Accident Compensation Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

New Zealand’s no-fault accident compensation scheme is a national treasure, and the envy of many other countries. Overwhelmingly, people who are injured receive an excellent service from ACC in terms of their treatment and their rehabilitation. This Government is committed to ensuring that the accident compensation scheme remains fair, transparent, and accessible for all claimants.

For the most part, these changes are at the boundaries of the system, rather than at the core. I’ve asked officials to take a careful look at ways to improve the scheme, with the intention to bring a substantive bill to the House late this year or early next year.

While policy work on that broader package is under way, a pressing issue that needs to be addressed immediately has arisen, and I’ve taken the opportunity at the same time to make a series of other useful changes. The cumulative effect of these changes is to make the scheme fairer and kinder to groups on the margin of coverage.

This bill addresses a gap in ACC coverage for families of employees who are posted overseas in the course of their employment. I believe this is an important change to make, as we do not want to discourage people from representing New Zealand’s interests offshore if they feel that they cannot keep their families together without risk.

Employees who represent New Zealand in both our public affairs and private industry contribute a range of benefits to New Zealand’s economy and international relations. It is reasonable for employees and their family to be living together overseas while they carry out their employment duties. If these family members were in New Zealand and had an accident, they would receive full entitlement for any injuries. This is a return to how the issue was dealt with under previous Acts, and would return the spirit of those provisions to capture family units and dependants.

The Act was amended rather mysteriously in 1998, and there is no intact legislative record behind the reason for the change. The agencies working overseas are concerned that this gap may be a hurdle to filling overseas placements. I propose that these amendments should be retrospective to the date of the previous change. While there is a presumption that retrospective legislation should be avoided, the presumption does not apply in the same way where, as here, a benefit is being provided rather than a right removed. The Attorney-General is comfortable with the retrospectivity of this proposal, and ACC is best placed to deal with any historic claims.

This amendment applies to the existing coverage extension for a small group of people posted overseas. The existing cover does not include people who choose to work remotely offshore for lifestyle or convenience reasons or are participating in Volunteer Service Abroad programmes. I do not consider that there is a strong rationale for extending the scheme beyond New Zealand employees, and this approach aligns with the core principles of ACC as a replacement for the right to sue and an injury safety net in New Zealand.

This bill also makes a number of other changes. It amends the interface between weekly compensation and superannuation to provide for fairer transitions for those people who are injured near to retirement age. This means that people will be able to receive up to two years of weekly compensation and superannuation before transitioning on to superannuation. It is important to remember that treatment and rehabilitation does not cease based on age. This will provide a fairer, more consistent relationship between weekly compensation and superannuation to provide for fairer transitions for those people who are injured near retirement age.

The amendments to the interface between weekly compensation and superannuation align with our commitment to review the restrictions on superannuitants being able to receive both weekly compensation and New Zealand superannuation, given the changing nature of work for the over-65 workforce.

One of the amendments relating to this interface addresses the declaration of inconsistency by the Human Rights Review Tribunal that the requirement to elect between weekly compensation and superannuation was discriminatory on the basis of age. I’m pleased to be introducing an amendment that responds positively to this declaration. This amendment will mean that a client’s entitlement to weekly compensation as a surviving spouse or partner will no longer be affected by whether they are also receiving weekly compensation. Most surviving spouses or partners, including those of superannuation qualification age or older, will be entitled to a maximum of five years of weekly compensation based on their deceased spouse’s or partner’s earnings at the time of the fatal injury. This will ensure consistency and fairness between the entitlements received by surviving spouses regardless of age.

This bill disestablishes the historic Accident Compensation Appeal Authority, as maintaining a separate authority is no longer cost-effective or efficient, given the low number of appeals to the authority. This amendment is in line with this Government’s intentions to remove the complexity in costs that sometimes arises as to whether the authority or the District Court should hear an appeal. Following the disestablishment of the authority, all new appeals under the repealed Acts will be heard by the District Court. This will ensure that claimants’ rights are maintained. I’ve also included in the bill some minor and technical amendments that will increase ACC’s operational efficiency and improve the workability of biennial levy rounds. It is important that we take these opportunities for regulatory maintenance to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory systems in the future.

As a final point, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Hon Michael Woodhouse as the previous Minister for ACC. Many of the policy proposals in this bill were developed and worked under his watch as Minister. They are a good start to the direction of travel that I plan for the scheme. I look forward to the discussion of these important matters, and I encourage people to consider submitting their views about the bill to the Education and Workforce Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I begin by congratulating the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway for bringing his first piece of ACC-related legislation to the House since the change of Government. But I also thank him for acknowledging the fact that—as I think is quite notable—this is yet another piece of legislation that, essentially, will move to enact measures that were commenced under the previous National Government.

Of course, while they are important, nevertheless, they tend to be, and might even be, fairly technical and, in some cases, minor amendments to the primary legislation that, as I say, were in the pipeline and probably just couldn’t achieve the degree of priority in the legislative programme of the previous Government. But because the new Government has so little work of its own to bring to this House, they are only too happy to pick up the National Party’s good ideas and progress them. I’d also like to endorse the Minister’s praise of our ACC regime, which, as he’s rightly noted, is the envy of many other countries and jurisdictions around the world. So if they were under any sort of doubt, let me put them out of their suspense at this moment by confirming that the National Party will of course be supporting this very sensible bill.

I note that the Minister, in his introductory comments, indicated that part of the intention of the bill is to make it kinder and fairer for New Zealanders posted overseas. So I have to say that I am even more disappointed that the Minister and his colleagues didn’t see fit just three weeks ago, on a members’ day, to support an equally sensible and closely related measure—the Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill, which was advanced by my very good colleague Melissa Lee—because that particular bill was designed to fix an anomaly which prohibits migrants and returning New Zealanders from receiving ACC’s support once they reach superannuation age.

