Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I too find it a great pleasure to rise on the subject of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the contribution actually of my colleague and friend Tama Potaka. He's taken on a number of roles since coming to Parliament and to that we can add cheese rolls as well.This is inherently an unambitious bill. It's not about access it's not about compensation and it's not about rehabilitation. It's to provide a focus on access compensation and rehabilitation; an increased understanding—and understanding's important obviously because it's a precursor to these other things actually being provided. But there is very little tangible benefit in terms of lives being improved regarding what the service is required to provide to them except only—and this is the best that we can say for the bill—that it will legislate to require certain forms of reporting on certain items. But actually there is nothing to stop that already taking place at the moment and I would have thought that government—and I use that term broadly; I appreciate there's different levels of governance and control within the organisation. But it seems to me if there is something so broken with the way that ACC is operating that they cannot be required by the current masters to provide such basic information as to who is accessing the scheme and whether such access is equitable and so forth then we've got much bigger problems than whether the reporting takes place by way of annual report or not or whether there is a very specific statute on the books to require that or not.So however we look at this and the very worthy arguments about the need for equitable access by way of different population groups—and we can slice and dice those in different ways and we can examine the way that these are characterised in terms of all groups or naming specific groups and referring other" undefined groups. But the reality is that every New Zealander should have good access to our accident compensation scheme and if that's not the case—and there's little evidence I understand at the moment—and if evidence can be garnered to that effect then that is a wrong that should be righted of course.We've got a bit of a logical problem with this bill whereby we don't know what we don't know. So of course the Government might say "Ah well the lack of evidence of certain groups being precluded is exactly why we need the bill" but one is reminded of that age-old joke—and I'm afraid it's not a very good one but why would I break tradition now? It goes along the lines of asking "How do elephants hide in cherry trees?" and the answer which is deeply unfunny is that they paint their toenails red—to which of course the rejoinder is "Well how could that possibly be effective?" and to which the further question is "Well have you ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?" of course suggesting therefore it must be effective. And the point is: if we don't know that there's a problem it's not enough merely to say "Oh well there might be a problem therefore we've got to pass a very specific law"—primary legislation no less—"to say that we've got to find out if the problem exists or not." Surely there is some way that the ACC regime can orientate itself towards understanding whether it is working at even such a basic level of access by different demographic groups and if not as I say we have much bigger problems on our hands.And actually there are quite a few problems with ACC. Let us be honest in this House and say that for every one of us who is a constituent or a list MP based in a constituency we've all had people come through our doors I'm sure and my colleague and friend Toni Severin is nodding—she will have seen in her area no doubt people say "Dear member of Parliament I've had a problem with accessing these Government services. I would like you to help me and my problem is X or my problem is Y my problem is Z." There's a variety of different complaints that people have about either the design of the scheme or oftentimes the fact that in the mind of the constituent they are entitled already according to the design of the system to certain benefits which they're not in fact receiving. So there's sometimes a disconnect between the view of the corporation—and I think that's the right "C" in "ACC"—in terms of what the entitlement is for that person given certain factual bases on which their claim has been made.So for example a gentleman who was in my constituency—he's now moved; actually for reasons related to his post-accident experience—had recently started a business. Because he hadn't had much time operating the business and therefore a strong record of income and therefore an effective basis for which a weekly or hourly wage could be calculated it was said well according to the way the scheme was set up that he would just be assessed as being at the minimum wage which was a pretty pessimistic view but that's the way the scheme regards these things. Well he then of course received 80 percent of the minimum wage because one receives 80 percent of the wage that they were either on—or deemed to be on in his case. So he was at well under the minimum wage—or you know 80 percent thereof—and that was extremely difficult for him. He faced therefore severe financial challenges as well as emotional and mental challenges relating to the physical injury itself as well as the difficulty of paying a mortgage loan and doing other things that one plans to do with one's life before one is injured in his case in a treatment injury so-called.So there are many legitimate complaints that can be made about the ACC design. I do acknowledge actually in relatively recent times a bill brought to the Parliament and supported I think unanimously in terms of improving access to ACC in relation to maternal injuries—I think I've characterised that correctly—and that's right. I do congratulate and thank those who did that work to bring that forward: the advocates who suggested that in the first place as a piece of law reform; those on the Government side who proposed it put it forward formally; and those who supported it on this side of the House too. That's a good example of a design flaw within ACC that was recognised it was known it was reported it was discussed—possibly at greater length than it should have been—until the change was made. But credit where it was due: the people who made the change should be applauded for having done so and that I think would be a better use of the House's time in considering what could be done to improve the ACC regime than merely requiring a certain reporting standard or format by way of primary legislation.So I think with the point having been made that no regulatory impact statement can be found to support the claims on which the bill is based in the first instance it is difficult to take that seriously. But as I say there should be no reason that any such gaps cannot already be identified and if they can then of course they should be rectified. Such outcomes should be the aim of this Government and indeed any Government and we would urge the Government to concentrate its energies and finite resources—and I say that because every Government has finite resources. Priorities must be made decisions must be taken for what the energy of the House of Parliament as well as the Government more generally should be directed towards. This is not the best use of those resources and so on this side of the House in the National Party we can't support it.And I will just add if you'll indulge me for a moment: the Warriors are playing this weekend against the Bulldogs and I hope they don't receive a disproportionate share of 50/50 calls against them as has often been the case observed by such long-suffering fans as myself and others. And I make that point under parliamentary privilege because I can and I think it's important. Thank you."