Accident Compensation Amendment Bill

I seek leave for the remaining parts of this bill to be taken as one debate.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Speaking to the point of order—

Just answering that point of order, the committee has already agreed to that course of action. So thank you for that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to resume this call, not least because it finally brings to an end the embarrassing spectacle we’ve just had to sit through for the last hour on the previous bill. In fact, I have to say, members of the Opposition, after listening to the filibustering of the previous Labour members, are feeling we might be entitled to some accident compensation ourselves.

When the House moved into committee last night, it was already 10 to 10, so my one contribution at that point was the only speech that was possible before the Chair at that stage reported progress five minutes later. At that time, the Associate Minister for ACC was in the chair, and I raised a few matters seeking his response. I don’t want to repeat everything I said at that time, but in view of the fact it’s now nearly 24 hours later and that was the only call, I would just like to reiterate three of the key points that I made at that time, particularly for the benefit of those who weren’t able to tune in last night. The first is that this is a very sensible bill that enacts changes to the Accident Compensation Act which were identified during the time of the last National-led Government, and they were being worked upon by the previous Minister for ACC. So the National Opposition will of course continue to support this bill.

The second point that I made last night is that the main changes that the bill provides for are aimed at ensuring fairness for those who are injured near the age of retirement, and also to streamline the complaints process to remove confusion. I’m going to return to the latter point shortly, and I hope that now that we have the Minister for ACC in the chair, he might take some time to comment on the former—i.e., how fairness will be achieved for those who are injured near the age of retirement. It is something that is naturally of considerable interest throughout the community, and it’s a major reason why this bill was drafted in the first place.

The third point that I raised last night and that I wish to reiterate now is just to indicate that while there is a lot of enthusiasm amongst ACC clients throughout the country for some significant changes to our accident compensation legislation, it has to be said that this is not the bill to meet those expectations, as it is largely a technical measure that is neither controversial nor comprehensive. That certainly isn’t a criticism; I simply mention it as I know that there are several people who submitted—or at least attempted to submit—to the Education and Workforce Committee as they worked on this bill who were disappointed by its very narrow scope, because they were told that the submissions that they were making were outside the scope of the bill and that while there might be a time to consider them, this was not the particular time.

Accordingly, I asked the Associate Minister last night if he could indicate to the committee and to the country what plans the Government has to introduce a more comprehensive bill that will deal with some of the matters that submitters sought to bring to the select committee’s attention following the first reading, only to be told, as I say, that their submissions were out of scope. So I am very much hoping that the Minister tonight will be able to give an outline of the Government’s intentions when he takes a call shortly.

Furthermore, as I indicated a few moments ago, there are many New Zealanders who feel aggrieved by the way their complaints and disputes have been dealt with by ACC and the disputes resolution service over the years. So I hope the Minister tonight will also take a few minutes at this stage of the debate to outline to New Zealanders how the bill will alleviate some of those New Zealanders’ concerns and frustrations.

I’d also like to ask the Minister if he and his officials have given some thought to adopting my member’s bill that has now languished in the ballot for some time. As I seem to be surrounded by mostly new colleagues, I just point out that I’m now in my second decade as an MP and I’m still waiting for a bill to be drawn out of the ballot. Most of these guys got lucky pretty quickly. So I’m just saying that I am feeling a little bit hurt.

But the point I wanted to make is that my bill is the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill, which would give employers the right to request a review of an ACC decision to accept a claim in a case where an employee suffers aggravation or re-injury of a prior work-related personal injury. I believe that members of this House would be very receptive to such a change and that it would be widely supported by members of the public. So I hope it is a matter that the Minister has given some attention to, and he might be able to comment on that when he takes his call shortly.

At present, if an employee suffers re-injury or aggravation of a previous personal work-related injury, then the interval of time often means that an additional claim decision is required. In such cases, ACC is not currently required to inform the employer of the outcome of that decision. Likewise, current legislation does not require ACC to review such a decision should an employer wish to request a review. My bill would give claimants greater access to compensation if they experience re-injury or aggravation of a prior work-related personal injury, and give employers greater capacity to advocate for their employees. So I do commend it to the Minister for his favourable consideration, and I would welcome hearing his thoughts on this matter.

