Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. So we are now at the third reading of the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill. Thank you so much to everyone who contributed immensely during the committee stage so that we were able to clarify some elements of this bill. I think to start with this bill looks at two components. The first component is giving the legal authority to ACC to be able to charge interest on instalments. That in itself is something that the Green Party is supportive of and particularly in terms of when we are looking at the goal of ACC.However the second part around retrospective validation which I'll talk more about later is an area that we have deep concerns on. Before that I also want to mention that we are also incredibly grateful to the Minister for ACC who has been able to be engaging and answer our questions during the committee stage as well as we're going through this bill.Because of these two elements I want to first raise the fact that one of my amendments to change the title to include both elements of this bill which would then make it the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans and Retrospective Validation) Amendment Bill" was not supported which I think is a shame because it would clarify both elements of this bill enormously.In terms of the first part when we are talking about the process in which ACC is able to establish the interest plan—and part of this also comes down to clause 6 inserting new Part 5 in Schedule 1AA—one of the things that was also drawing our attention was to do with the existing instalment plan options. We talked about the fact that for three- and six-months' stages it is currently at 0 percent interest but for the 10-month stage it is at 2.73 percent which is the current practice by ACC.But in terms of the process for setting new instalment plans it's something that we questioned the Minister on and tried to get additional clarification on. This is something that I kind of would like to highlight because one of the things we would draw attention to is number one the fact that ACC may or may not need the option to have to charge the interest. This is a flexibility that is given to ACC as indicated in clause 4 of the bill and I think that flexibility is incredibly important to give to the corporation.However in clause 5 inserting new sections 329(1)(hb) 329(2)(2A) and 329(2)(2B) which talks about the process whereby consultation is needed a four-week consultation is in fact needed by the corporation before a recommendation is made to the Minister. But in clause 5 it's from the Minister's perspective how the Minister takes up that recommendation and how the Minister implements that recommendation from the corporation which generated a lot of discussion during the committee stage. Part of that is to do with the fact that it is not clear. I'm hoping that the Minister did clarify that the Minister must not—as opposed to just have to—put forward any changes to the making of the regulation or any changes to the instalment plan and instalment rate unless receiving that recommendation from ACC. I think this is incredibly crucial from the context that what we don't want to see is a situation where if the Minister is not taking on the ACC's recommendation after they have conducted all this consultation with businesses etc. there is the possibility of the Minister operating ultra vires. This is something that was teased out through the committee stage. I was again really appreciative of the Minister being able to clarify and also kind of enlighten the House around some of these issues.Moving on to the second part of this bill around retrospective validation and this is the part that we do disagree with and which is ultimately the reason why the Greens will not be supporting this bill is because of this fact. So as the previous speaker Rachel Boyack mentioned what we didn't manage to see for this particular bill is that select committee stage where we're able to hear from the public. Again I appreciate the fact that this particular bill may need to be put through under urgency due to the fact that it will potentially open up to certain challenges. But again one of the things we drew attention to in the regulatory impact statement is the fact that this particular regulatory impact statement was something that was already available in April last year and it has taken until now under urgency to put this through. So again I would echo the previous speaker's sentiment that even a truncated—you know nothing has kind of happened up until now so even if a truncated select committee process was put in place it may have given us the reassurance needed to actually possibly support this bill if we were given the opportunity to hear from the public.So on that again the retrospective validation is something that both ACC and the Ministry of Innovation Business and Employment agreed to but as we heard from the Minister it was not something that they had the opportunity to consult businesses on. In fact there was very little data. There was data around how much of the levy would have been affected as part of this collection of the interest but then there wasn't enough information given on how many of them currently have to pay interest on that. It is presumed that about one third of the businesses are currently using that 10-month option. So this is one of the things that we found kind of concerning—the lack of data that was able to be put around something like this.In terms of this the other angle that we looked at is the fact that when we are looking at retrospectivity this is something that must be weighed carefully. I think any legislation that does have a retrospective component to it ought to have that select committee process. I understand for example the potential mistakes or the legal ambiguity that something like this has created for the Crown and for the executive and for the agency. But as a legislature our role is to hold that executive accountable not simply sort of bailing them out when we have found a mistake was made. I think that it is incredibly concerning to us. One of our bottom lines around retrospectivity is to be able to have all of the information that we are able to get and we weren't able to see that.One of the things we have also been unable to get clarification on is the breadth of that retrospectivity. One of the things to do with this was that we tabled an amendment on new section 18(2) of Schedule 1AA inserted by clause 6 and how it says that all actions of the corporation in fixing the rate "are valid and declared to be and to have always been lawful." There was some uncertainty and something that we didn't manage to get a clarification on is how much does that "all actions" encompass? Does it only encompass what we already know or does it potentially also encompass elements that we don't already know? So again this is something that we are finding incredibly concerning with that particular part of the bill.Of course as has been mentioned across the House we see ACC as being a great thing and a great agency and something for us to have here in Aotearoa New Zealand and there's nothing that would make the Greens happier than seeing ACC one day transforming into something like the agency for comprehensive care. But when something like this happens when we're seeing something that they are doing that is already legally dubious and we have to use the tools available to the legislature to bail them out of a particular situation when we're seeing some of the cuts that are currently happening at ACC when we're seeing the issues around the dispute resolution process we can't continue to support ACC on this."