Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill and I'd like to acknowledge all the contributions that have been made thus far this afternoon. I think there is general support for the measures contained in this bill for what are further improvements and refinements to ACC—the accident compensation scheme a much-beloved scheme that we have here in New Zealand. I think back to its founding father the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse and the great vision that he had of creating the universal and comprehensive no-fault coverage for all personal physical injuries that we have with our ACC scheme which we have been the beneficiaries of for over 40 years now.This bill as we've heard in contributions made provides a lot of improvements. It addresses some matters to make things a bit fairer for certain individuals and there is a range of technical amendments as well. So we're not going to the actual heart of the ACC scheme; we're really just touching on and improving on a lot of periphery matters but as we know the ACC scheme can be very very technical and very complex particularly for certain individuals that are trying to navigate their way through. I'm pleased to be standing to support the measures made and can I acknowledge the Minister for ACC the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway and also the work conducted by the former Government in the preparation of this bill.I want to touch on just a couple of the amendments that are being made through this bill and in particular we've heard today around the cover for dependants of New Zealand workers overseas. That's just about providing that spouses or partners of those Kiwis that are posted overseas who are serving their country are indeed provided with ACC cover should they require it. I understand that this goes back to—well this was always in place. However in 1998—unbeknownst I guess—during the passage of the legislation that went through at that time this particular provision was excluded or dropped out of the legislation. Fortunately we're here today to start the process to rectify that. But I'm curious—and I'm sure it could be borne out in the select committee process on this bill—when we're talking about this small number of Kiwis that maybe work for Immigration New Zealand overseas or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade does this legislation actually cover those Kiwis that are engaged locally by embassies and by our high commissions around the world?I can understand that seconded high commissioners ambassadors and the like and their spouses and dependants can be covered but I think there's an argument to be made that the coverage should be extended to those Kiwis that serve their country across the globe in the aid of serving New Zealand and Kiwis around the globe—that they can be covered also. I'm not too sure of the scope of this actual provision but there are a number of appointments—in fact quite a large amount of appointments—that are made whereby Kiwis are employed but locally in accordance with local terms and conditions. But ultimately they're paid by the New Zealand taxpayer; it's just that the terms and conditions that they work under are the local conditions for which they reside. It would be helpful I guess if that class of New Zealander working in the service of their country would also be covered by this bill because I don't think there is much of a difference. Again ultimately they're being paid out of New Zealand for the work that they do in the service of New Zealand.One of the other couple of matters I just want to touch on is the abolition or the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority in place of the District Court. I guess having to navigate through those complex legal processes can be time-consuming and it can be very costly. All I would note is that I would hope that through the disestablishment of the appeal authority which I understand has been used less and less in recent years the instalment of the District Court as the sole forum for appeals should not—that the same access to the District Court or the access to that appeal authority equivalent is not unduly jeopardised by people not having the appropriate means to go through to the District Court because they can be quite expensive processes.I lastly just want to touch on the measures put in place on this bill which I do commend which are around making sure that those individuals nearing retirement age who are injured close to that age can continue to receive their work compensations in addition to payments of New Zealand super. I think it seems no matter which way you look at it that it's the right thing to do. It's the fair thing to do because those particular individuals would be entitled to continue in their work which is why they are receiving those work payments. So ensuring that they can continue on for a period is a sensible measure.Likewise the ability for other spouses of the workers that unfortunately die who are entitled to surviving payments—ensuring that those payments can continue and the spouses are not unduly jeopardised is also commendable. I understand that was affirmed by a Human Rights Review Tribunal declaration. It took that particular action to ensure that the legislation is being amended to include that.There is also a range of many other technical amendments which cover a whole range of other matters from veterans to superannuitants and the like. These are all very welcome. Once again I just would like to acknowledge the Minister for bringing these amendments through to the House now. There is a substantive piece of work which is going on but these amendments are pressing. They will be very welcomed by those Kiwis that will be the beneficiaries of them. They will enhance our much-cherished ACC scheme. I commend them to the House. Kia ora tātou.