Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Members—oh, I’m just going to find it. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Can I begin by acknowledging the Education and Workforce Committee for its diligent and thorough consideration of this bill. I also want to acknowledge everyone who has submitted on the bill during the select committee stage. I understand that the committee considered submissions from a range of organisations and representatives. Their input has been proven to be invaluable in this process.

The Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill makes three changes to the Accident Compensation Act, all broadly focused on improving equity of access to the accident compensation scheme. The bill delivers on two of our 2020 election manifesto commitments. The first, which Part 1 deals with, is to return the Accident Compensation Corporation to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury. The second commitment we are delivering on, included in Part 2, is to address the changes that National made when last in office, which unfairly disadvantaged tens of thousands of New Zealand workers.

Part 1 of the bill sets up the new duty for ACC to report on access to the scheme by Māori and identified population groups. It also makes changes to the purpose of the Act and adds a corresponding function for ACC. These changes reaffirm ACC’s focus on all people with eligible injuries, rather than only on those who have made a claim.

The new access reports will focus on how many population groups experiencing barriers are accessing ACC, including women, disabled people, Pacific people, and Māori. Māori are specifically named for inclusion in the access reports to acknowledge their status as tangata whenua and Treaty partners to the Crown.

The new reporting duty will improve transparency around access to the scheme, and the reports will not only provide data on how the scheme is being used but will go a few steps further to understand why people are or are not accessing ACC when they are entitled to. We know that some groups are accessing and benefiting less from ACC than others, but we do not have a good insight into why, or the drivers of these disparities. If we are to remove barriers to ACC, this is where we need to start. As a Minister for ACC, I want to know what is causing any disparities so that we can begin to fix them. I want to know if it’s about how and where we are offering treatment or the cost of transport or a lack of trust or something else. These reports go further than anything we currently do or have previously done to understand access to the accident compensation scheme.

Part 2 of the bill brings forward eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation from the sixth to the second week of a claimant’s incapacity to work, reversing a change from 2010. This means people will get access to a top-up to their weekly compensation earlier, supporting them in their recovery, a change that ACC estimates will help approximately 10,000 people. It also inserts a new Part 4 into Schedule 1AA of the Act. These provisions outline the requirements for the first and second access reports. The first two access reports have different staggered requirements to allow ACC to phase in its capability to understand what the data is showing and what are the causes of disparities in access to the scheme, and to produce the reports over three years.

Other changes to Schedule 1 of the Act state that the change to the timing of eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation applies to claimants who first become entitled to weekly compensation on or after the date that the change comes into effect, and to claimants who were already entitled to weekly compensation and continue to be entitled to it when the change comes into effect.

Lastly, I want to acknowledge the differing views from parties across the House, as presented in the select committee’s report, and the Green Party’s additional views. I look forward to a robust debate on these particular issues, and I look forward to questions.

I’m quite happy to remind the Minister of my questions, and indeed I thought it was quite interesting through his contribution that he talks about wanting to improve access for New Zealanders, and indeed we absolutely support that. This legislation talks about improving access for Māori, but improving access for all New Zealanders is a fantastic and admirable goal that we indeed support.

Now, the Minister also misconstrued my comments in relation to being able to ask for this information of ACC currently. I didn’t suggest that the information is readily available; I suggested indeed that the Minister should be able to pick up the phone and ask the CEO of ACC to compile a report exactly in the nature of what this legislation proposes. There is nothing currently that stops him from doing that. The information may not be available right now, but he can instruct the CEO of ACC to conduct a report to find out whether or not people are fairly accessing the scheme, and all the aspects mentioned under this legislation. That can be done right now. It does not need legislation to tell an agency to do a report. Goodness me, what are we coming to when we have to legislate for that sort of basic information? If the Minister disagrees with that, I’d be interested if he could point us to where in the legislation he is prevented from asking the CEO to deliver that sort of information to him right now.

