Willis Scott; Leary Ingrid; Doocey MattSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to the Minister. This is my first opportunity to speak on this bill. Considering the title Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill I would like the Minister to consider either of the amendments and I know he's already covered off those but I would like the Minister—yet again this is a call to the Minister to rethink the value of considering the two distinct amendments which propose a more succinct or at least clarify the intent of this bill.But my further question is really about the urgency of this bill because the key element is the validation of changing interest both future and past. And in the regulatory impact statement there's no immediate impact on the status quo. So there's no increase or decrease to ACC revenue. Now that seems pretty straightforward and yet here we are on—I don't even know which day it is. People are missing sports—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thursday.SCOTT WILLIS: Thursday. See it's Thursday; people are missing sports games; there are birthday parties held in the House.Hon Barbara Edmonds: The Hurricanes won though.SCOTT WILLIS: The Hurricanes won. Well at least we know that. So there are things happening out of the bubble but here we are in urgency dealing with something that has no increase or decrease to ACC revenue. Under urgency—under urgency.Don't get me wrong; I am a fan of ACC. Look at this. [Holds up hand] That bit of thumb that's missing—it was an axe. And this finger—I'm sorry—was crushed with a wood splitter. So ACC has been a real friend to me but I'm also concerned because my wife is an artist and she will be subject to this retrospective validation. I don't even understand how the hell she gets charged that much for being a painter. My son is a stilt walker and a busker and has to pay an ACC bill. I don't know how they'll be affected by this retrospective validation.So coming back to the title it really helps when we've got such an inconsequential bill that we are spending time on Thursday under urgency to deliberate on—why on earth are we doing that if we're not going to give it the title that it deserves? So why can't we describe it in a way that tells us just what it does? Because we need people to understand how this is going to affect them. And if we're not going to give them any ability to consult—because what we've seen in the RIS in the regulatory impact statement is that there's been no meaningful consultation with the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC). It says here that MBIE has engaged with LDAC who were unable to provide formal advice due to the limited time constraints and LDAC's other commitments but MBIE has analysed the proposals against [their] Guidelines." So we haven't even had that opportunity to have any real engagement with it.So coming back to my point and I am aware Minister that we are needing to wrap this up at some point—Hon Matt Doocey: Please! Please!CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can do it voluntarily.SCOTT WILLIS: —but I would like the Minister to come back to a title that is going to give us some substance some meaning to what this bill actually does. Well thank you Minister. Could I have an answer please because I'm sure I can think of another really good question?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to call Ingrid Leary because I believe Ingrid's got some questions and we want to get this question-answer process going because there's a number of them and I know that the member stated them quite well within a short period in the last half of her second reading speech. So hopefully they'll be succinct.INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you very much Madam Chair for acknowledging that. I'll get straight to the questions for the Minister. Two of them are about the evidence base and one is just about some drafting and we can look at it later if it's not the right time now. So the first one is that there seems to be an assumption that the more levy payers that take up the offer of doing instalments the longer ACC's revenue would be delayed and that would disadvantage other levy payers into the account. I just wondered what modelling the Minister had actually done on that; was that done based on actuals or was it based on just sort of theoretical?The second one is another assumption that people would use this service rather than go to alternative forms of finance because the 2.73 percent instalment plan fee was lower. What evidence did he have for that? Was again that an assumption based on an average credit cost or were there actually actuals gathered on that to make that cost comparison?My third and final question for this question is that under the Act ACC is not required to offer instalment plans. And I just wondered if the Minister had thought about whether—while we're tidying up the Act which is essentially what this is doing—it would be prudent to change "may" to "must" just from an equity perspective. It is a practice that ACC has been doing so legislating to make sure that there is legislated equity rather than a kind of broad discretion from the Crown agency in my view might just help enshrine some equity and be something that we wouldn't have to come back to. Certainly if it had been through a select committee stage perhaps that's something somebody might have done an Amendment Paper on just to make it a bit more robust. So I'm keen to hear from the Minister.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you Madam Chair. Just responding to that last question from Ingrid Leary about whether we would be interested in changing the word from "may" to "must". Because it's a tidy-up bill I would probably refer her to the last Green member's contribution which I think made it very clear that in fact this bill actually doesn't intend to change any practice. Actually all it does is validate past and present practice which actually was a good platform to support the bill I would have thought. And the question that he also raised around the advice from LDAC or the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee: the advice I've received is that back in around April 2023 when the regulatory impact statement was actually written—and that's how long this goes back—the LDAC at the time felt they didn't have the time to respond."