SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister for the answer and it's slightly concerning actually. I didn't think that the initial regulatory impact statement estimates of $25 million were conservative at all. In fact I thought they were a bit low even then. I will agree to disagree whether or not there's—you know we're talking about a prediction of the future so there's no point arguing over projections except to the extent that the 150 or 160 severe injuries—I think the Minister mentioned—representing 5 percent of accepted claims seem to be very low given the information the select committee was given. I hope they're right because the fewer severe injuries that we have the better.But as she was going through those numbers I was having a flashback to 2002 or so when I was chief executive at Mercy Hospital and president of the Private Hospitals Association—vice-president then. We submitted on the bill that changed the scheme from medical misadventure to treatment injury. I submitted that the cost estimates for the expansion of treatment injury from medical misadventure were heroically low and that was as it turned out. The estimates that were projected for costs of treatment injury are now manyfold more than the projections that were made in 2002-odd.I hope we don't have a repeat of an underestimation not because of the money but because what that represents is perhaps—two things. Obviously more harm than we want. But also—I say this carefully—ACC's actually really good at projecting things; I think they're missing the boat on this one as they did with medical misadventure. So I'll leave it there.I would just say also—and it could come up with Jan Logie's intervention on her amendment around mental health which I won't support I'm afraid but I completely understand the issue that that the member has been raising in select committee and will again which is that the risk is that ACC becomes the default health provider in this country as we expand the scheme—and the default mental health provider. The obstetrics side of our health system actually needs to continue to be the place where we do the primary care for those early injuries. I'll make this last prediction actually and it's been a big bugbear of mine ever since I've been involved with ACC—and that wasn't yesterday. The public health acute services levy—which I think is this year appropriated at about half a billion dollars; a little under—I reckon is about half the cost of what it costs to do the acute stage of accepted accidents.Now what I don't understand—it could can be quite helpful to get a sense of how ACC is going to deal with this. So the person admitted to a birthing unit or a maternity hospital is actually being paid for from Vote Health. What happens when the primary care—the acute care for a birthing injury—is provided by that same facility and a claim is subsequently accepted for information purposes? How is ACC going to know what costs were expended on the acute care that was required in those birthing suites? Because they're basically there under one admission.If I get hit by a car and get admitted to hospital it's automatically admitted as an accident-related acute case and will be subject to the Public Health Acute Services levy calculation. But in the birthing process you're already there for another reason. Suffer harm: primary intervention might be these for suturing blood transfusions admission to a surgical ward perhaps and all the costs encumbered on that. That becomes ACC's responsibility. How is ACC going to discharge that responsibility to the public hospital and pay its portion of that care?Now I think there's a much broader issue around the Public Health Acute Services levy and when I'm Minister of ACC again the officials can be sure that we'll be diving deep into the weeds of how we ensure that our public hospitals are not underfunded—the accident-related acute gear.Nicola Grigg: Next year. Next year.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes just 12 short months away Nicola Grigg. That's right. I think that's some homework for officials to do about how they're going to get maternal acute care separated from the other things that the public maternity facilities are providing.