Now, one of the questions I had was about the focus here on improving delivery of service and whether or not that restricted his ability to change access for any group that may ultimately be discovered to be receiving access over and above other groups; they may be getting an unfair advantage in terms of accessing the ACC scheme, for whatever reason. But this legislation outlines that the Minister now is only able to identify how to improve delivery of service and not to change or hold or maintain a level of service for any particular population groups. I am interested in whether he has any concerns around whether or not that will be fit for purpose. And, again, this highlights the clunky nature of putting a basic request like this into legislation. We just do not have the flexibility to alter or adapt your requirements over time. Indeed, the Minister would have to come back to the House with a new piece of legislation to change that if it was found that one particular population group was getting access over and above others and therefore needed a different focus. So I’m interested in that particular piece.

And also then to the other point around the access—the causes, factors, distributions contributing to the disparities and barriers—whether indeed there are some that he has seen right now in relation to Māori or to another population group that he may have on his mind. And also then, under new Part 4, section 14, around not requiring the reporting to be done in the second year. And this just seems like an interesting carve-out—is it then indeed happening in the first year or the third year or all subsequent years; simply not the second year? And that refers to the factors contributing to those disparities and barriers as identified by the corporation. So that’s 278B(2)(d), which in that section 4 then is specifically required not to be reported on. Surely that defeats the purpose of conducting the report. And if they don’t have the capacity to conduct the report, then why are we asking for it in the first place?

So I think it’s quite clear that we are talking here about a piece of legislation that is simply not fit for purpose and takes away the ability of the Minister to be flexible, takes away the ability of ACC to adapt to changing circumstances. Indeed, if we look back in history, actually under the Clark Government, there was this sort of information being provided. They got rid of it back in 2006, I believe it was—and Mr Woodhouse might have a better handle or memory on some of that information—but at the time, the Minister of the day was able to get exactly this sort of information and make decisions off the back of it. We do not need legislation for this and I would encourage the Minister to be practical, to get rid of that, to keep the last part about accessing the time frame, bringing it down from six to two, but I certainly appreciate his comments on those questions I’ve raised. Again, thank you.

The Crown Entities Act is quite clear in the way that Crown entities engage with Ministers. Simply, a Minister picking up a phone and calling the chief executive to give an imperative towards this particular work that we’re discussing in this bill actually isn’t correct. Legislation does that, however. It gives an impetus to ACC, and to counter one of the points that the member makes, actually, it gives it more tools. It also gives the Minister more tools in order to make sure that the ACC scheme is more equitable into the future.

I also would like to point out that with respect to those who might—I can’t quite remember, recall the words of the member in his question—over-receive, or those who might receive more than what they are entitled to, there are already provisions within the Act to make sure that there is no fraudulent activity for those who do look towards, and I can’t remember the words of the member, over-receiving, or, certainly “ripping the system off”, I think is the word that better describes it. There are already provisions in the Act that make it clear that that is an offence. You cannot do that. So with respect to those who might over-receive, we make sure that in a professional manner, ACC continues to deliver a scheme that meets the needs of New Zealanders. For those who might over-receive—one might call that “ripping the system off”—there are already provisions here to make sure we can look after that.

What isn’t clear, though, is the size of the disparity for those who don’t access the scheme, and the member asked me to point towards areas where we might notice this, and I myself have already mentioned with my other hat on, as associate health Minister: one need only look towards Wai 2575, the Waitangi Tribunal claim, where a number of factors were raised in that particular tribunal hearing about the under-access, or the inability for particular groups—in particular, Māori and rural—to access the ACC scheme. What we’re saying in this particular bill is “Let’s make it an impetus for the ACC scheme to make sure that they can serve New Zealanders better.”

And with respect to the member’s question around time and the time frames that we’ve put around the reporting on this particular matter, it’s important that we undertake this work in order for us to find where those disparities are. Those disparities don’t necessarily show themselves overnight, and if they did, that tells me that that member makes the assumption that that information already exists. I’m telling the committee right now that it does not.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Then how does he know there’s a problem?

Hon PEENI HENARE: It’s in a very transactional manner. And if Mr Woodhouse wants me to send him the link to Wai 2575, it shows clearly that Māori, in particular, don’t access the ACC scheme; they don’t access healthcare the way that other New Zealanders do. And there’s a myriad of matters, complex matters, which mean that they don’t. There’s matters of trust, there’s matters of lack of funding, there’s a whole heap of matters here, and that information isn’t found in the transactional nature of the reporting that ACC can do right now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, again, the Minister has misconstrued my comments. I wonder if it’s becoming an intentional effort to try and cover for a terrible piece of legislation. There was no comment whatsoever from me about suggesting that people were “ripping off the system”, as the Minister put it.

