Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. For clause 4 which is on Section 234 amended (Levies may be collected by instalments) I want to first ask a point of clarification from the Minister around the subclause (1A) and then I have two further questions for subclause (1B). I think the first question for subclause (1A) is something that may have been teased out before—I wasn't sure if it's been teased out before—which is around corporations may" and this was something the Minister spoke to just before as well—in terms of the use of the word "may" in the sense that it doesn't change what currently is happening. But I'm curious to get clarification from the Minister as to whether it is also appropriate to change it to "must" because the fact that it—for the last 20 years ACC Accident Compensation Corporation the corporation itself has been charging this additional levy as part of instalments and it's a practice that ACC from the regulatory impact report seems unlikely that's going to change. So although on one hand I appreciate the flexibility of using the word "may" I am interested to hear from the Minister as to whether "must" is something that he has considered when it came to the drafting of the bill. So that's my question for subclause (1A).For subclause (1B) the first question is: "The corporation must consult levy payers on the proposed rate of interest" and not to anticipate the kind of discussions that we might have later on when it comes to clause 6 on Schedule 1AA amended. This is really interesting to me because I would like to kind of get a clarification and sense from the Minister in terms of his interpretation of the phrase "proposed rate of interest". Because in clause 6 and particularly when we're looking at New Part 5 it lays out three different percentages and in three different month instalments: three six and 10 months currently. I want to know from the Minister when we're looking at subclause (1B) whether the proposed rate of interest applies to the rate only or it also applies to the type as in will it give the flexibility to ACC when they are consulting levy payers to look at more broadly not just the percentage of each of those but also the duration? Potentially they may want to introduce something else like you know a 12-month plan a 24-month plan or a 5-month plan. So that's the second question I have for subclause (1B).The third question I have is around this that in subclause (1B) it says: "the rate is to be calculated before recommending to the Minister that regulations be made". I would like to get again from the Minister and this is in lieu of any sort of conversation and dialogue we are able to have in a normal legislative process in terms of being part of the select committee or having a more robust discussion what would be the time frame we are looking at when we are looking at the process of consultation and then going on to the recommendation?So those are my three questions. The first question is: has the Minister considered the use of "must" instead of "may" under subclause (1A); or is flexibility something the Minister is interested in or how to take priority in? And the second question is around subclause (1B) which is whether we're looking at the proposed rate of interest both in terms of the rate and type. And also the third question with subclause (1B) is: what is the intended duration between the consultation and the recommendation? So if the Minister is able to sort of shed some light on those three questions that will be really appreciated."