Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): We've heard a lot here this evening about the out-of-scope submissions that we actually had in this particular select committee the Education and Workforce Committee for this bill. I found that quite interesting at the time because it actually helped me understand the whole wider Accident Compensation Act completely. I totally agree with everyone that has spoken so far in this debate in the committee of the whole House about how people's sense of frustration has come through and the reason why they felt the need. They saw the word ACC" in the bill and had many many frustrations and felt the need to actually come forward to submit to our committee. But I think perhaps the wider objectives of this particular bill probably point towards the wider work that's being done in the ACC space and the wider objectives of ACC continuing to meet society's wider expectations and providing cover to our society that's appropriate and consistent and also sustainable because that came through a lot from those particular submitters. Also this bill improves the Act—we've heard it here from people that have spoken before us—by ensuring that it's effective efficient and is really ensuring that it accords with best regulatory practice. But there are two clauses that I want to pick up on. One of them has been mentioned by a couple of speakers here but I do have a question surrounding it and that is clause 4 which amends section 17 of the Act. The reason I do want to ask a question around it even though I was on the select committee is that we had no oral submissions on this particular clause. As we've heard we had a lot of submissions that were out of scope. This particular clause I felt was a really really important clause. This is the one that—as we've heard mentioned here already—extends ACC cover to the spouses and partners of dependants of staff posted in overseas posts. Many of us in this House here have met those people so many of us know how important those people are in our overseas posts and what an absolutely magnificent job they do and how much easier it would make it for their dependants and their spouses and partners to be able to get this ACC cover because that is a huge consideration when those people go overseas. I've actually had it said to me by a person posted overseas that they couldn't take their partner for that particular reason. The question that I had around that is that I know from going through the submissions that any changes made to ACC cover and entitlements are generally prospectively done and so I note that in this bill it is retrospective for family members and dependants of those posted overseas. I'd really like to know what the reasoning is behind that and I'm really sorry that I didn't pick that up at the time. As I said it was because we didn't have any oral submissions on this particular clause. The other clause that I wanted to ask a quick question about—I think I have it right in my head but I'd like to hear from the Minister—is clause 7. Clause 7 amends section 391 of the Act to provide that after the amendment comes into force all appeals will be to the District Court. So the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority won't be there any more to hear those particular appeals. The question that I'm wanting to ask around that—because I couldn't find this and it might be just me and my research skills—is how many cases are under the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority currently and how many are under the District Court as it stands? I'm guessing that the reason for that simplification is so that we're not getting a double up in those particular areas but I'd be really keen to hear from the Minister about those two questions that I'm asking there. Thank you."