Cunliffe David: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6839. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I believe that this bill should be named the “Accident Compensation (High Time They Paid Back) Amendment Bill” because in the Budget debates of both 2014 and 2015 it was clear from Treasury advice that there has been a surplus on the ACC accounts and Treasury has recommended to the Government that that be returned to taxpayers in a transparent and equitable way. This bill finally goes some way towards achieving that aim but it is worth noting in passing that at Budget day the Government’s accounts for both of the last two Budgets would have been seriously worse off—seriously deeper in deficit—had these surpluses not been held on the Crown account to try to achieve surplus. Even then of course history has shown that that was a vain hope—a forlorn hope—and surplus was not achieved.Let us reflect in the title and commencement part of this Committee stage debate on a specific point that goes to the solvency position in Part 2 which we have previously traversed. When changes are made to the cost structure of payments under ACC to payment rates or to the way that claims are managed and when that impacts on the operating balance of the fund that balance is then magnified through the actuarial process into the valuation of the fund.In turn it is that actuarial valuation that as you know shows up changes in gains and losses on the Crown’s operating account and those can be big numbers. It is not without cause that a Government of the day might wait—when those numbers are bouncing around between positive and negative—for a period of time to allow the trend to be clear. What has happened in this case however is that the waiting has gone on for at least 2 years longer than officials recommended was necessary. So we welcome this part of the bill—Part 2 essentially—because the earners account as of December 2014 was at close to 130 percent of fully paid; 130 percent. In January 2015 it was 121 percent. In February 2015 it was 128 percent. The work account was up to 140 percent trending to 141 percent and those numbers are just too high.The other name that is tempting for this bill is the “ACC Financial Return Off The Backs Of Suffering Kiwis Bill” because I have had—and I am sure Mr Chairperson that you and others have also had—cases of people who have been the subject of ACC reviews coming in. I can still picture one woman who came into my electorate office and could barely walk. She could barely walk and she had been thrown off ACC after a period of time because the injuries to her legs were deemed retrospectively to be a pre-existing condition.I will come back to the bill. The reason for this example is that the individual case decisions affect the cash flows which affect the operating balance which is then magnified into the actuarial surplus—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This is a lovely long bow but I think the member had better come back to the bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In the end those are human circumstances. Those are New Zealanders—they could be the family of anybody in this House or out there—who through no fault of their own have come across an accident or hard times and there is the debate about how that is interpreted and how onerous or punitive the review system should be.I think most Kiwis are fair people. They want a review system that does not allow rorting—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK the member will resume his seat. He has again taken—I think I indicated it—quite a long bow to this. This is not about the review system. This is quite a narrow debate on these clauses. This speech would have been a wonderful speech at the second reading or the introduction and it is probably relevant on the third reading but not in the technical stage now.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you Mr Chairperson for your guidance and I will reflect upon that. I had thought that one was allowed in the title and commencement clauses to summarise some of the arguments that the previous clause-by-clause parts of the Committee stage had touched upon.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): If they had done it relevantly yes.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would have done had I been lucky enough to get a call on the previous part—thus the summary has occurred under the title and commencement clauses. Be that as it may I take your guidance.We support the passage of this bill in the Committee stage. We do it with reluctance in respect of Part 1 because the transparency has been watered down. We do support Part 2. We think that the legislation is overdue. It has been several years now that this payment has been due to New Zealanders. Thank goodness it is finally happening.