Another matter that I invite the Minister to comment on is the concern that some New Zealanders feel about the independent allowance, which is a transitional clause within Schedule 1 of the legislation. It is my understanding that this clause detrimentally affects individuals who’ve suffered a treatment injury where the injury does not present itself until years after the treatment, such as someone who suffers a stroke decades after receiving poorly administered radiation treatment. It’s been suggested to me by somebody who is in this category that the clause should no longer be used by ACC as it is a transitional clause only intended to cover the crossover period between legislation in 2002 and 2005. I hope the Minister can comment on it.

That was one of the more unusual committee stage contributions that I’ve heard from any member ever—the committee stage, of course, being the point when we consider clause by clause the legislation that is before the House. The member spent a considerable amount of time referring to matters that are not addressed by this bill at all. When I’m in the chair, I do like to respond to matters that are raised by members, so I will briefly touch on some of the things the member has raised and then maybe draw the committee’s attention back to the matters that are actually dealt with by this legislation.

The member Tim Macindoe, firstly, identified correctly—I think he said all the matters addressed in this bill were being worked on by the previous Government. That’s almost correct—most of them were. It was good to be able to pick up some work that had been done by the previous Government, but they hadn’t been able to bring it to fruition. The one matter which, of course, was new in this legislation is the matter dealing with the dependants of people who are posted overseas and extending the provision of ACC to those people. That was a new matter, which I’m happy to come back to later on.

It does indeed address fairness for those injured near retirement. The member asked how that will happen. Well, that’s fairly well laid out in the legislation. He then went on to say that people want significant reform of ACC and that a number of submitters were frustrated, I suppose, that this was not their opportunity to discuss the need for significant reform of ACC. I find that an interesting matter for a member from a party that has just been in Government for nine years to raise—that there seems to be significant public outcry for reform of ACC in the state that it was left by the previous Government. Now, it is true there is considerable call from the public for the Government to look at some of those matters, but I do find it interesting that the Opposition are now saying that we need significant reform of ACC, given that that would be reforming the ACC as it was left to us by the previous Government.

New Zealanders feel aggrieved by dispute resolution—well, actually, this is a matter that the previous Government did respond to. There was the Acclaim Otago report, and I believe the previous Government, when the Hon Nikki Kaye was the Minister for ACC, initiated the Miriam Dean report to respond to those matters. Now, 19 out of 20 of the recommendations in the Miriam Dean report have actually been addressed. There are a couple of outstanding matters. One is around a navigation service to support people who are seeking resolution to disputes with ACC, and the other is around the independent medical panels that provide advice to ACC around claims and the review of claims. But those matters are being dealt with. I think the previous Government, rightly, responded to the issues that were raised by Acclaim Otago, and this Government carries on with that work. I have instructed ACC to continue reporting to me about progress against those matters.

The member says he has a bill in his own name that raises an interesting matter that we may get to consider. I wish the member the best of luck in getting his bill drawn from the ballot, and perhaps that is a matter that will be before the House and that we will get some opportunity to consider. But I would like to draw the committee’s attention back to what this bill actually does do. Part 1 is—and I appreciate we’re debating all parts of the bill—really the meaty part of this bill. It amends section 17 of the principal Act so that the spouses, partners, and dependants of staff who are posted overseas in the course of their duties to a New Zealand employer also have the ability to access ACC. So people who are posted in their normal duties—they have long had access to ACC, but their partners and dependants have not been able to, and there was certainly a question of fairness there. If there’s a member of your family who is posted overseas and their family travels with them, it is right and proper, I think, that we should extend the provision of ACC to those family members as well.

Clause 6 amends the regulation-making power in section 329(1)(a) of the Act to provide the ability for regulations to set the method by which the maximum and minimum amounts of earnings are determined. This will allow regulations to adjust maximum and minimum earnings in respect of year 2 levies by indexing these to the labour cost index and minimum wage, respectively. The other major aspect of this legislation is dealing with the question of people’s entitlement to weekly compensation if they are injured around the age of retirement. Previously, by and large, people had to elect whether they would receive their superannuation payment or their weekly compensation. They could receive it for one year in total and then had to elect between the two for a second year. What this legislation brings into force is the ability to access both New Zealand superannuation and weekly compensation for two years if you are injured at work and suffer a loss of income as a result of that, after the age of 65.