I dare say those who may be listening to this debate outside the House at the moment may even be a little bit confused as to why that particular measure doesn’t count, given the comments we have just had from the Minister, because had Ms Lee’s bill been adopted, it would have addressed the anomaly—which seems, to me, to be very unfair—that a number of returning New Zealanders, migrants, and citizens are currently ineligible for weekly compensation because they cannot qualify for the residential criteria. However, as I said, Labour and their coalition partners and confidence and supply partners voted that measured down, so I have to say that that means that one aspect of unfairness will remain in place under this particular piece of legislation.

But, nevertheless, we do have an opportunity through this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill to make minor but necessary changes to the principal legislation. As I’ve said, the proposals are sensible. They are changes that had been identified under the previous Government. They were in the pipeline, and there are aspects that some of my colleagues will cover in more detail later in this debate, but I just want to comment on the fact that the amendments in the bill were identified partly through the regulatory systems work programme of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

For the benefit, again, of those who may be listening outside the House, it’s the chief executive’s responsibility under the State Sector Act 1988, section 32, for the chief executive to assist relevant Ministers with the regulatory stewardship of the legislation that the ministry administers. That may sound like a little bit of a mouthful, but it then explains why these particular provisions have been identified. They include—I won’t go through all of them—removing the election requirement for ACC clients to choose between weekly compensation and New Zealand superannuation after being entitled to a year of both, amending the current provisions to ensure that all clients who are close to or above superannuation qualification age receive up to 24 months of weekly compensation, allowing surviving spouses to receive up to five years of weekly compensation regardless of age, and disestablishing the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority, which hears cases under the 1972 and 1982 accident compensation legislation, and my colleague Dr Reti will be dwelling on that particular provision in more detail later in this debate.

The bill addresses fairness and sustainability issues, as the Minister has already identified. It includes an amendment that will treat the spouses, partners, children, and other dependants of New Zealand workers posted overseas who suffer an injury consistently with how they would have been treated had the injury occurred while they were living in New Zealand. That is important, because coverage would primarily be on return to New Zealand, as ACC doesn’t usually cover overseas treatment costs.

The Veterans’ Support Act of 2014 includes a mirror accident compensation scheme for veterans that is aligned with entitlements provided in the Accident Compensation Act of 2001. Also, the bill proposes a consequential amendment to Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. The proposed amendment is clearly beneficial for older people and will provide for a fairer and more consistent relationship between weekly compensation and superannuation by allowing an injured person’s financial situation to more closely reflect their income had they not been injured, because those people who continue to work past New Zealand superannuation qualification age are able to receive superannuation alongside any earnings from work, and that, of course, is one of the features that the Minister was referring to when he said that our provision is so envied in other parts of the world.

So, as I’ve said, most of the bill responds to measures that have been recommended to the Government. They arise from the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s June 2014 report Regulatory institutions and practices. I think the Minister has given a very comprehensive introduction to the overall features of the bill. Other speakers, I know, will elucidate some of the other factors. I have to get off to a select committee now, so I will leave it at that, and I warmly welcome the introduction of this bill.

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.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. As I was looking at this bill, there were three big parts that struck me, and I will particularly spend some time on the last, as my colleague, the ACC spokesperson for the Opposition, the Hon Tim Macindoe, alluded to.

I think the first part has been well canvassed by previous speakers, that this bill takes into account compensation for New Zealanders who qualify as ordinary residents who are paying New Zealand tax who go offshore and suffer personal injury by accident. It covers their children, spouses, and dependants. That’s clearly a good thing. I think there’s also some tidy-up of the relationship between claimants and superannuation, as they come to the age of superannuation and when they qualify. This bill tidies that up. But I particularly want to apply myself to the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority, look at what that’s about, and give a cautionary word from some work done three or four years ago by the Hon Nikki Kaye that might want to be discussed in select committee, as well.

So if we focus on that, the disestablishment of the ACC appeal authority, the reasons for that are several fold. First of all, the extension is that it will then go to the District Court. The reasons behind that are that when they consulted stakeholders, stakeholders said, “Look, we don’t want specialist tribunals; we’d like a consistent court process.”—firstly. Secondly, the appeal authority hears very few cases, and the burden of two different appeals bodies is quite significant. Well, just how few? If we go into public domain and look at what the appeal authority has actually looked at, in 2015, there were 14 cases; in 2016, there were six; in 2017, just one; and there’s been none to date. So that’s 21 cases over nearly 3½ years.

Furthermore, if we look at the last case that was litigated with the appeal authority on 9 March 2017, the guts to this case is it’s an application for leave to appeal an out-of-time decision. So we can see the sorts of cases that the appeal authority has been dealing with. They tended to deal with situations that applied to old legislation, and, as we can see, the numbers got less and less—21 cases over the past four years. So, I think it’s a fair argument to say, “Few cases—maybe we don’t need the appeal authority.” I think it was also complicating having two appeal bodies: the District Court and the appeal authority, and there is certainly a strengthening of process with all appeals going through the District Court registry. It ensures that all interactions are with the same body and heard by District Court judges.

Now, before we get to the appeals process, we just want to reflect for a moment on all the steps that are taken before you actually get to appeal—and there’s a number of them. There’s an internal independent review. Sometimes, that then goes to alternate disputes resolution; other times, it then goes to the true independent review often carried out by FairWay Resolution. From there, from that stage, if there’s still not satisfaction, it then was either going to the District Court or to the appeal authority. Now, I think an interesting piece of work in this area was done by Nikki Kaye in 2015, where she looked at abolishing the District Court process and the appeal authority and replacing it with an appeals tribunal. The reason here I think this is important is because we don’t want to recreate that same sort of situation.

