Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the Minister for providing what he could by way of explanation to my questions before dinner. But the answers I fear actually underscore the confusion that we have here.Nobody is questioning the value of good data and good information; what the National Party is saying is that this isn't going to change things. We heard firstly a very good description of Pasifika people returning to work earlier than the average and the Minister himself saying Well we don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing." Well I would be interested to know what data he is going to collect—if indeed they are one of the groups that might be focused on—how they're going to work that through.Secondly he said "We know there are disparities in Māori health." Well then if we are that confident why are we wasting the House's time on this? Now Wai 2575 made it very clear that there were health inequities certainly in outcomes. But in the 286 pages of the Wai 2575 report ACC is—and the word "accident" is mentioned just four times and it makes no reference actually to a judgment in that claim that those inequities are actually around injuries and accidents. So I would like the Minister to just explain further why he's so convinced that this is necessary.What we do know sadly is that Māori are disproportionately represented in a number of harm statistics: serious injury and fatal injuries in a number of areas at work because Māori are disproportionately represented in some of our highest-risk industries. They may make up I think—the Minister can correct me—about 15 percent of the population but they're 34 percent of the forestry workforce. That is as I understand it still our most risky industry—construction is another one. Also Stats NZ tells us that Māori are more likely to be in temporary and precarious work and there's a high correlation between that and injury rates. We know they're more likely to be injured in a car accident particularly young Māori males at about a one-third greater rate. We know that they're more likely—three times more likely—to be victims of assault and certainly they're about 20-odd percent more likely to die in the workplace.But we know all of that. The question isn't "How much more data can we gather?" The question is—and I would like the Minister to answer this—how does this contribute to the work that needs to happen to make sure Māori are less represented in these injury statistics? Because that after all has to be the goal. We want Māori to be injured less in motor vehicle accidents at work and by assaults.So it's well-meaning; nobody's arguing the case for better equity—albeit that equity could mean lower rates not higher rates of claims with ACC. But it seems to me—and this is the answer to the questions that I would like the Minister to address in defending the need for this bill. There are I think three questions.One is: are Māori at greater or lesser risk of injury caused by an accident? Secondly if they are injured are they more or less likely to seek medical treatment and if they are less likely what is the evidence for that? Because the Minister has already sort of said as a matter of fact that there are disparities but I can't see any data that would suggest that. Now the Minister says "Well we're going to collect the data." What is that data; what's missing? The third is: having been injured and claim accepted and being referred to health services is there evidence that in engaging with the health and rehabilitation system they are then somehow discriminated against or treated differently from other population groups?Again the research from the University of Otago—the Ngāi Tahu Māori Research Unit there—said that actually that wasn't the case; that actually Māori are being treated in the same way and at the same rate as non-Māori. So there are serious questions about the case for this even being necessary."