Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I was wondering how I could best use the 10 minutes I have available to contribute to this conversation because the other side of the House might think that this is about filibustering but when we have a piece of legislation that has a very grey area in it it is really important that we get this right and there's a few reasons for that. One is simply because we have got a number of competing arguments from two different agencies where it's pretty easy to see the rationale on either side and so we need to make sure that whatever decision we make this evening it is rational logical justified and clear not just for this case but also because of the type of precedent it may set for other agencies wanting to embark on a similar exercise. So it is very very important that we are clear for the Hansard that any precedents we set as we make these laws—because that's indeed what we're doing this evening—are going to be able to inform future decisions in the Public Service in a way that is in the best interest of New Zealanders and is consistent with jurisprudence.I think also it's important to get this right because some—we've heard that ACC is a taonga and the jewel in the Crown but there are many people who are quite weary of ACC. As an electorate MP in Taieri I've certainly spent a large number of hours dealing with cases where people have had to fight ACC to have an injury recognised. One of the previous speakers spoke about the fact that some things are covered and some are not and indeed the question of coverage and what is and isn't covered is the most controversial part of this wonderful scheme. It was always going to be that way but for some people there has in the past been a sense that they are in a situation of David and Goliath. So they're not starting from a position of trust and it's really important that we are clear that ACC's intentions this evening about setting this levy are appropriate and that it can build trust with the public because without that trust the mana of this taonga is diminished and as with all good public institutions trust is actually really important to their longevity and sustainability.The final reason that I think it's really important is because I perhaps would not have recognised the questions and the unpicking and unpacking that we need to do here had it not been for the excellent paperwork that's been provided by whoever has prepared the regulatory impact statement (RIS). It's about 15 pages long and it details really really methodically the logical process that officials went through to come to the conclusions that they did. In fact the conclusion they came to is not a clear one because it says This uncertainty suggests that the current legislative settings are not fit for purpose." and that it isn't a sort of clear-cut decision; it's a line call. That raises a whole lot of questions not only about how this came to pass that suddenly we are thinking about this when for 20 years it hasn't been on people's minds but also just going through the really clear analysis that does raise a bunch of questions.So I'd just like to let you know Madam Speaker that when we get to the committee stage and given that we're under urgency and given that this is retrospective and that there won't be a select committee phase given that it's a grey area of law and given the need to protect the precedents that we are setting and all of these elements I've got about 30 discrete questions—absolutely discrete questions—that I would like to ask in a back and forth with the Minister for ACC. It will be an absolute pleasure to engage with him in his ACC capacity because I'm used to engaging with him more through the media in his mental health capacity So it'll be great to start with a clean slate on ACC and to be able to really get across particularly his thinking because at the end of the day that is what is going to inform the Hansard. So we need to have a clear record of what the Minister is thinking.So I will save my contributions around those 30 questions which I do hope I get through in the committee stage just to go back to why we have this grey area. Some people have referred to it but I think it's really important to look at the two sections again because that's essentially what we are going to be interrogating here: sections 234—of the ACC Act—and 333(1)(b)(i) which need to be read together. Madam Speaker as you'd be aware anytime we read clauses together in an Act it makes it doubly complicated. Reading one clause is difficult; reading two together requires a bit of extra thinking which is another reason that we need to be forensic in how we approach this in the committee stage.So the first one says ACC "may charge a reasonable fee to recover its costs of collecting any levy by instalments."—and that's under section 234. So the elements of that we have: that they "may" so there's no requirement to do that and some of the questions will be about the I don't know natural justice issues of whether given that they've been doing this for 20 years there could be a requirement in natural justice and public expectations that even though there is a "may" there perhaps that needs to happen. A "reasonable fee": what is the test of a reasonable fee and what is a fee and how does that include penalties because we've got a reference in a table somewhere to penalties and it's the only time that I see that referred to although I will have a closer look at the legislation to check that given that we've just had this dropped on us pretty much today.Hon Chris Bishop: You've seen it on Thursday. You've had two days with it.INGRID LEARY: Then we've got the—it's still the same day though; Mr Bishop is saying that it's dropped on us. It's still the 30th.DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's still Thursday!INGRID LEARY: So it's been a long day—it has been a long day.We've also got the other section there which talks about them being able to have an instalment plan and to be able to charge "any administration fee payable in respect of levies paid in instalments". So I think that the word that we need to look at there is "any" and as I said previously in the first reading speech a generous interpretation of that would mean that that would include an administration fee would include a penalty fee potentially but certainly an interest fee. So we need to decide: is it an interest fee and a penalty fee is it just an interest fee or does it not include it in which case we wouldn't support it but I think we're going to. And then "fee payable in respect of levies paid in instalments" and there are some questions as the Hon Jenny Salesa has mentioned about why those particular interest charges and levels were reached. What was the evidence base for that? So there will be a lot of questions.The final thing I'd say is that also in the RIS there's lots of assumptions about drivers of behaviour—why people might choose to take an instalment or to pay their ACC levy or go to an alternative source of finance—and I think it's really important to learn from the Minister what the evidence base for that is. I understand that there's a logic around the drivers and the incentives but it may not simply be enough because we don't know for example without evidence what the charge the alternative charge would be if somebody went to the private sector and thought "I'm just going to get a loan pay this up front." So I think we do need to see very clearly how the RIS has been formed. If the officials have done what I think they may have done because they've done such a great level of detailed work perhaps they have gone out and done that consultation and got all of those numbers and that data and I think that would be really interesting to find out and would certainly provide us with some assurance given that we're going to be supporting this.The other thing is the penalty: there is a table on page 10 that I'll be asking questions about because there's an average business levy of $7276. The fee on a 10-month instalment plan currently at 2.73 percent is $198.63. When there's a total penalty interest over a 10-month period assuming the levy's not paid that lifts it right up to $761.23. That's quite a jump and so I think it will be important for us to understand how the penalty is justified over and above a standard interest fee whether there is any compounding element to that and how that fits in with the purpose as stated in the bill which is that this is about fairness. There's a whole deconstruction of fairness that we can go into because penalties sounds like actually—it might be a part of deterrence or drivers but it could also be about punishment and so really unpacking that in the committee stage would be great.I could go on all night but I'm sure that we will come to that—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah you can't because the member's got two seconds left.INGRID LEARY: So two seconds left—thank you Madam Speaker."