Now, I appreciate there is considerable debate around the fact that a lot of people are working past the age of 65. They may be reliant on both their New Zealand superannuation and the income they receive from wages, and that will continue, I think, to be a topic of conversation. But it is correct that ACC has a cut-off after which it no longer pays weekly compensation in the normal course of events. Everybody’s working life comes to an end at some point in time, and it would be inappropriate for someone who is injured to carry on receiving weekly compensation until the end of their life. So 65 has been used as the proxy under legislation passed by both Governments because it is the age of universal superannuation. It’s a proxy retirement age, and I think that it’s appropriate to align the age at which there is not universal eligibility for weekly compensation to the age at which there is universal eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. But this is a small change that will certainly relieve some of the loss of income for people who are working past the age of 65 and are injured in the course of that work.

Those are the major aspects of this legislation. It is, largely, full of some technical changes, but, nevertheless, important changes, that I think will make a significant difference to those families of people who are posted overseas and those people who find themselves injured at work over the age of 65.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Could I refer to the select committee process of this bill, the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill, where I think there were 25 submissions. There was oral evidence from 13 submitters, but many of the submissions that were received by the Education and Workforce Committee—and I think the Minister for ACC has already referred to this—reflected issues that were out of scope of this particular bill. What that reflected was a huge degree of frustration with the previous administration, and it was really interesting to hear Tim Macindoe get up and talk about that frustration as if his party had been in Opposition for years and that whatever the regime was that had been managing the ACC system, it was not his own party and it was not his own Government. I think it’s really important that we actually note that in addressing the committee stage on this bill.

This bill deals with some important issues, but, alongside that, the Government—the current Government—has actually been implementing changes and putting in place changes that were hard fought for by the sector and by the community that really needed to happen, but didn’t happen under that Government. So I think that when Tim Macindoe really does reflect on what he actually said in the committee, that will become clear, but I’m not sure—he lives in some kind of time warp.

So I want to talk in this part of the debate around the series of changes to boundaries that this bill addresses, particularly around the interface between weekly compensation and superannuation, and how important that is. I’ll refer to the National Council of Women of New Zealand’s submission on the bill, which, basically, said that those changes around people that are injured around the time of retirement, and the relief on them rather than having to make a choice, is that this provides “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.” They referred to Westpac New Zealand’s survey in early 2018 which showed that New Zealand women were saving less than New Zealand men for retirement.

This goes to the whole issue—wider issues—around the gender pay gap and the impact on women and how this bill, when you think about the fact that it’s making a series of changes to boundaries, actually will have a material impact on people if they’ve been injured and they’re entering into that retirement age. That’s going to take away some of that stress, and that is a really, really critical thing, which I’m sure that, hopefully, the whole of the Parliament agrees with tonight. Obviously, there’s a lot more to be done, but this bill really does make some core differences. It is providing a fairer and more consistent situation for people who are entering into that superannuation period, and I’m sure that I’ll have more contributions as we go through the committee stage.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m taking a very short call, because this is a very interesting committee of the whole House because this bill is being supported by us. It was really interesting to see that the Minister for ACC actually took that call only to attack us, the Opposition, and to blame us for all the submissions that came through during the select committee process. But the Minister in charge realised that ACC is a department that touches many lives, and people have different kinds of experiences with ACC. Whenever we have any legislation to do with ACC or any such department, people come forward and they want to share those experiences. The Minister should actually be really grateful to those submitters for raising those issues. We fully understand that those issues were not in the scope of this bill and could not be considered during this process that we are going through to address this bill, but we were given hope during the select committee process by the Minister’s officials that nothing will go to waste, and that is the assurance we sought during the select committee process.

So we are really hopeful that the Minister will take those submissions seriously instead of just using this for politics to attack us. The member Clare Curran, who just spoke before me—the Hon Tim Macindoe interjected several times when she said that, yep, they are making some big changes in ACC, asking what those changes are. She could not give that answer. So maybe the Minister is more capable of providing that answer to us.

It’s really disappointing when we are dealing with such a simple bill and, here, we actually are seeing that the Minister is actually blaming submitters and blaming the Opposition for the views that came through during the select committee process. So the work on this bill actually started under the previous National Government, and that’s why we are fully in agreement on what’s happening in this bill. We are fully an agreement with the changes that came through during the select committee process. One change is to the commencement date. That has changed to 1 July 2019, and we fully support that because that has to align with the other processes in the select committee process.

Other than what the Minister said when he was attacking us and attacking submitters, I want to add my supportive voice to all the changes that this bill is to make, because it’s going to make a positive difference in many, many people’s lives. So, yes, I can understand that it’s a small number of people, but those people will be hugely thankful for these changes because they have been waiting for this legislation to go through a.s.a.p. It’s really good to see that this legislation has come to this stage—that is, the committee of the whole House—because that means it is going to be passed very soon, but we understand that the commencement is going to be from 1 July 2019, as was amended in the select committee process.