Eventually, just to conclude that story, there were significant issues with the appeal tribunal, so it actually didn’t progress. But if we look at the reason why this was being suggested, the situation was—the emphasis in 2015—the ACC appeals before the District Court had an average age of 669 days. So here’s something for the select committee to think about: if we funnel everything now through the District Court, are we going to get back to where we were in 2015—669 days before it could get to District Court resolution? The discussion document that went out to look at the tribunal, that raised this point, raised several questions. It raised whether we could just increase the number of judges. Well, it turns out to be an ACC appeal court judge you have to have seven years of judicial experience. That can be challenging sometimes, to find those sorts of people with those sorts of skills.

I think a lot of work was also done at that time around other parts of the appeals process, particularly the Acclaim Otago work of 2015. That was a body of work that came out of an NGO saying, “Look, the resolution process for ACC, the disputes resolution, actually isn’t fair and we don’t think people are getting their medical evidence in a timely way. They don’t have access to legal recourse. They don’t have access to expertise. Where there is legal advice it’s not fully accessible on the Ministry of Justice website.” And a whole body of work was done by a QC Kearn, as I recall, around the Acclaim report, commissioned by Nikki Kaye, and that’s informed this whole resolution process.

So, fundamentally, I just wanted to lay out the case as to why the appeal authority is on good grounds to be established and to also pass some work to the select committee, to just reassure that we don’t go back to the situation in 2015 where the District Court was 669 days behind. With that, I commend this to the select committee.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak, on behalf of New Zealand First, on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. I’d just like to start my contribution this afternoon—I’d like to tautoko the Minister, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway—by making note of his comment that New Zealand’s no-fault accident compensation scheme is, in fact, a national treasure and the envy of many countries. We know that to be a fact, and we are really proud of the fact that we do have this ACC scheme. Also I acknowledge the former Minister, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who did a lot of work in the previous Parliament to get this bill ready. Just a couple of mentions too—the previous speakers—acknowledging Dr Reti and his focus with his contribution on the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. This is something that I would be particularly interested in hearing: what the select committee has to say about that, in the contributions that we’ll come to in hearings in the select committee on that.

This bill accords well with New Zealand First’s ACC policy, implementing a number of reforms that the party has been calling for and other common-sense amendments that are supported by the tenor of New Zealand First policy. Kiwis, as we’ve heard, are very proud of the ACC scheme. Nearly one in three Kiwis made an ACC claim in the years 2016-17. So we’re very well engaged with this scheme.

The bill has two broad objectives: to ensure that ACC continues to meet society’s expectations by providing cover and entitlements that are appropriate, consistent, and sustainable, and to improve the Accident Compensation Act 2001 by ensuring that it is effective, efficient, and accords with best regulatory practice. On behalf of New Zealand First, I’d like to voice our support for the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. The bill is designed to tidy up aspects of the Accident Compensation Act of 2001. Now, over time, inconsistencies, duplications, gaps, and errors start to crystallise, and good housekeeping legislation is necessary to tidy up and improve upon major legislation. We believe that these amendments meet the twin tests of “fairness” and “common sense”. These are important amendments, and it is worth going through and making sure that the House has a clear idea of what the components of this amendment bill intend to do.

So the tidying-up legislation will remove any potential hurdle for those who work overseas, for example. We’ve heard that talked about already this afternoon. So if you work for a company that sends you off overseas for a period of time and you continue to pay your tax here in New Zealand, then, logically, you should be covered for ACC. Not only should the working parent be covered but the family—his or her family—as well. If the family does then return to New Zealand after suffering an injury overseas, they will now continue to be treated under ACC in New Zealand. So that’s a really good amendment in this bill. It’s also become apparent that the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority is a court too far. District Courts are, in fact, perfectly able to adjudicate accident compensation appeals, and we will hear more about that in the select committee. There is a duplication of work between the authority and the District Courts, and this amendment will end that.

These amendments seek to offer greater clarity to some of the grey areas of the ACC legislation. So, take another situation: maybe a person suffers an injury and receives compensation under ACC. Now, if that worker is approaching the age of 65 years and hadn’t intended to retire just yet, this bill will remove the requirement to choose between either weekly compensation or superannuation. Now, some, including New Zealand First, argue that having to choose is discrimination, because when you qualify for New Zealand superannuation, you are entitled to your superannuation as well as your income. As ACC compensation is in lieu of income, we argue that you shouldn’t have to forgo it when you reach the superannuation age. The Government has said that the age limit of 65 is justified discrimination, because it’s designed to protect the fairness and sustainability of the ACC system. A landmark ruling by the Human Rights Review Tribunal in 2015 found that this policy was in breach of the Human Rights Act. Claimants caught in this situation now will be entitled to up to two years of their weekly ACC even if they do receive their superannuation, and that includes surviving spouses and partners in the event that the injury is, in fact, fatal.

Alongside this clarification, the bill will also adjust the Veterans’ Support Act so that it maintains consistency with the updated ACC amendments. In a further attempt to streamline the process, it seems sensible to turn the annual review of rehabilitation amounts that the Accident Compensation Corporation is liable to pay into a two-year review rather than annually. Any attempt to reduce bureaucracy is, in our view, to be welcomed.

