Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker.Hon Member: We're going to be for ever.Hon Matt Doocey: We've still got Tuesday.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yeah we still got quite a few more to go but everyone is doing well. First of all can I just say that this is my first time going under urgency and I do find the whole process of having to go from first reading straight into second reading kind of odd. It's almost kind of like how are you going to make things a little bit more interesting the second time around and more nuanced. The first—Hon Chris Bishop: Well you don't have to speak.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh but I do love to. You know the first reading is about painting the picture of what we would like to see when it comes to ACC—or agency for comprehensive care—and also what the levy could be used for and the way that it could be expanded.I would like to pick up on something that has been said. I would like to point out that what I said in the first reading is that our previous spokesperson for ACC Jan Logie was instrumental—I did not say that she was the one who passed it. I think it's unfair for both Jan Logie—and I think Carmel probably wouldn't be happy as well to underplay the importance—Ingrid Leary: Point of order. Sorry Mr Speaker I don't have the particular provision but—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yes I'm thinking the same.Ingrid Leary: —members are required to call members by their full name not first names.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yes please call members by their full name. Also please don't refer to members when they're absent as well. OK continue.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh awesome. Thank you so much. Thank you for that Mr Speaker—that's well noted. I think that we shouldn't under-appreciate the contributions that the previous Green Party spokesperson for ACC Jan Logie has played on that important bill. And I thank you Ingrid Leary for the correction and I thank you for the point of order for making me aware of that particular nuance.When it comes to this bill we talked about some of the specificity around it in terms of the two main provisions which one allow for businesses to have the ability to have an instalment plan when it comes to levy invoice—and the second one is around the retrospective amendment and the retrospective validation of ACC's past practice. I think this is something that our colleagues—my colleagues—have already mentioned which is around the fact that when the IT system was first introduced ACC was not sure when the practice of charging interest started. But it's confident it has been charging interest on instalment plans of various lengths and—like the previous speaker Rachel Boyack said—for the last 20 years. I think this is really significant when we are looking at the IT system that ACC is currently working on particularly in light of the current public services cut—into ACC as well where a huge chunk of the IT team is being cut alongside other core teams such as the preventative team.So this is really important in this context: when we are looking at these sort of IT hiccups what additional things could have been teased out and does ACC currently have the ability or the confidence to reassure the Minister for ACC that there isn't anything else that we haven't been made aware of and that we would have to create retrospective legislation for because they have done something ultra vires? Again I appreciate the reminder—from one of the previous speakers—of that particular legal nuance as well.So these are some of the questions that will be really interesting to tease out during the committee stage around the interactions and the capacity that ACC currently has in terms of managing or mitigating some of these errors that could be decades in the making.I think the other element in here that's also really interesting to tease out is that the ministry for business innovation and entrepreneurship—I think; I only ever know it as MBIE.Scott Willis: Innovation and enterprise.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: And enterprise not employment.Hon Member: Employment.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh my God! Yeah so Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—thank you. MBIE and ACC have a disagreement around this particular thing and it also highlights the really important issue when it comes to multi-agency collaborations and multi-agency discussions that take place. Again something like this—if it happens what other things could potentially be highlighted as a result of this legislation. Again ACC is something that covers such a broad area.Now I want to address the main reason why the Green Party is not supporting this bill which is the retrospective element of it. I think in general we hold this principle that you know agencies if you do make a mistake like this—and I appreciate what the previous speakers have mentioned in terms of the potential repercussions that this will have if we don't retrospectively remediate it. However I would like to point out that—in this case what about those businesses who have been paying it? It is an assumption that we make when we're saying that these businesses are OK with paying in instalments and are already paying the interest that's being charged on the instalment for the levy. However there has been no consultation that has been taking place when it comes to this and whether businesses—particularly I'm thinking of small businesses individual employers—are actually happy with the fact that they have been charged this for the last 20 years. I think this is something that is also really important to tease out as part of the committee stage.But I understand the importance and the cost this potentially will incur if we don't retrospectively fix this issue—that is if we don't fix this issue there may be a fiscal implication in terms of the revenue that is generated by ACC. However I know that people from across the House and particularly on the other side of the House have questioned some of the relevance around this. My question for this is: in the context of why we are here in the context of the fact that we are talking about this particular bill which people have said is a minor and technical bill—again we have seen a number of minor technical bills which have much broader consequences and much broader repercussions that would have been teased out if we had gone through a select committee process and allowed people to submit on it so that even as parliamentarians even as MPs even as spokespeople we're able to learn more and understand more of the stories the individual stories of our communities. But my question here is—and this is something else I would like to tease out during the committee stage—around the relevance of this particular bill in the context of the Budget urgency. I think that's also something that I'm really looking forward to asking the Minister on.So when we are looking at this bill we have mentioned the implications around the ability of and the confidence that we have in ACC to not have any other major issues or any other repercussions that are highlighted by this. We have talked about the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—thank you—and the lack of agreement that they have with ACC. So these are going to be some of the areas I'm going to be really really interested in.The last thing I want to mention—I just want to go back to talking about the fact that we haven't been able to have consultations on this bill. In this case I'm thinking of and sympathising with small and medium enterprises and again those small employers who may be paying instalments over this because they are unable to pay the full amount and the annual amount in one go. I know that there are different reasons why people choose to pay in instalments but I would really like to know some of the advice and some of the data around how much they were being overcharged and again whether they are happy being overcharged for this amount.So these are all of the questions that I have when we go in to the committee stage. I'm again really looking forward to engaging with all members of this House and particularly the Minister for ACC on this. For the last little bit of time I have left I just want to reiterate that because of the retrospective nature of the second part of this—there are a lot of good things in here and a lot of good things we can tease out. But simply for the fact that the Green Party has never wanted to align with any sort of retrospective legislation unless it's an absolute emergency we cannot support this bill.