Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. I am pleased to resume this call not least because it finally brings to an end the embarrassing spectacle we've just had to sit through for the last hour on the previous bill. In fact I have to say members of the Opposition after listening to the filibustering of the previous Labour members are feeling we might be entitled to some accident compensation ourselves. When the House moved into committee last night it was already 10 to 10 so my one contribution at that point was the only speech that was possible before the Chair at that stage reported progress five minutes later. At that time the Associate Minister for ACC was in the chair and I raised a few matters seeking his response. I don't want to repeat everything I said at that time but in view of the fact it's now nearly 24 hours later and that was the only call I would just like to reiterate three of the key points that I made at that time particularly for the benefit of those who weren't able to tune in last night. The first is that this is a very sensible bill that enacts changes to the Accident Compensation Act which were identified during the time of the last National-led Government and they were being worked upon by the previous Minister for ACC. So the National Opposition will of course continue to support this bill. The second point that I made last night is that the main changes that the bill provides for are aimed at ensuring fairness for those who are injured near the age of retirement and also to streamline the complaints process to remove confusion. I'm going to return to the latter point shortly and I hope that now that we have the Minister for ACC in the chair he might take some time to comment on the former—i.e. how fairness will be achieved for those who are injured near the age of retirement. It is something that is naturally of considerable interest throughout the community and it's a major reason why this bill was drafted in the first place. The third point that I raised last night and that I wish to reiterate now is just to indicate that while there is a lot of enthusiasm amongst ACC clients throughout the country for some significant changes to our accident compensation legislation it has to be said that this is not the bill to meet those expectations as it is largely a technical measure that is neither controversial nor comprehensive. That certainly isn't a criticism; I simply mention it as I know that there are several people who submitted—or at least attempted to submit—to the Education and Workforce Committee as they worked on this bill who were disappointed by its very narrow scope because they were told that the submissions that they were making were outside the scope of the bill and that while there might be a time to consider them this was not the particular time. Accordingly I asked the Associate Minister last night if he could indicate to the committee and to the country what plans the Government has to introduce a more comprehensive bill that will deal with some of the matters that submitters sought to bring to the select committee's attention following the first reading only to be told as I say that their submissions were out of scope. So I am very much hoping that the Minister tonight will be able to give an outline of the Government's intentions when he takes a call shortly. Furthermore as I indicated a few moments ago there are many New Zealanders who feel aggrieved by the way their complaints and disputes have been dealt with by ACC and the disputes resolution service over the years. So I hope the Minister tonight will also take a few minutes at this stage of the debate to outline to New Zealanders how the bill will alleviate some of those New Zealanders' concerns and frustrations. I'd also like to ask the Minister if he and his officials have given some thought to adopting my member's bill that has now languished in the ballot for some time. As I seem to be surrounded by mostly new colleagues I just point out that I'm now in my second decade as an MP and I'm still waiting for a bill to be drawn out of the ballot. Most of these guys got lucky pretty quickly. So I'm just saying that I am feeling a little bit hurt. But the point I wanted to make is that my bill is the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill which would give employers the right to request a review of an ACC decision to accept a claim in a case where an employee suffers aggravation or re-injury of a prior work-related personal injury. I believe that members of this House would be very receptive to such a change and that it would be widely supported by members of the public. So I hope it is a matter that the Minister has given some attention to and he might be able to comment on that when he takes his call shortly. At present if an employee suffers re-injury or aggravation of a previous personal work-related injury then the interval of time often means that an additional claim decision is required. In such cases ACC is not currently required to inform the employer of the outcome of that decision. Likewise current legislation does not require ACC to review such a decision should an employer wish to request a review. My bill would give claimants greater access to compensation if they experience re-injury or aggravation of a prior work-related personal injury and give employers greater capacity to advocate for their employees. So I do commend it to the Minister for his favourable consideration and I would welcome hearing his thoughts on this matter. Another matter that I invite the Minister to comment on is the concern that some New Zealanders feel about the independent allowance which is a transitional clause within Schedule 1 of the legislation. It is my understanding that this clause detrimentally affects individuals who've suffered a treatment injury where the injury does not present itself until years after the treatment such as someone who suffers a stroke decades after receiving poorly administered radiation treatment. It's been suggested to me by somebody who is in this category that the clause should no longer be used by ACC as it is a transitional clause only intended to cover the crossover period between legislation in 2002 and 2005. I hope the Minister can comment on it.