Salesa Jenny: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSalesa Jenny: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6839. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Accident Compensation (Financial Accountability and Transparency) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill but with amendments to Part 1. I find it quite ironic that the Government is putting through a bill with the word “transparency” in the title given Murray McCully’s bribe of a Saudi businessman with no transparency whatsoever.My colleague Sue Moroney has Supplementary Order Paper 123 on Part 1. Firstly it clarifies the interpretation of “public good” as meaning “the public interest with regard to reducing injury and accidents” in section 300 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Secondly the Labour Supplementary Order Paper ensures that the Government sets levies for the purposes outlined in section 3 of the Act and not for the purpose of achieving other objectives unrelated to ACC levies such as a Government surplus.Part 1 of this bill has the intention of consolidating and clarifying the framework for funding ACC’s levied accounts to make it more transparent to give it a longer-term focus and to address the previously inconsistent approach to setting levies with marked fluctuations in levy rates and prior confusion about factors driving final decisions on levies.Clause 5 which inserts new sections 166A to 166C into the principal Act deals with the principles of financial responsibility in relation to accounts. New section 166A(1) does indeed lay out that the cost of all claims under the levied accounts is to be fully funded by meeting the outstanding claims liability in respect of the claims by offsetting an adequate level of assets to fund the cost of those claims. However under the version of the proposed subsection (2) now before us the principles under which levies must be set where the Minister is obliged to have regard are now changed. It is no longer mandated that the levies derived for each account must meet the lifetime cost of claims in relation to injuries that occur in a particular year but merely that they should. It is no longer mandated that should an account have a deficit of funds to meet the costs described in new section 166A(1)(a) or have accumulated surplus funds that deficit or surplus must be corrected by the setting of levies at an appropriate rate for a subsequent year or years but merely that they should.So I agree with Clayton Mitchell from New Zealand First when he was talking about the use of “must” or the term “should”. It is no longer mandated that large changes in levies must be avoided but merely that they should. There was considerable consultation and debate when these things were discussed over at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in terms of the widely swinging levies amongst ACC issues.The Minister for ACC announced in May that “The legislation … [should] bring the levy-setting process into line with the accountability and transparency requirements that already apply to the operation of the government’s core Budget under the Public Finance Act.” The Minister also announced at the time that “New binding principles … [should] be introduced to ensure the scheme is adequately funded to withstand economic volatilities while ensuring levies are kept as low as possible and stable over time.” But how is this proposed amendment enshrining in law the solution to the issues raised in advance from officials and from businesses and industry groups? The obligations on the Minister which are to ensure that the levies are in fact more stable have been muted for no apparent good reason. This is like the Health and Safety Reform Bill all over again. The wording of some of the clauses has been changed with a resulting weakening of the legislative framework. These changes to the parameters of the Minister’s decisions and obligations seem to have been sprung unheralded on the public. It is my understanding that the focus of the submissions to the select committee did not actually focus on this.Labour is supporting this bill but I must note that the weakening of the framework in relation to transparency and stability of the levies is regrettable. Thank you.