Indeed, my comment was around the level of access, as is required under this new piece of legislation—what happens in a scenario where they may be considering access for one particular group they’ve identified, only to find out that that group, indeed, has access over and above what other groups may already have. This legislation specifically says they can only look to “further improve” access for those groups. So why would it be appropriate to improve access for a group that may already have access at a level above what other groups have? Surely the intent, as the Minister, indeed, mentioned in his opening contribution, is to improve access for all New Zealanders. So why would we want to distort that by having a scenario where one group who may already have improved access is only able to have that further enhanced under this legislation? It simply doesn’t make sense.

I move, That the question be now put.

Well, we have got a long way to go, Mr Halbert. If that’s the extent of the debate that he thinks we get in the committee of the whole House—when we combine parts and titles and commencement, with the National Party’s agreement—that we should then spend five minutes on this, I think he’s in for a bit of a surprise after dinner.

Now, I want to just touch on a couple of things that the Minister for ACC has said. Now, in his rebuke of Mr van de Molen’s comments about “picking up the phone”, he said, “Well, look, we can’t just pick up the phone as Ministers. They’re independent Crown entities, and they can’t work like that.” Well, actually, I consider the euphemism of “picking up the phone” to be met by the Minister’s annual letter of expectations. The Minister’s predecessor actually wrote in her letter of expectations for ACC in December 2021, I think it was, that she expected that ACC continue to commission work and that the scheme settings that are “underserving women, Māori, Pacific peoples, disabled peoples, and ethnic communities” be addressed. “I look forward to continuing to work with you on these and other strategic developments in the year ahead.”

Now, whatever the answer to the questions of whether the case for inequities has been made—and I want to ask the Minister questions about that—this bill, as I said in my second reading, is a well-meaning waste of time. The letter of expectations did everything that this bill did, and more. So you could say pick up the phone, write a letter—it’s very clear that the Minister has the degree of influence over ACC’s performance that he stated that he didn’t.

But I do want to come to what I think were pretty loaded statements by the Minister about under-reporting of injury by Māori and disparities and that the data does not exist. He talks about Wai 2575, and we’ll get to that after dinner. He then said it’s clear that there are holes in the data. “We found that Māori were underserved by the ACC scheme”; those were the Minister’s words in his response to Mr van de Molen.

So my question for the Minister, which he can have an hour to think about and come back, is: where is the case for change? He’s asking this committee to accept proof of a negative—proof that there is no data. So if there’s no data, what’s the case for change? Statistics New Zealand and ACC themselves have plenty of data on Māori injury, serious harm, and death rates compared with the population. It’s an unfortunate reality that the Minister needs to address that, actually, Māori are overrepresented in too many of those statistics, particularly young Māori men.

So I think—regardless of whether or not we need this bill—we need to have the case for these disparities established, because a Minister for ACC that wants to serve Māori should be looking for fewer claims by Māori because they are harmed at a lower rate than they currently are.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The committee is resumed on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to a number of the matters that were raised before the dinner break, the reason for the legislation—and the Hon Michael Woodhouse pointed to the letters of expectation. Yes, that is true; we write letters of expectation. He also pointed out that those letters of expectation—the ones he referred to—were in, I think he dated them, 2021 and 2022, if I recall correctly. In order for us to have an enduring capability, or ability here to be able to meet those expectations, we believe that putting it into legislation, to hold all those in the system accountable to what we’re trying to achieve here, is the best mechanism to do it. We need certainty in order to build a proper time series in the data and to be able to have the analytical capability to make sure that we are addressing those matters of inequities and disparities that I’ve already highlighted in my contributions to this particular matter.

