Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16945] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Quite interestingly the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is trying to calm all submitters and to say that one of the changes introduced in Part 2 about the due date for levy payment is only technical. Currently the accident compensation legislation states that the due date for the self-employed employers and private domestic workers to pay their levy invoices cannot be more than 2 months after the invoice date and that ACC will calculate and apply interest to any unpaid levy from the day after the day when payment is due. The change brought about is for the levy payment to be due 30 days from the date of the invoice rather than 2 months. But according to ACC the penalty would still not be incurred until after 2 months so the corporation is trying to tell all those people affected that it is only a technical change. We all know that whenever we hear “technical change” it spells problems. If there is indeed no change why introduce the provision? 
I want to share a heartfelt real-life complaint that I received about the way in which ACC collects payment and those words will send shivers down some people’s spines. A 12-year-old paper delivery girl was registered with ACC because everybody has to pay accident compensation levies. On her registration form she put down that everything else was taken care of by her guardian. Apparently ACC sent her an invoice; she took one look at it obviously did not comprehend the significance of it and filed it away. Next minute the guardian the parent received a debt collector’s letter from Baycorp chasing up a debt. The father approached the ACC office but he was asked to dial the 0800 number. Well that complaint went nowhere so the family contacted their local MP the Hon Steve Maharey who said he would fix the problem. But the family received a second threatening letter from Baycorp and then approached my office. I sorted it out with ACC and then ACC wrote a letter and said it was not the corporation’s fault and that Baycorp should have known better. 
With that type of example where the ACC cannot get even small issues right like noticing the word “guardian” or that a levy payer is only 12 years old then I am not too sure about this technical change whereby the penalty will not kick in until after 2 months. If the penalty interest will not be calculated until 2 months after the date of the invoice why bother bringing in a provision to change the due time from 60 days to 30 days? As any sensible business people know if they get an invoice and there is no penalty incurred why would they pay? 
Ministers seem to have been very keen to take calls on Part 1 so I think that it is a very good idea for the Minister to take a call and explain to all those business people the self-employed and private domestic workers the significance of the change to the due time from 60 days to 30 days when there is no penalty interest and no penalty involved. Most people see the ACC levy as a tax because they really do not have a choice in terms of the size the package or what they can insure for. They really see the levy as a tax payment where they have no choice. If there is no change to the penalty regime one is at a loss to know why Parliament is taking time to debate this provision. I hope it is not just that officials have a tidy-mind concept and feel that everybody should adhere to the business practice of payment being due after 30 days so why not just bring it in? But ACC says it is not going to penalise people; who will believe that?