So clause 4 in Part 1 is, I would say, a very important clause where we are extending the entitlements to ACC for people that accompany an individual when that individual is overseas on duty—that is, when the remuneration for that is treated as income derived in New Zealand for New Zealand income tax purposes. It’s really unfair for that individual to go by themselves and not take their family just because their family, or anybody who is dependent on that individual, will not have the entitlement if they go overseas with that individual. So it’s important that we extend this entitlement to ACC to individuals that would normally accompany the person that is on duty overseas. So this is during that time of duty, or up to six months after the completion of that employment. So it’s an important change.

Then, in clause 9 in Part 1, the changes that we make there result into some consequential changes in other Acts. This is merely to remove references to the interaction between weekly compensation and superannuation, and that change is going to be in the New Zealand Superannuation Retirement Income Act 2001. Then, the second change is merely to align the weekly compensation provisions and that change is in Veterans’ Support Act 2014.

So, overall, we are very supportive of this bill going through, but, as I said, we are quite disappointed to see that the Minister actually doesn’t look like he is serious now about taking the feedback that came through during the select committee process into consideration when any other changes to ACC are made. We would really urge the Minister to take those submissions and that feedback seriously and make it a part of any other changes that would be made to any ACC legislation.

So it’s a bill which started under the National Government. We are very supportive of this whole bill going through the committee of the whole House. Thank you.

Well, I just want to briefly respond to the comments made by Parmjeet Parmar, the member who just spoke. I absolutely reject the assertion that I somehow attacked submitters. I understand why those submitters came to the Education and Workforce Committee and said that comprehensive change is required for ACC, because that’s the state that it was left in by the previous Government.

I also look forward to—in the event that that legislation does come before the House in this term of Parliament—the National Party’s support for the kinds of changes that those submitters sought during the submission process, because they are exactly the changes that the National Party refused to make when they were in Government, but now, from the Opposition benches, they’re calling on the Government to make the change that they were not prepared to. They’re taking an unusual approach of using the committee of the whole House on a bill that does not deal with those matters to raise these issues.

So I do say to those members opposite that in the event that legislation comes to this House that addresses the matters that were raised by those submitters, I ask of members opposite: will they support it?

We’ve heard a lot here this evening about the out-of-scope submissions that we actually had in this particular select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, for this bill. I found that quite interesting at the time, because it actually helped me understand the whole wider Accident Compensation Act completely. I totally agree with everyone that has spoken so far in this debate in the committee of the whole House about how people’s sense of frustration has come through and the reason why they felt the need. They saw the word “ACC” in the bill and had many, many frustrations, and felt the need to actually come forward to submit to our committee.

But I think perhaps the wider objectives of this particular bill probably point towards the wider work that’s being done in the ACC space and the wider objectives of ACC continuing to meet society’s wider expectations and providing cover to our society that’s appropriate and consistent and also sustainable, because that came through a lot from those particular submitters. Also, this bill improves the Act—we’ve heard it here from people that have spoken before us—by ensuring that it’s effective, efficient, and is really ensuring that it accords with best regulatory practice.

But there are two clauses that I want to pick up on. One of them has been mentioned by a couple of speakers here, but I do have a question surrounding it, and that is clause 4, which amends section 17 of the Act. The reason I do want to ask a question around it, even though I was on the select committee, is that we had no oral submissions on this particular clause. As we’ve heard, we had a lot of submissions that were out of scope. This particular clause, I felt, was a really, really important clause. This is the one that—as we’ve heard mentioned here already—extends ACC cover to the spouses and partners of dependants of staff posted in overseas posts.

Many of us in this House here have met those people, so many of us know how important those people are in our overseas posts and what an absolutely magnificent job they do, and how much easier it would make it for their dependants and their spouses and partners to be able to get this ACC cover, because that is a huge consideration when those people go overseas. I’ve actually had it said to me by a person posted overseas that they couldn’t take their partner for that particular reason.

The question that I had around that is that I know from going through the submissions that any changes made to ACC cover and entitlements are, generally, prospectively done, and so I note that in this bill it is retrospective for family members and dependants of those posted overseas. I’d really like to know what the reasoning is behind that, and I’m really sorry that I didn’t pick that up at the time. As I said, it was because we didn’t have any oral submissions on this particular clause.