The data that shows those disparities, as I’ve already mentioned, does exist. It exists not necessarily all at ACC but across different parts of the system, and we’ve already had some discussion around my role as an associate health Minister. But we need to dig and dive a little bit deeper into these particular bits of data. I want to use a particular example: what we know through the ACC data is that Pacific people tend to return to work quicker. Now, the challenge we have is that we can only guess why they do that, but we can’t be exactly sure. There could be a positive or a negative reason for why they return to work quicker. What the data suggests, though, more importantly, is that it may be because 80 percent of them are on a low income, and that means they’ve got to return to work sooner in order to be able to service their bills and their families. That’s why they might be going back to work sooner, and we want to make sure that we understand those matters. At the moment, the data isn’t there to inform those particular points, which is why we need a richer set of data—greater analytics.

More importantly, though, we need it to be enduring. Ministers come and go. Letters of expectation can continue to evolve and change. This piece of work is an evolution of the letters of expectation sent by my predecessor, and it is my opinion that this particular mechanism, by putting it into legislation, gives it an enduring aspect to allow us all to continue to hold ourselves and the system to account in making sure that communities in this country aren’t underserved by the ACC scheme. That’s a key driver for why we’re doing this.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am supporting my colleagues in this, in that it does seem a slightly bizarre thing to be putting into legislation what has been able to be accommodated in letters of expectation. I’ve heard what the Minister for ACC said, that this makes it more enduring, but it also, I would have thought, takes the responsibility away from the Minister actually delving into that information and requiring ACC to provide that as required, as specific matters of concern come to the Minister’s attention.

The other thing—I’m slightly perplexed by it—is that missing mail thing. We don’t know if our mail is missing, if we weren’t expecting the mail. So how does the Minister know that there’s missing data? How does the Minister know that there are disparities? And what information is the Minister going to expect the department to use? Because, as he said, the reports were transactional. People had to have applied to ACC to be able to then formulate reports. So how do reports get derived on what hasn’t been reported? I’d like the Minister to explain to us just how ACC is going to be able to collect information that isn’t there. It does seem a bit of an odd one, for us.

Also, I suppose the other area that I was concerned about was the other communities and just who the other communities are. Is it women? Is it disabled? Just how is the Minister going to decide what other communities to target getting the information, which hasn’t come in on these communities? It just sounds very confusing about how we do get the information when, as the Minister is saying, he believes that these communities are not applying. And so, therefore, how will that information be gathered?

So if the Minister could give us more information on how that’s all going to occur, that would be useful. Thank you very much.

I thank the member for her questions. I mentioned earlier about this legislation giving impetus for ACC to be able to make sure that they collect the right data, that they’re able to address the disparities that, as I’ve already mentioned, Wai 2575—ACC has already presented evidence at that particular tribunal claim. I also know across my other portfolios that Māori are traditionally underserved by Government systems, of which the ACC is one.

So if there doesn’t seem to be an apparent problem identified by my colleagues in the Opposition, then what are we scared of? If, indeed, the analysis and the data gathering and the impetus we’re providing through this legislation gives the opportunity to show those disparities, which I’m going to suggest are there—and I suggest that because of the data sets that are quite clear in other spaces, and the Hon Michael Woodhouse did mention that there are data sets in health, there are data sets in other places. Well, guess what we did with health in the reform! We passed the Pae Ora legislation, put specifically in there a Tiriti o Waitangi clause to make sure that we do address those disparities, that we do collect the data to ensure that Māori receive equitable health outcomes. That’s a clear drive by this Government, which is what we’re doing with this particular bill, making sure that that impetus is there in order for ACC to look into these matters. And it’s the same to be said with other population groups which the member has asked about.

What we do know, for example, and I’ve said it on a number of occasions recently as we look towards updating Schedule 2 of the Act, is that women have been long underserved. The reason we know that is because when Schedule 2 was set, it was set in a time where there were fewer women in the workforce, where it only took predominantly the occupational diseases that were found in predominantly factory work and in areas dominated by male workers. What we now know, though, is the workforce has changed, the nature of work has changed, and it will continue to evolve into the future, which is why we need to make sure that the system that we’ve set up in order to support workers around the country who are injured, who need the support from the ACC scheme, continues to serve them.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the Minister for providing what he could, by way of explanation, to my questions before dinner. But the answers, I fear, actually underscore the confusion that we have here.

Nobody is questioning the value of good data and good information; what the National Party is saying is that this isn’t going to change things. We heard, firstly, a very good description of Pasifika people returning to work earlier than the average, and the Minister himself saying, “Well, we don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.” Well, I would be interested to know what data he is going to collect—if indeed they are one of the groups that might be focused on—how they’re going to work that through.