May I also make an observation, as a new member dealing with a great deal of legislation on behalf of New Zealand First: during the election campaign and after, there were all sorts of wildly exaggerated fears that the coalition Government would be unwieldy and wracked with the competing interests. We know that this coalition Government has big and important goals to help make New Zealand be a better and fairer country, but it is in the process of governing, dealing with the myriad of small but very important pieces of legislation that need attention, and fixing what we can so that the machine is operating smoothly. What I see is that a lot of the detailed but unspectacular work of government is getting done, and it’s getting done with thoughtfulness and efficiency.

So, from the engine room of the Government, I can report that, in fact, this coalition Government is functioning outstandingly well, and that is why it is easy to support legislation such as the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. So, in conclusion, this Government is, in fact, determined that all New Zealanders deserve the best possible care when they are sick or injured, and that is why we’re repairing the previous nine years of neglect in the health system and also why we’re looking to make the ACC scheme fairer for all claimants. So, Mr Assistant Speaker, that’s my contribution this afternoon. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to acknowledge the Minister for ACC, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, for his comments regarding the stewardship of ACC, particularly under the hands of the Hon Nikki Kaye and the Hon Mike Woodhouse, which really is the genesis of this bill as it comes to the House today, and I acknowledge that the current Minister saw value in the work that had been done under the previous Government.

I think it probably is a good idea to go over a bit of the history of ACC and go back a decade to when the National-led Government came into power in 2008 and we inherited an ACC scheme which had a fiscal hole to the tune of $4.8 billion.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: Rubbish! Absolute rubbish!

It’s in the papers, Minister. Over the time of our Government, we were able to return ACC to a fully funded scheme, and not only to do that but to reduce ACC levies to New Zealanders. Also, we were able during that time to deliver better services and we have now handed over to the current Government a fully functioning, fully funded, financially sustainable ACC scheme.

Also during that time in the National Government—and I do make those comments in light of the self-congratulatory comments made by the member who just resumed her seat, Jenny Marcroft. So having handed over a fully functioning, well-positioned ACC scheme to move into the future, former Ministers had also been undertaking some work on making a couple of aspects of the ACC scheme even better for New Zealanders. Those amendments are now in the bill and they are around addressing the regulatory duplication—there were gaps, there were errors, there were inconsistencies within the current legislation—and also keeping the regulatory system up to date and keeping it relevant to the ACC scheme and to New Zealanders today. So that’s what’s in this bill. Members who have spoken before me have canvassed those measures. I don’t propose to go through those in any detail because members and those listening have gone over those.

But I want to just briefly go into why it’s important that ACC should be delivering a good service to New Zealanders. As a constituency MP, over a number of years I have had a number of people coming to my offices stuck somewhere in the ACC system. Whether they were stuck because they were a person receiving support from ACC close to retirement and then having to make choices between ACC cover or national super, or whether it was somebody caught within the disputes complaints process, those people who came into my office—and there’s less of them now, to be fair, and there will be even less once this bill becomes law because it does make regulatory improvements to the ACC system.

But those people who come into a local MP’s office—and the Hon Clare Curran mentioned that herself because she also is a constituency MP—are in a very bad place. They have turned to their local MP, wherever they are around the country, because they were literally stuck within the ACC system at a time in their lives when they are not able really to deal with Government processes. So in my time as associate ACC Minister, I was involved in a body of work which was around making the process easier for New Zealanders to navigate ACC. Now that work is continuing and I’m very pleased to see that, and I thank the current Government for that. I endorse the work in this bill. The New Zealand National Party supports this bill, and I look forward to its passage through the House and through select committee.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party also in support of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. I too would like to acknowledge the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway and the previous Ministers Nikki Kaye and Michael Woodhouse for the process of getting this bill to the House and the unanimous support that we seem to have across Parliament for it.

I do just need to just very briefly though take exception with the rewriting of history of the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, who spoke about the significant systems improvements under National to ACC, missing out the significant system breakages that happened under that Government before they saw fit to embark on improvement processes. I want to recall for that member and to put on record having heard a submission in the select committee around the funding for specialist sexual violence services. We heard from a man who was telling us how his wife was struggling to access supports after the changes that the National Government had made to the ACC sensitive claims process—how his wife committed suicide because she was unable to deal with the impacts of the abuse without help, which was explicitly due to the changes that have been made by that Government. So if they choose to tell history, it should be a full history. They certainly made improvements, but it was after some very significant loss and damage.

I would also just challenge the concept of the fully funded scheme and how they restored that. There is no evidence that we need to have a fully funded scheme. That money and the levying process to be able to pay out, in concept, every single person at one moment is quite a bizarre concept actually. So it was perceived, I think rightly, by many people at the time as an effort to undermine the system by driving up levies and undermining services to be able to have this money in the bank which is not necessarily needed.

So to the content of the bill, the Green Party is happy to support it. Our focus in our ACC policy is ensuring a fair system that’s there for all New Zealanders with equitable and adequate rehab and compensation, and that is generally the focus of this bill. It makes quite a number of changes that, as have previously been mentioned, were recommended by the Productivity Commission previously and cover a wide range of relatively minor issues. It is not the fundamental reform to the system to deliver better services; that will come later, and the Green Party certainly looks forward to that.

What it does is—as an example for people listening—it removes the requirement for ACC claimants to choose between weekly compensation and New Zealand super after receiving a year of both. It removes that requirement, and that is consistent, as a previous speaker mentioned, with a Human Rights Review Tribunal ruling around discrimination in that area of policy. It clarifies 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 if they are entitled to it, so that it is not linked strictly to coming of age of entitlement for superannuation, and will allow surviving spouses to receive up to five years of weekly compensation regardless of age.

