous National-led Government the bill wasn't introduced until April of this year and received its first reading in May under the current Minister.Could I as National's ACC spokesman thank the Education and Workforce Committee for the work they did. I'm not a permanent member of that committee but because I hold that spokesman's role I try to get myself subbed on to the committee whenever they are considering ACC business and I had that opportunity. So I do want to acknowledge the chair and the deputy chair both of who are here and many other members for the very intelligent and collegial approach that they brought to their deliberations and the respectful way in which they considered the submissions that came before the committee. I'd also like to acknowledge the officials who gave I think very competent and helpful advice. They always do of course but it's nice to have the opportunity in this House to acknowledge the officials for the service that they provide. Could I thank those members of the public and those with a particular interest in this topic who put submissions forward.I noticed that previous speakers on the other bills that have been before the House have taken relatively short calls so I won't take too long in going through those but I would just highlight the fact that the only matter that really caused concern to those who made submissions on the bill was the fact that this bill in itself is very limited in its scope. Many of the submitters who came before the committee were desirous of putting on record their concerns about other aspects of policy. While we were sympathetic to those concerns and I believe there is a chance that the Government may be introducing a more comprehensive bill in this area that might give an opportunity for some of those concerns to be legislated for in this particular instance the bill is very limited in its scope. As the Associate Minister noted it makes some minor technical changes and they are primarily to ensure fairness for those who are injured near to retirement age and also to streamline the complaints process to avoid confusion—or at least to remove confusion that exists at the moment.As I say many were hoping to be able to cover other matters. I hope that they might get that chance at a later date because there certainly are some concerns about our accident compensation system. It's a treasure one that I think most New Zealanders are very grateful to have but there are also some problems that exist with our accident compensation scheme at the moment and I hope that in time they will be addressed.Several people in their submissions indicated that while they are supportive of the removal of the election between weekly compensation and superannuation the bill should go further to remove the transition from weekly compensation to superannuation entirely and to allow injured people over 65 years of age who are working to be eligible for weekly compensation for as long as they are incapacitated. Some other submitters suggested the transition age should be raised to 67 years of age or even perhaps as high as 70 years of age but members were reminded by the officials as we considered those appeals that weekly compensation is compensation for lost earnings and that it therefore must cease at some point consistent with the likelihood that the individual would if it were not for their injury have retired from the workforce at some stage. The vast majority of New Zealanders if they are still working up to the current retirement age do tend to retire within a short time after that although increasingly we are seeing many people continuing to work well into their 70s including one or two members of this House.Some submitters also commented on the proposed disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority and we were advised that the authority is a historic entity that hears only a small number of appeals under the now repealed Accident Compensation Acts of 1972 and 1982. The majority of appeals now are heard by a District Court judge in the Accident Compensation Appeals District Court Registry. Because there have been relatively low numbers of appeals to the authority in recent years and there are currently no cases with the authority it makes sense to remove this inconsistency and complexity in the disputes process that arises from having two separate bodies to hear appeals and I really don't think that New Zealanders have any reason to be concerned about the fact that this is happening.However as I said at this point it's not really appropriate to consider other matters that were raised with the committee because they were outside the scope of the bill. As I indicated before I don't want to leave my colleagues who are to follow with absolutely nothing to say so I'm happy once again to confirm the National Party's support for this bill at its second reading.