Secondly, he said, “We know there are disparities in Māori health.” Well then, if we are that confident, why are we wasting the House’s time on this? Now, Wai 2575 made it very clear that there were health inequities, certainly in outcomes. But in the 286 pages of the Wai 2575 report, ACC is—and the word “accident” is mentioned just four times and it makes no reference, actually, to a judgment in that claim that those inequities are actually around injuries and accidents. So I would like the Minister to just explain further why he’s so convinced that this is necessary.

What we do know, sadly, is that Māori are disproportionately represented in a number of harm statistics: serious injury and fatal injuries in a number of areas at work, because Māori are disproportionately represented in some of our highest-risk industries. They may make up, I think—the Minister can correct me—about 15 percent of the population, but they’re 34 percent of the forestry workforce. That is, as I understand it, still our most risky industry—construction is another one.

Also, Stats NZ tells us that Māori are more likely to be in temporary and precarious work and there’s a high correlation between that and injury rates. We know they’re more likely to be injured in a car accident, particularly young Māori males at about a one-third greater rate. We know that they’re more likely—three times more likely—to be victims of assault, and certainly they’re about 20-odd percent more likely to die in the workplace.

But we know all of that. The question isn’t, “How much more data can we gather?” The question is—and I would like the Minister to answer this—how does this contribute to the work that needs to happen to make sure Māori are less represented in these injury statistics? Because that, after all, has to be the goal. We want Māori to be injured less in motor vehicle accidents at work and by assaults.

So it’s well-meaning; nobody’s arguing the case for better equity—albeit that equity could mean lower rates, not higher rates of claims with ACC. But it seems to me—and this is the answer to the questions that I would like the Minister to address in defending the need for this bill. There are, I think, three questions.

One is: are Māori at greater or lesser risk of injury caused by an accident? Secondly, if they are injured, are they more or less likely to seek medical treatment, and, if they are less likely, what is the evidence for that? Because the Minister has already sort of said, as a matter of fact, that there are disparities, but I can’t see any data that would suggest that. Now, the Minister says, “Well, we’re going to collect the data.” What is that data; what’s missing? The third is: having been injured and claim accepted and being referred to health services, is there evidence that in engaging with the health and rehabilitation system they are then somehow discriminated against or treated differently from other population groups?

Again, the research from the University of Otago—the Ngāi Tahu Māori Research Unit there—said that, actually, that wasn’t the case; that, actually, Māori are being treated in the same way and at the same rate as non-Māori. So there are serious questions about the case for this even being necessary.

Just in response to the member’s contribution, as the Minister of Forestry, I can say that, yes, it is a predominantly Māori workforce with, yes, a high rate of injury, while I can also, sadly, acknowledge a high rate of death amongst Māori in that particular industry. It is a tough industry, and even before my time as the Minister of Forestry, I was a trustee of a Māori land forestry block in the Far North, and the reporting to us on the numbers of injuries and serious injuries—which was, of course, graded on a scale—was actually quite mind-blowing.

What we know is—and the member referred to it in Wai 2575. I’m glad he did a bit of research over the dinner break, because what we know is that for those who access ACC, it’s predominantly through a medical referral. So, if we are to use the basis of the discussion that the member is referring to there, then already, clearly, the evidence made in the health sector is quite clear that those referrals that are made through the health sector generally don’t mean better outcomes for Māori. We’ve got to explore why that is, whether it’s accessibility, or whether it’s the inability in places like remote areas to even receive the kinds of rehabilitation services that they might need.

Now, all I can sense in the member’s contribution is a fear of doing what’s right, and why I say that is because what the member is offering is the status quo: letters of expectation—making sure that we can continue to gather the same data. Well, ACC have made it clear that in order for us to understand these issues moving forward, we must have a greater set of data. What this bill does is make it enduring across a period of time in order to get quality data and to allow that expert analysis of that data to make sure that the accident compensation (AC) scheme serves the people of New Zealand, and that’s one of the other matters that we’re doing in this particular amendment. It is making sure and making it clear that we want the AC scheme to serve the people of New Zealand.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Is it annoying when politicians ask themselves questions and then answer them? Yes. Is it something I usually do? No. But am I going to do it tonight? Yes.