It also removes the requirement for another dependant to elect between weekly compensation and superannuation. So you can see that’s a whole package of work around the age of entitlement as well as surviving spouses, that brings the legislation to a more consistent position around our human rights commitments. It makes moves from an annual review to a biennual review of the accident compensation regulations—not exactly an earth-shattering change but probably quite a sensible bureaucratic shift. It automatically updates the maximum and minimum liable earnings to the minimum wage and labour cost index retrospectively to improve the workability of biennial levy rounds—again, hardly earth-shattering but probably important for the delivery of services and the efficient work of ACC. It disestablishes the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority, which hears cases under the 1972 and 1982 Acts and enables remaining cases to be heard in the District Court.

I did hear the previous National speaker Shane Reti talking about the select committee possibly needing to watch that area and consider evidence on that point quite closely because of a previous backlog of appeals in the District Court. My understanding is that this is in the legislation because there are so few cases going to their appeal and that there isn’t an expectation that those numbers would increase just because the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority is being disestablished. But we certainly will be listening with interest to submissions to make sure that we are getting that right.

Possibly the most substantive point in this piece of legislation is extending ACC cover to spouses and partners and dependants of New Zealand employees posted overseas. So that change will mean that those partners and dependants posted with New Zealand will align with how they’d be treated had the injury occurred while they were living in New Zealand, and the coverage would primarily be on their return to New Zealand, because ACC doesn’t usually cover treatment costs offshore. This was the case. It’s returning us to what was the status quo pre-1998. My understanding is that we’re not actually sure why it changed after 1998 and that there is some speculation that, in fact, it may have been a drafting error that led to that result. In practice, it seems that ACC have been handling this area inconsistently, perhaps under the belief that it was a drafting error and that the policy intent was to maintain that provision for people.

So, in effect, this is providing legal certainly, and it will be retrospective. It is unusual for the Green Party to support retrospective legislation, but considering it has been inconsistently applied up to this point, it seems just the fair thing to do.

It’s a fair question for people to ask what the costs of that might be, and we’re not sure, but the advice is that it’s likely to be a very small number of cases. As an example, probably the main employer, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, can cite only 10 cases since 1998 that were denied coverage. So, in all likelihood, it is a quite small amount of money. Considering the fully funded nature of ACC, it’s not going to break the bank, and it will certainly make things simpler for other Government agencies who are currently trying to provide interim cover for their dependants offshore.

So, in summary, the Green Party is happy to support this important piece of housekeeping. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill in its first reading. Can I acknowledge Iain Lees-Galloway for bringing this to the House.

As we all know, legislation can, over time, become out of step with what society expects. Situations can arise that we never expected or accounted for in legislation, and as we evolve as a society, quite often parts of our legislation can become obsolete or not fit for purpose. So it’s a political reality and it means that we need to bring legislation to the House, quite often, for a tune up. As you would take your car in for a service, so too do we with legislation, from time to time, to make sure that it is relevant, it is up to date, it’s fit for purpose, and it fits with the expectations of modern-day thinking of the public and with their political expectations.

In this case, we’re making some very sensible changes to the accident compensation legislation to bring it into step with what we expect and how we expect it to deliver for New Zealanders. So this amendment bill is a result of the regulatory work programme of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who are tasked with reviewing regulatory instruments under their portfolios to ensure that they’re fit for purpose and that they work as they should. This work was carried out under the previous National Government, and today we’re just formalising that work by amending the Act.

The bill makes a number of amendments to the ACC legislation, and previous speakers have gone through many of the parts of the legislation. In fact, Jan Logie just gave a really good summary in her speech and I commend her for that.

I’d just like to focus on one thing that I think is of particular significance to New Zealanders and to people in my electorate, and, firstly, that is the anomaly under existing legislation whereby a person near, at, or above the age of superannuation who is eligible for both superannuation and ACC payments must choose between those two payments in the second year of their injury. In most cases, they forgo their superannuation and collect just the ACC, and they are forgoing that superannuation payment that they should be entitled to.

Currently, if you’re working and receiving super and you get injured, you get both ACC and super entitlements for a year, and then in the second year, you must choose which of those entitlements to take. Most people choose ACC and, therefore, forgo their super payments, and in the third year, they go back to super. So there’s, firstly, no rationale for having to make this choice between the payments in year two, and it’s not in line with the premise that superannuation is a universal benefit and it’s not means-tested.

If a person is working past 65, they’re entitled to both superannuation and their working income. There’s no logical reason why in year two of an injury, a person aged over 65 must choose between those two payments and, in most cases, actually forgo their super payment. It’s not in line with the public’s expectations of how ACC and super should fit together. The current legislation also has an anomaly whereby if a person is injured prior to their 64th birthday, they are worse off than if they were injured just prior to their 65th birthday because they’re not able to collect that dual payment.

These anomalies have been highlighted because more and more Kiwis are beginning to work past the age of 65—something that was perhaps not considered during the original drafting of ACC legislation. This amendment to the Act makes the change, so the person who’s in paid employment prior to their injury can receive both super and ACC up to a maximum of 24 months. These people would have continued to receive their earnings and super had it not been for their accident.

So the cost of this change is relatively minor, costing ACC and the Ministry of Social Development just a few million by 2024. So it’s a sensible change, and it brings the Act into line with public expectations.

This bill makes a number of small regulatory reforms to the ACC legislation to address duplication gaps, errors, and inconsistencies. It’s a good, solid little bill, and I commend it to the House.

This is a split call—five minutes.

Thank you, sir. It’s marvellous to be able to stand here and speak in favour of this bill, because it does something that is needed to something that is very special in this country. The ACC scheme is, indeed, the envy of the world. What a marvellous, socialist idea ACC is—the scheme that is no-fault. So it doesn’t matter who you are or what situation, if there’s an accident, then you will be covered for the needs that you have in that situation.