The other clause that I wanted to ask a quick question about—I think I have it right in my head, but I’d like to hear from the Minister—is clause 7. Clause 7 amends section 391 of the Act to provide that after the amendment comes into force, all appeals will be to the District Court. So the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority won’t be there any more to hear those particular appeals. The question that I’m wanting to ask around that—because I couldn’t find this, and it might be just me and my research skills—is how many cases are under the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority currently, and how many are under the District Court as it stands? I’m guessing that the reason for that simplification is so that we’re not getting a double up in those particular areas, but I’d be really keen to hear from the Minister about those two questions that I’m asking there. Thank you.

Just to very quickly address the questions raised by the member Jan Tinetti, it is certainly unusual for legislation to be retrospective. However, the advice that I received in drafting the bill was that we’re essentially fixing a drafting error. So looking back at when the extension was made to people being posted overseas and whether or not that should apply to their families, the best evidence that we could find was that it was actually a drafting error that it was not applied to families.

Actually, from memory—and I apologise if I get this wrong, and if I do get it wrong, I will correct myself—I think ACC was applying it to families for a period of time, and then realised that the legislation did not match their practice, so stopped covering the families and dependants of people posted overseas. What we are doing here is bringing the legislation back to what is believed to be the original intent when that was first brought about.

As to the question of how many cases are before the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority currently, I don’t know the answer to that question right now. I may be able to source the answer to that question, possibly not during this debate, but I’d be very happy to come back to the member with the answer to that very reasonable question. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and thank you for this opportunity. While the other side might trivialise very important matters with regard to ACC, many of the constituents in my constituency come in with ACC queries. If I can follow on from the line of questioning from my colleague Jan Tinetti—and I appreciate that. In particular, in clause 7, where we deal with the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority, I’m curious, then, if there is any reassurance that can be given from the Minister that in place of that authority, there is still a robust system in place to allow for the appeal of decisions.

💬 Hon Member: Oh, read the bill—read the bill.

Look, while it might be clear to those political geeks, in particular, in this committee that read the bill, I think it’s actually worthy of comment to make sure that those watching at home actually do get a sense that regardless of this particular clause, the right of appeal for our people across this country is still in place.

I wanted to—if I can—refer to clause 10, and just like nobody being prejudiced by the removal of the appeals authority, I wonder if the Minister can at least explain and give some guarantees that those who are affected through clause 10(1), (2), and (3) aren’t being prejudiced in any way, or certainly aren’t being penalised in any way. I appreciate that for some who are in receipt of both or all of ACC payments, New Zealand superannuation, and the veterans pension, there might be some questions that they have about how that all aligns and what they are eligible for. If it’s your partner who’s in receipt of New Zealand superannuation and you are younger than them and they pass away, how does that work with the ACC payments? There are some of those questions that I’m sure, more generally speaking, the public—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the member not know that?

Like I say, if the other side want to continue to trivialise these things—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: All these years in the House, and the member doesn’t know this.

If that member wants to trivialise these things, he must remember that what we do in this House is actually for the people of New Zealand and not for the benefit of the Opposition.

So if the Minister can provide some of that information for us and for the clarity of the public, that would be really appreciated. As I’ve already mentioned, there are some changes in the time for those of when they are eligible for—

Tim van de Molen: This member should be embarrassed at himself. It’s a terrible contribution.

—and if that side care to, often, can they tell me: is it from the date, then, that the surviving spouse is eligible for super, or from when the person passes away? No, I didn’t think so.

So I’d like to seek a bit of clarification from the Minister on that particular matter, like I say, for the benefit of the general public, which this particular bill is for. I want to acknowledge Minister Iain Lees-Galloway, of course, for the work that he is doing in this space to make sure that the majority of the constituents that come into my office and others for ACC-related claims—and I leave those questions for the Minister to consider.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to stand and talk to this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill, now in the committee stage. I just note the work done through the Education and Workforce Committee on this amendment bill. Obviously, I’m not on this committee, but I do believe they have some fantastic members on it, including my colleague Mark Patterson, who is here in the Chamber tonight.

I would just like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, for the work he is doing on this particular bill. I acknowledge what he has said already tonight, which is that this bill brings fairness back to those—and of particular interest to me are those close to the age of retirement, when they’ve had an accident and require ACC, but who are at that age of receiving their New Zealand superannuation at the age of 65 or so, which is when they get the SuperGold card. I’m particularly interested in the clause which enables that instead of them having to choose between either having ACC for their injury or having their superannuation payment—and I am particularly interested in the fact that through this amendment, they’re going to be able to have that for a period of two years.

