Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Associate Minister for ACC): Thanks Mr Assistant Speaker. The ACC scheme was implemented by the third Labour Government in 1974. It's had constant improvement since then under Labour Governments and it's based on principle.Just with a quick reference to Tim Macindoe's—the previous speaker—mention of a member's bill the reason that that was opposed by this Government was because of a principle and consistency of a principle. Principles-based legislation is what we should be doing and I think there is general agreement that this is a principles-based amendment to a piece of legislation. A more substantive piece of legislation is coming down the track which needs to be based on principle and which needs to take the time to do that rather than be rushed. So we've commended the previous National Government for the preparatory work that was done on this. We're now taking that through because we agree with the principles behind it and that is as it should be because for all of those who suffer personal injury caused by accident whatever the cause New Zealand needs to continue to lead the world in providing universal comprehensive no-fault coverage for all physical injuries. Those principles will be continued.One of the anomalies that this piece of legislation corrects is the cover for dependants of New Zealand workers posted overseas. Now it's an obvious thing to correct. Also it's not a huge number of people affected but the anomaly is actually quite curious. What really piqued my interest was that while this was the norm until 1998 it's unknown as to the reasons and rationale for the change to take away that right in 1998. Now 1998 it's not that long ago—20 years ago—but the rationale for that change is unknown because the parliamentary record does not preserve it. The result has been that some agencies with posted workers have been forced to look for cover arrangements that were difficult or even impossible to find and that has resulted in a discrimination situation. ACC obviously is best placed to manage these claims. People are posted overseas because they're working for an agency—foreign affairs immigration whatever—and they're doing a job on behalf of their country and as a result of that they need to have their families with them. Therefore their families should not be disadvantaged as a result. So one of the core things that this legislation is doing is correcting that.The other thing that this legislation is looking at is retrospectivity for that back to 1998 which is an unusual and rare step for retrospectivity to be covered off in a piece of legislation. I think in this case there's a very strong element of fairness and principle that lies behind it.Another element of fairness and principle relates to the bill responding to a declaration by the Human Rights Review Tribunal forcing surviving spouses of partners to choose between New Zealand superannuation and ACC survivors' payments which is discriminatory on the basis of age. I would imagine that most electorate MPs in this House would've had people into their offices over the years—I certainly know that I have over my nine-and-a-bit years in Parliament—where they have faced making that choice and have felt disadvantaged as a result whether it be their spouses or actual people making that choice themselves. This bill again will correct that anomaly and make it a lot fairer by removing the election requirement for ACC claimants to choose between weekly compensation and New Zealand super after receiving a year of both clarifying the current transitional provisions to ensure that all claimants who are close to or above superannuation qualification age receive up to 24 months of weekly compensation. This is to enable a fair transition and I think again this goes back to a principle.It also goes back to the principles that generally this Government is basing its whole strategy and plan around and those are fairness and decency. And this piece of legislation—while the previous speaker Tim Macindoe criticises us for introducing a measure the previous Government started surely nobody could argue that legislation that has been properly thought-out and that is correcting anomalies that are unfair should not go ahead. I think it's the mark of a responsible Government to be doing this as quickly as possible because anomalies in legislation that have created disadvantage particularly for people who are posted overseas doing a job in behalf of their country and for older New Zealanders who are forced into a situation of having to make an unfair choice—these things are important to correct and to not leave hanging around.So ultimately this legislation is a precursor to a more substantive piece of work that is being worked on now with more fundamental changes to the Act and that will be coming either later this year or early next year. I'd like to think that the previous Government the now Opposition will treat that in good faith in terms of the principles that it will be based on as well. So I commend this bill to the House and look forward to discussion in select committee and hearing what comes out of the select committee to make our world-famous ACC scheme even better and fairer.