It was indeed brought in under the third Labour Government in 1974. There have been numerous attempts over time to undermine the ACC scheme, but it is wonderful to stand here today and see that there is a bipartisan approach to looking at making sure that ACC fits the needs of this country. It is wonderful to see the National Party stand up here and, indeed—actually no, fair dos. It’s wonderful to see a bill that they did a lot of the groundwork on when they were in Government, to introduce this. I commend them for that and, of course, the Minister now, the Minister for ACC, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway—I commend the work of him and his officials to get this where it is today.

Nearly one in three New Zealanders made an ACC claim last year—in the 2016-17 year—most of whom, of course, received excellent treatment. It is indeed a wonderful scheme, ACC. I myself have claimed—as have, I’m sure, most members in this House—and called on ACC at some point. When you are as bad at rugby as I am, you need something like ACC there to protect you, and that’s exactly the situation that I’ve found myself in, a number of times.

What is good to see about ACC is that it is in tremendous financial health, and because of that, we are able to look at extending some of the provisions that the ACC scheme offers New Zealanders so that it does become relevant to New Zealanders today. This Government is, of course, determined to ensure that all New Zealanders receive the best-possible care when they are sick or injured, and that is why we are determined to repair the previous nine years of neglect in the health system and also why we’re looking to make the ACC scheme fairer for claimants.

There are a couple of things that come under here, in the package of amendments looking to amend the Accident Compensation Act 2001. A number of those have been covered already in this House thus far. Extending ACC cover to spouses or partners and dependants of New Zealand employees posted offshore is something that would not have been considered when this legislation was put in place, but, of course, now the changing nature of work and the fact that it draws people overseas mean that extending ACC cover to include people in that situation is indeed fair and right, so it’s good to see that that is included here.

Also, it is allowing surviving spouses to receive up to 5 years’ weekly compensation, regardless of age. On a bit of a personal note, I had an uncle that passed away on his farm as a result of an accident, and ACC was able to support his family, support his wife and his children, for a number of years after that accident. If ACC wasn’t in place, in order to do that my family would have missed out and been under severe financial strain as a result of that accident, so on a personal level it is very pleasing to see that we are not only recognising that which is in place but extending it now to become more relevant.

Moving from an annual review to a biennial review of the Accident Compensation (Liability to Pay or Contribute to Cost of Treatment) Regulations 2003, as well as automatically updating the maximum and minimum liable earnings to the minimum wage and the Labour Cost Index respectively may not seem, in isolation, to be significant things, but they are important, and that is why this Government has brought this bill to the House now, recognising that there is a review of ACC due in 2019. We could have waited till then, but if something needs to be done, we may as well get on with it and do it now. So it is pleasing, because, of course, this bill is about fairness. It’s about making sure that ACC is as relevant in 2018 as it was when it was first brought in, under the third Labour Government in 1974. Touching on some of the examples that people from both sides of the House have mentioned now, the issue around electing between superannuation and ACC is a big one. I congratulate the Minister for the work he’s done, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak this afternoon on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister who’s brought this bill to the House, Iain Lees-Galloway, and also note his recognition of the previous Minister for ACC, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and the work that was done by him and by the previous National Government in bringing this bill to the House. We are very happy to support it.

I do note, though, that we’re now seven months into a Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government, and this is all that they’ve brought to the House for ACC legislation. Now, some of us have got very good memories about the nine years—the nine very good years—that Labour were in Opposition, and some of us do remember some of the things they said about ACC during that time. They made all sorts of claims, all sorts of complaints, and all sorts of promises.

Just last year, in July, we had Sue Moroney at the time—I don’t know quite what happened to her—saying that “ACC has become bound up in complex bureaucracy and needs a shake-up.” So where is that bill? Where is that shake-up that the Labour Party promised? We haven’t seen it. Well, I think I know what’s happened to that, because Ms Moroney also went on to say that “I can’t see the point in spending more money with layers of bureaucracy.” So I think I know what happened to Ms Moroney and why she’s no longer here, because not long after that, just days before the election, we had the now Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, the then Labour leader, coming out and thundering about the track record of ACC under the National Government. She went on to say that she believed that ACC needed independent oversight, but would not describe what that would look like. All she would say was that there was a requirement for further bureaucracy, but would not say what it looked like.

It is more evidence that the Labour Party did nothing in their nine years in Opposition in policy development. As we’ve heard from previous speakers, they’ve again pushed it down the road—another review, another inquiry, another working group. This bill is proof that once again the Labour Party are relying on the hard work of the previous National Government.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill, and I’d like to acknowledge all the contributions that have been made thus far this afternoon. I think there is general support for the measures contained in this bill, for what are further improvements and refinements to ACC—the accident compensation scheme, a much-beloved scheme that we have here in New Zealand. I think back to its founding father, the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse, and the great vision that he had of creating the universal and comprehensive no-fault coverage for all personal physical injuries that we have with our ACC scheme, which we have been the beneficiaries of for over 40 years now.

This bill, as we’ve heard in contributions made, provides a lot of improvements. It addresses some matters to make things a bit fairer for certain individuals, and there is a range of technical amendments, as well. So we’re not going to the actual heart of the ACC scheme; we’re really just touching on and improving on a lot of periphery matters, but, as we know, the ACC scheme can be very, very technical and very complex, particularly for certain individuals that are trying to navigate their way through. I’m pleased to be standing to support the measures made, and can I acknowledge the Minister for ACC, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, and also the work conducted by the former Government in the preparation of this bill.

