Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): That was one of the more unusual committee stage contributions that I've heard from any member ever—the committee stage of course being the point when we consider clause by clause the legislation that is before the House. The member spent a considerable amount of time referring to matters that are not addressed by this bill at all. When I'm in the chair I do like to respond to matters that are raised by members so I will briefly touch on some of the things the member has raised and then maybe draw the committee's attention back to the matters that are actually dealt with by this legislation. The member Tim Macindoe firstly identified correctly—I think he said all the matters addressed in this bill were being worked on by the previous Government. That's almost correct—most of them were. It was good to be able to pick up some work that had been done by the previous Government but they hadn't been able to bring it to fruition. The one matter which of course was new in this legislation is the matter dealing with the dependants of people who are posted overseas and extending the provision of ACC to those people. That was a new matter which I'm happy to come back to later on. It does indeed address fairness for those injured near retirement. The member asked how that will happen. Well that's fairly well laid out in the legislation. He then went on to say that people want significant reform of ACC and that a number of submitters were frustrated I suppose that this was not their opportunity to discuss the need for significant reform of ACC. I find that an interesting matter for a member from a party that has just been in Government for nine years to raise—that there seems to be significant public outcry for reform of ACC in the state that it was left by the previous Government. Now it is true there is considerable call from the public for the Government to look at some of those matters but I do find it interesting that the Opposition are now saying that we need significant reform of ACC given that that would be reforming the ACC as it was left to us by the previous Government. New Zealanders feel aggrieved by dispute resolution—well actually this is a matter that the previous Government did respond to. There was the Acclaim Otago report and I believe the previous Government when the Hon Nikki Kaye was the Minister for ACC initiated the Miriam Dean report to respond to those matters. Now 19 out of 20 of the recommendations in the Miriam Dean report have actually been addressed. There are a couple of outstanding matters. One is around a navigation service to support people who are seeking resolution to disputes with ACC and the other is around the independent medical panels that provide advice to ACC around claims and the review of claims. But those matters are being dealt with. I think the previous Government rightly responded to the issues that were raised by Acclaim Otago and this Government carries on with that work. I have instructed ACC to continue reporting to me about progress against those matters. The member says he has a bill in his own name that raises an interesting matter that we may get to consider. I wish the member the best of luck in getting his bill drawn from the ballot and perhaps that is a matter that will be before the House and that we will get some opportunity to consider. But I would like to draw the committee's attention back to what this bill actually does do. Part 1 is—and I appreciate we're debating all parts of the bill—really the meaty part of this bill. It amends section 17 of the principal Act so that the spouses partners and dependants of staff who are posted overseas in the course of their duties to a New Zealand employer also have the ability to access ACC. So people who are posted in their normal duties—they have long had access to ACC but their partners and dependants have not been able to and there was certainly a question of fairness there. If there's a member of your family who is posted overseas and their family travels with them it is right and proper I think that we should extend the provision of ACC to those family members as well. Clause 6 amends the regulation-making power in section 329(1)(a) of the Act to provide the ability for regulations to set the method by which the maximum and minimum amounts of earnings are determined. This will allow regulations to adjust maximum and minimum earnings in respect of year 2 levies by indexing these to the labour cost index and minimum wage respectively. The other major aspect of this legislation is dealing with the question of people's entitlement to weekly compensation if they are injured around the age of retirement. Previously by and large people had to elect whether they would receive their superannuation payment or their weekly compensation. They could receive it for one year in total and then had to elect between the two for a second year. What this legislation brings into force is the ability to access both New Zealand superannuation and weekly compensation for two years if you are injured at work and suffer a loss of income as a result of that after the age of 65. Now I appreciate there is considerable debate around the fact that a lot of people are working past the age of 65. They may be reliant on both their New Zealand superannuation and the income they receive from wages and that will continue I think to be a topic of conversation. But it is correct that ACC has a cut-off after which it no longer pays weekly compensation in the normal course of events. Everybody's working life comes to an end at some point in time and it would be inappropriate for someone who is injured to carry on receiving weekly compensation until the end of their life. So 65 has been used as the proxy under legislation passed by both Governments because it is the age of universal superannuation. It's a proxy retirement age and I think that it's appropriate to align the age at which there is not universal eligibility for weekly compensation to the age at which there is universal eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. But this is a small change that will certainly relieve some of the loss of income for people who are working past the age of 65 and are injured in the course of that work. Those are the major aspects of this legislation. It is largely full of some technical changes but nevertheless important changes that I think will make a significant difference to those families of people who are posted overseas and those people who find themselves injured at work over the age of 65.