I’m interested to hear from the Minister how the two-year period came to be because, previously, there was a much shorter period of time, and they had to give up and had to elect which one they had, so there was some discrimination on their hitting that age and having to give up either their superannuation or their accident compensation. So I am interested in that, and in where the committee landed in terms of how they felt that it was a pretty fair place to land on that two-year period. Literally, this is a very short call on my part, but I’m interested to hear about that.

Certainly, it’s a very sensible and timely amendment to this particular legislation. I’d also just like to quickly note, too, the honourable member from across the Chamber, Tim Macindoe, who was using the opportunity to not so shamelessly promote his member’s bill. But, certainly, thank you very much, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I just want to refer to a couple of the issues that this bill addresses, and I think there’s been one mention of the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority, but also they’re moving from an annual review to a biennial review of the Accident Compensation (Liability to Pay or Contribute to the Cost of Treatment) Regulations 2003—rather a mouthful. But, actually, there were submissions on these matters. In the committee stage of the whole House, this is when the opportunity is to actually talk about what those changes mean and why they’re necessary and why they are being progressed.

With the disestablishment of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority, “The Authority is a historic entity that hears only”—as I understand it, and this is what the departmental report told us—“a small number of appeals under the repealed Accident Compensation Acts 1972 and 1982. The majority of appeals are now heard by a District Court Judge in the Accident Compensation Appeals District Court Registry.” That might sound really boring and dry, but, actually, these things are set up decades ago for a purpose, and then they were overtaken by other mechanisms.

As I understand it, there are currently no cases before the authority. The last case was lodged before Christmas in 2015. There was a submission around this by the Federation of Women’s Health Councils Aotearoa that did not support this proposal to disestablish the appeal authority and to move to the District Court due to concerns over the costs that this would impose on claimants, and Rural Women New Zealand also expressed concerns about the effect of this proposal.

If the Minister is minded, he might like to just tell the committee, given the fact that there has not been a case before that authority since 2015, whether there is any basis to those concerns—which isn’t to diminish those concerns, but actually whether there is any basis in terms of the costs around the appeals and what that actually means.

The second point is around moving from an annual review to a biennial review. Now, again, there was a submission from Hazel Armstrong Law that submitted that moving to a biennial review—and I’m not going to read out the whole thing again, because it’s a mouthful—would double the lag between an increase in inflation and an increase in costs paid under the regulations. The submission by Hazel Armstrong Law said that it wasn’t clear that the annual reviews were currently being undertaken, which is interesting, looking across the Chamber—just saying. The response from officials on this was that—and this is the sensible thing, basically, if you think about it—an annual review of the regulations wasn’t resulting in regular updates to the regulations, and the way in which the review was required to be carried out required ACC to begin to undertake the next review. So, basically, by the time they finished one review, they had to already have started the next review, in what was sort of a self-fulfilling going around in circles.

Moving to a biennial review sounded like a sensible approach to that. So if the Minister had any comments he’d like to make about that in this important piece of legislation, we’d welcome that.

Just to speak very briefly to some of the matters that have been raised by members. A number of members have addressed the issue of bringing to an end the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority. The member Clare Curran is absolutely correct that it’s something of a historical body that only deals with cases under the repealed Accident Compensation Acts of 1972 and 1982. Actually, and I think importantly, because most cases—in fact, I wasn’t aware that there were no cases before the authority at the moment, so thank you for that. All cases, currently, really, are being dealt with by the District Court, but having two processes can lead to inconsistency, and a very clear message that we heard through earlier submissions was that people want consistency in process and consistency in outcome. So removing the authority and having cases go before the District Court will certainly help with that consistency.

On the question of whether there will be an increase in costs, the advice I’ve received is that we could actually anticipate a decrease in cost and certainly no increase—and likely a decrease in costs—in appearing before the District Court rather than the appeal authority.

Jenny Marcroft asked why two years: really, it’s aligning with the previous provision that you could have one plus one, but the second year was elected. You had to elect between weekly compensation and superannuation. It will cover the vast majority of claimants: 68.4 percent of injured people return to independence within 10 weeks of being injured, 80 percent within nine months, and even of those who have more complicated injuries, the vast majority are back at work within that two-year period. So it will cover the overwhelming majority of people who are injured in that circumstance.

I thank members for their questions and queries about this bill. It is an important piece of legislation, and I’m happy to be able to provide some context.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.