I want to touch on just a couple of the amendments that are being made through this bill, and in particular we’ve heard today around the cover for dependants of New Zealand workers overseas. That’s just about providing that spouses or partners of those Kiwis that are posted overseas, who are serving their country, are indeed provided with ACC cover should they require it. I understand that this goes back to—well, this was always in place. However, in 1998—unbeknownst, I guess—during the passage of the legislation that went through at that time, this particular provision was excluded or dropped out of the legislation. Fortunately, we’re here today to start the process to rectify that. But I’m curious—and I’m sure it could be borne out in the select committee process on this bill—when we’re talking about this small number of Kiwis that maybe work for Immigration New Zealand overseas or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, does this legislation actually cover those Kiwis that are engaged locally by embassies and by our high commissions around the world?

I can understand that seconded high commissioners, ambassadors, and the like, and their spouses and dependants can be covered, but I think there’s an argument to be made that the coverage should be extended to those Kiwis that serve their country across the globe in the aid of serving New Zealand and Kiwis around the globe—that they can be covered also. I’m not too sure of the scope of this actual provision, but there are a number of appointments—in fact, quite a large amount of appointments—that are made whereby Kiwis are employed, but locally, in accordance with local terms and conditions. But, ultimately, they’re paid by the New Zealand taxpayer; it’s just that the terms and conditions that they work under are the local conditions for which they reside. It would be helpful, I guess, if that class of New Zealander working in the service of their country would also be covered by this bill, because I don’t think there is much of a difference. Again, ultimately, they’re being paid out of New Zealand for the work that they do in the service of New Zealand.

One of the other couple of matters I just want to touch on is the abolition or the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority in place of the District Court. I guess having to navigate through those complex legal processes can be time-consuming and it can be very costly. All I would note is that I would hope that through the disestablishment of the appeal authority, which I understand has been used less and less in recent years, the instalment of the District Court as the sole forum for appeals should not—that the same access to the District Court or the access to that appeal authority equivalent is not unduly jeopardised by people not having the appropriate means to go through to the District Court, because they can be quite expensive processes.

I, lastly, just want to touch on the measures put in place on this bill, which I do commend, which are around making sure that those individuals nearing retirement age who are injured close to that age can continue to receive their work compensations in addition to payments of New Zealand super. I think it seems, no matter which way you look at it, that it’s the right thing to do. It’s the fair thing to do because those particular individuals would be entitled to continue in their work, which is why they are receiving those work payments. So ensuring that they can continue on, for a period, is a sensible measure.

Likewise, the ability for other spouses of the workers that, unfortunately, die, who are entitled to surviving payments—ensuring that those payments can continue and the spouses are not unduly jeopardised is also commendable. I understand that was affirmed by a Human Rights Review Tribunal declaration. It took that particular action to ensure that the legislation is being amended to include that.

There is also a range of many other technical amendments, which cover a whole range of other matters, from veterans to superannuitants and the like. These are all very welcome. Once again, I just would like to acknowledge the Minister for bringing these amendments through to the House now. There is a substantive piece of work which is going on, but these amendments are pressing. They will be very welcomed by those Kiwis that will be the beneficiaries of them. They will enhance our much-cherished ACC scheme. I commend them to the House. Kia ora tātou.

I’m very happy to be here to support this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. I’m happy to support it, because they are sensible changes to the Accident Compensation Act. It’s the work that was done—these changes were identified—when National was in Government, and I’d just like to make the point that the work was done under the auspices of the Productivity Commission, and done by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, as has been mentioned in the House today. So it is very good to see this finally coming to fruition.

The main changes to this Act are to make sure that the accident compensation regime is fair and is fair to those who are injured near their retirement age. Also, there are significant changes to streamline the complaints process, which, I think, is a good thing as well. ACC is a world-leading no-fault scheme. It is based on the idea that it’s fair for New Zealanders to be protected regardless of where they’re injured—whether it’s at work, whether it’s at play—and that no fault occurred in that injury. So it is a world-leading scheme, and I think it’s something that we should be very proud of.

In terms of these changes to do with being near retirement age, most New Zealanders these days work after they’re 65, whether it’s part-time or full-time work. In the past, under the legislation, somebody who was injured near to 65 years of age had to choose between taking ACC weekly compensation or whether they were going to take superannuation. Of course, those people had been working; they deserved to be able to have that compensation. But they did get a choice—they had to make a decision.

So the changes of this bill will make sure that they can access both their weekly compensation and their superannuation for a limited time: for 24 months. It also allows for spouses—surviving spouses—to get up to five years of those weekly payments. I think that’s an important improvement to the Act as well. There are other sensible changes. For example, it also protects New Zealand workers posted overseas. It was not right that those people posted overseas may have less protection than if they were working in New Zealand. So now they are treated exactly the same way as if they were injured in New Zealand.

In terms of the complaints process, they’re looking to streamline that process. At the moment, there are two separate systems, and one of them is not used as much as the other. So this bill disestablishes the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority—that’s the one that is little used—so that there will be less confusion in terms of complaints, more efficiency during one process.

So, as I said, these are sensible amendments. They were identified during the last Government. National worked on them, and it’s very good to see them coming to the House. I support this bill.

I’m delighted to be the final speaker in the first reading of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. I want to first of all commend the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway for his prompt leadership in picking up in part what was started by the previous Minister under the previous Government, but there are also some new initiatives in this bill. It’s great to see his first bill in this portfolio come before the House. I do want to also acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who started some of the work for this legislation, and I’m sure he’ll be pleased to see it progressing as well.

A number of speakers during the debate have talked about the world-leading status of ACC, and I want to totally agree with that. I had many conversations with the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse, who was one of the instigators of this scheme, before his death, which was a great loss to not just ACC but a whole range of other contributions that Owen made to our communities. So I just want to acknowledge his contribution as the vision behind the ACC scheme. Not only is it a comprehensive injury prevention, rehabilitation, and compensation scheme but it also gives every New Zealander the opportunity to receive fair compensation and rehabilitation without having to resort to legal action.

