Henare Peeni; Doocey Matt; O'Connor GregHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. It's been a very interesting exchange throughout the entire process of this bill. The first question I do have—and I'll go into a little bit of context about some of why we're here and the decisions that I certainly made when I was the Minister for ACC.But before I do that I want to thank the advisers because when ACC go through a process to look towards levies—and it's not just this levy; it's the vast array of levies and interactions that ACC have with employers and our communities across the country—it's quite a lengthy process. They come back to a Minister with a series of recommendations about levies and the processes by which they might change and considerations for Cabinet to ultimately decide upon. I can say—and Mr Bishop and Mr Doocey are right—that in my time when presented with that we decided not to. The regulatory impact statement also makes quite a poignant point on that particular matter because of a number of the changes and decisions that were made that impacted businesses after COVID-19 which brings me to my first question. I want to support—only because I don't think I heard an answer from the Minister—my Green colleague in his question about whether or not the Minister had considered his tabled amendment here. I didn't quite hear whether it was a definitive no but I'd welcome the Minister's clear response and then whichever way he might go on that of course we'll react accordingly.Then the second question I have for the Minister is: as I've just mentioned the context about how ACC considers its levies was there any discussion by the Minister and Cabinet and this Government about whether or not consideration towards the levy rate that it's currently set at could be changed given the fact that we are in a cost of living crisis? Businesses up and down the country are looking towards how we might cut more costs or how we might be able to save more dollars. I wondered given this is a chance to change the levy—and it doesn't come around all too often because of the process it goes through—whether or not the Minister and indeed the Government had considered tinkering or changing the levy that's described here in the amendment bill? I think that's really important.The other point I want to make with respect to the title—and I heard Mr Bishop talk about plain language. Well plain language is important because for many business owners out there they're not going to sit down and read the entire ACC Act. Therefore the title is important to make sure that you describe it for exactly what it is and that's really important. At a quick glance they can go OK there's a bit of retrospective activity happening here." That's already been well canvassed in the House that that is a particular issue because any time you talk about retrospectivity in this House regardless of whether or not you're going back on levies or it's legislation or whatever it might be there are always serious questions that need to be asked for a clear justification and a clear rationale from the Government on why they've gone and done this particular action. So those are the questions I have for the Minister in my first contribution.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you very much Mr Chair. In response to the Hon Peeni Henare: a bill that we are bringing to the House tonight that will validate past and current practice—will I be responding to the amendment around a name change or support it? The answer would be no.The rate of 2.73 percent which the honourable member talked about in a cost of living crisis: I think the reason that an employer or self-employed person would take an instalment plan of 10 months was potentially if they didn't have the funds to pay a lump sum. I would probably say if they were to go to their bank to get that money to pay it without the option of an instalment they would be paying more than 2.73 percent. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ms Leary I note that you said you've got quite a few questions. I encourage since we seem to have a participating Minister that this might be a good opportunity to do that—Ingrid Leary: That sounds like a great idea Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): —interactively in the way of the committee stage that I have been trying to encourage."