Boyack Rachel; Doocey MattRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair. Off the back of the Minister's response to my earlier question I did have a further question alongside some other questions that I still had around the introduction of levies through regulation. The Minister mentioned that the reason for using regulation instead of primary legislation was flexibility. If I'm honest the use of that word did cause me some concern.Just noting of course that those who use these payment plans—and you know I think there's some agreement between myself and the Minister that these are people who potentially can be in quite vulnerable situations and acknowledging that for small businesses at the moment being able to pay things in instalments is really important which is one of the reasons why the word flexibility" did give me some concern. I'm interested in whether the Minister would consider adding a clause into the bill to define what that flexibility meant and how that would operate in practice. Because of course my concern would be that given we have regulations in place we don't have the same level of scrutiny on those regulations that we do through the House. So it could give rise to regulations being amended quite frequently—Ingrid Leary: That's right. It's not certain.RACHEL BOYACK: —exactly—just responding to Ingrid Leary: that need for certainty for small businesses is quite important especially in current time frames.I'm also concerned because the other matter that's clear in the bill is that the rate of 2.73 percent will only apply to those who are on a 10-month plan but there will be no payment interest charge added to those on a three-month and six-month plan. I guess my question to the Minister on this is whether that would be something that he would look to entrench in the law in the primary legislation—that you could actually only apply the 3.73 percent or whatever that rate was to the 10-month plan so that there would actually be a permanent approach to keeping those shorter payment plans with no debit interest charge. I think given that that is something we're agreeing in the law tonight for a temporary basis could we actually make that particular part permanent?The other matter I just wanted to note around that 2.73 percent is—you know we've had a lot of discussion in the first and second reading about the fact that if people are exercising the use of the plan they get access to that 2.73 percent which we would all agree at current rates is lower than standard interest rates that are offered through say a bank or another financing organisation—whether we would also write into the legislation. I know we are getting to the point where we probably need to write some amendments but it's late—but whether the Minister would consider putting some guidelines into the legislation around having an actual assurance that that 2.73 percent will be lower than what is offered by a bank. Obviously at the moment we have high interest rates—we know that—but at some point they'll drop back down. They will drop back down at some point. If we see banks offering 1 percent or 2 percent or whatever that may be in the interest of ACC being able to continue offering these plans in a way that is actually useful—because I think for small businesses having to go back out to the bank and say "This year we'll go to the bank; next year we'll do it through ACC." Actually wouldn't we want to have the ability for those regulations to be based around the official cash rate or what banks are doing in order to make sure that levy payers are getting the best deal? So I've got quite a few questions there for the Minister. I think this is actually the substantive part of the bill and I'm hoping he might be able to answer some questions.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): I thought Rachel Boyack raised a good point about the interest charge for three-month and six-month instalments. That will be looked at in the next levy round."