It’s a short contribution, but I think it’s worth teasing out what it is that we’re actually doing here tonight. First, we ask ourselves “Is ACC a good system?” Yes. Is it a perfect system? No. Are decisions that inform policy important to ensure that the system is improved going forward? Again, yes. Is data important to inform those policy decisions? Yes. Are population groups part of the picture of understanding how the ACC system can be more responsive to New Zealanders’ needs? Yes, at least some of the time. But is it also possible that there are other ways that we can understand what’s needed for ACC to be a more responsive system? Yes. Is this question and answer format getting really annoying? It is, so I’ll desist at this point.

Except to say, finally, the question that we should ask ourselves is: is this actually necessary to do the things that the Minister for ACC is saying? The things that he is saying are good—because, of course, ACC should serve all New Zealanders, and, yes, including Māori populations and other population groups. But, actually, you don’t need to have in primary legislation a thing that should be the result of basic leadership, culture, and decision making in the corporation—and, dare I say it, by the ACC Minister. I mean, are we seriously to understand that there are things that it would be good for the corporation to do that are not specified exactly in legislation—that we’re going to have a new bill every time there’s one of those? It just seems extraordinary to me.

By way of example—and I know that this will mean something to the Minister because he was recently also defence Minister—soldiers have been complaining for many years about repetitive-type injuries, whether it’s knees or backs, carrying heavy loads—the Minister is aware of the issue, and I thank him for acknowledging that—or hearing from discharging firearms, ears, themselves, obviously. These are questions that I think the ACC system should really respond to.

Firefighters are another classic case. Of course it would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the courage and the dedication of those fine members of New Zealand society, particularly on today, following the horrific tragedy across town in Wellington.

So there are groups who wouldn’t necessarily be described as population groups but who, nevertheless, by reason of their occupational activity, are particularly vulnerable. As far as I can tell, additional research into those groups—firefighters, soldiers, or other high-risk occupations—is not included in this legislation. But I really hope that’s not the case, and the Minister can confirm that there’s nothing to stop such research taking place, by reason of the fact that it’s not in this legislation.

So my colleague and friend Penny Simmonds has expressed this more eloquently than I did the other day; I used the example of elephants hiding in cherry trees, and explained it according to that old joke that you don’t know that they’re there and therefore they’ve either got a great disguise or they’re not there in the first place. Although, when Ms Simmonds said there was a problem with the missing mail, I didn’t know that she meant m-a-i-l, and I wondered if a missing male might be what she describes as what happens when you ask someone to do a chore around the house! But anyway, that’s obviously not what she meant, so I will exercise my privilege against self-incrimination; I won’t go any further.

So, anyway, just to that basic point, and I know it’s been made before but just, really, to sort of emphasise that there are vulnerable groups who would actually benefit from research, who aren’t necessarily defined as population groups, Māori or otherwise, in this bill. I really hope it’s the case that they’re not going to be precluded from the possibility that ACC be improved for their benefit as well, simply because it’s not in this bill.

I thank the member and I do want to acknowledge the example he uses. As the former Minister of Defence, he’s right: I’ve spoken to a number of soldiers who continue to carry injuries or have been rehabilitated through injury in order to serve our country, and I want to acknowledge that. And the answer to his question, in short, is no it doesn’t exclude them. I think the opportunity here—and I made clear in the session before dinner—for Māori is because we as a Government feel there’s an obligation for us to do that because of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. With respect to the classification of “other” in this, it will be up to ACC to continue to explore that as data comes in or submissions. As the member has rightly pointed out, it might become more apparent that, actually, it does need to start looking into these factors a bit more deeper.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Point of order. Mr Chair, I believe we were only putting that the question be put. Mr Utikere moved that the question be put, so you then move the motion that the question is that the question be now put, so that’s what we’re voting on, rather than the actual bill itself—

No, you are correct. I was getting ahead of myself there. So I didn’t actually put the question that the question be put, so I actually do need to—I did call that the question, that Parts 1 and 2 and the Schedule, be actually—so no, sorry, I correct my self-correction. I did actually get that right. But thank you for putting me to that test there, Mr van de Molen.