Some people describe it as “We gave up the right to sue”, but, actually, only about 1 percent of injuries pre-1974 ever resulted in successful legal action against the person or incident that injured the person. So when we say, “We gave up the right to sue”, not many people had it, because it cost a lot of money and the level of proof was quite high. There were very few successful suing actions in New Zealand prior to this, so we gained a huge amount and lost very little.

When the scheme was introduced, it was indeed world-leading, and a lot of countries have since come to New Zealand and studied it, but very few other jurisdictions have had the courage to say, “We should try and prevent injury, we should provide compensation and rehabilitation for any injured people, and we shouldn’t have to resort to the courts in order to do that.” There are some parts of the world that have this, but none that offer it to every single citizen. They are limited to workers’ compensation schemes rather than our comprehensive scheme that we have now.

In fact, workers’ compensation schemes are probably much easier to administer because they wouldn’t come up against the challenges that this bill, in part, seeks to address. For example, the situation where the dependants, the families, of workers who are employed overseas and are covered by this scheme—they might be diplomats or public servants of some sort. They receive cover, but their families haven’t received cover if you look at the technicality of the law. This bill fixes that.

Jan Logie from the Green Party, in her contribution, mentioned that this provision was made retrospective in this bill and that the Green Party usually doesn’t do retrospectivity but agreed to in this situation. That is because nobody seems to be able to determine how this change in previous policy came to be—what was the policy thinking behind it?—and it seems as though it was never implemented by ACC anyway. They didn’t think the law had been changed; it appears it had been.

I was on that select committee in 1998, and I am going to research my notes of that time. I may speak to the then chair of the committee, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who I know paid close attention to every detail in that legislation. He often mentioned that during the committee meetings, so I’m sure it’s correct.

Another committee member at the time was Derek Quigley, who at that stage represented the ACT Party. The House might be interested to know that Derek Quigley worked with New Zealand First and the Alliance—or New Labour; whichever it was at the time—and Labour to get over 400 amendments to the very bill that changed the dependant provisions. I’m sure I’ll have some record of that, but if the Hon Gerry Brownlee or the Hon Derek Quigley—or the Hon Laila Harré, who was on that committee as well—recall it, it would be very useful for the select committee that’s going to consider this bill to have that information. So we have the extension of ACC cover to the spouses and dependants.

The removal of the election requirement for spouses or dependants who receive superannuation—that was a Human Rights Tribunal recommendation; that we change that provision, because it’s discriminatory on the basis of age. The people who receive weekly compensation will now be able to continue to receive weekly compensation for up to two years after they receive New Zealand superannuation entitlement. This is a good step forward, and I commend the Minister for it. I don’t think we have yet got a clear determination of how long weekly compensation could be paid for if the person has a permanent impairment, and I would recommend to the select committee that they consider permanent impairment payments as an alternative to what is a very difficult and contentious issue. I’m sure that will come up in submissions.

Also, there’s the automatic updating of the maximum and minimum liable earnings. That’s another area that has never been updated properly. I know of many examples where young, quite poorly paid people—could even be on an apprenticeship or training wage—have severe and permanent injuries and are then consigned to a lifetime of being on a low income. Eighty percent of not very much is very difficult to live on, and it’s not increased enough, in my view, to keep pace with the increases in the cost of living.

The bill also abolishes the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. That authority has been dealing with claimants’ appeals for review from 1972 and 1982 legislation. It’s probably not in use very much. It’s probably quite expensive to administer, and I’m sure that, once again, the Minister has made the right decision to move those cases from the authority to the court.

This is a bill that sounds like it’s got support from across the House, and I think that’s good. That’s the way the scheme was introduced. It has had some pretty challenging times between 1974 and now. I remember the 1998 legislation that I discussed earlier actually privatised the workers’ compensation account. We had private insurers—clearly driven by profit and policy rigour—in charge of workers’ compensation. That was a very sad time for New Zealand, and I was delighted that in 1999 the Government changed and Murray McCully was no longer the Minister, and the incoming Government sought to restore ACC to being a State organisation rather than having any private interests.

As the Minister indicated in his speech, this is a small bill in comparison with quite fundamental and progressive changes that we will see coming either later this year or early next year. I am sure, despite this only covering quite a number of small issues, that the select committee will be pleased by the amount of interest that I am confident will arise out of the points that have been made. They are all betterment to the current legislation—they all improve the Act. They make it fairer, they make it more transparent, and they resolve the frustrations that a number of people have had.

I might sub into this committee because I’m very interested in ACC and the scheme. It is a delight when people take an interest and come and give you submissions.

💬 Hon Ron Mark: You’re the best Minister there was.

Oh, thank you very much, Mr Mark. I’d like you to put that on public record more often, please.

💬 Hon Ron Mark: I have done so already.

Ha! Just one other point that I want to make—I’d feel that I would be short-changing parliamentary counsel if I didn’t mention that in the 1998 legislation, I actually presented certificates to the people who were working from nine in the morning till midnight five days a week on that legislation; who wrote “private domestic workers” more often than any other term. It was a new term to all of us, and it was one that was introduced or altered as part of that legislation. I know that they’ll be listening to this debate because they listen to pretty well everything in our Parliament, and I commend the work that they did then.

I’m pleased we’re not doing this under urgency from 9 a.m. till midnight as the privatisation was done by the then National Government. That was a pretty outrageous breach of natural process. This will go through a much better process, and I look forward to hearing the submissions and hearing the second reading on its conclusion. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.