Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to clause 2, and this is the debate on the commencement.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to Rachel Boyack who asked the question about numbers impacted. I’ve been advised we don’t have specific numbers impacted, but half of the money paid into the work account gets paid by instalments. Just be mindful that’s not only the 10-month instalment where a debit interest charge is applied; that will also be the three- and six-month instalments. And I’d also like to say that when we think about people impacted, charging debit interest ensures that offering instalment plans does not disadvantage levy payers who are actually paying in a lump sum on the due date. And that’s why I believe this to be prudent and reasonable practice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to—I’m just looking at that clock that’s got me at four minutes and hoping it will give me my full allocation, because I do—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ll change that, but keep it specific to clause 2.

RACHEL BOYACK: I’ll be very specific to the commencement. The reason I’ve raised this is that one of the reasons we are undertaking the Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill under urgency is the need for us to reduce the risk to the Crown. That has been laid out very, very clearly in the regulatory impact statement (RIS). One of my concerns that I do want to put in front of the committee tonight is that given we have a public holiday in two days, we may well have some time between the passing of the legislation, depending on whether it does or doesn’t pass tonight—noting that it might and it might not; that depends on how the debate rolls through for the rest of the night. And quite a concern that I do have is that if there is a time delay in terms of both the passing of the legislation and also the Royal assent, that is going to start to present risk to the Crown around people potentially taking legal action.

So just to look at that, it clearly states that in the RIS—that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) recommended approach could attract public scrutiny. This could lower public confidence in ACC—which we have touched on; I know that—but specifically it says MBIE considers this approach is justified because it ensures that ACC’s past and current practice is validated to remove any legal risks. And, obviously, we have a commencement date that comes in the day after Royal assent. The reason I’m raising this particular concern in the committee tonight is because the commencement date is the closest clause that I can find in the bill where it’s appropriate to raise this matter. The reason I’m raising it is: are we going to be in a situation, having introduced this under urgency with a public holiday—which is going to give people time to produce a legal challenge? There may well be people who have actually operated for 10 or 20 years under this, who can then see, actually, we’ve been paying debit interest for a long time and we’re going to make a claim against ACC.

It’s a real concern, and it’s why it’s been brought into urgency. I can see that the Minister is seeking some advice from his officials, and I’m really pleased that he is, because I think the committee needs to fully understand this particular matter. Part of that could be: what is the best date for this to actually pass? The closest that we can get to the Royal assent may well reduce that risk somewhat, and so it could be that it’s better for us to, say, pass this legislation on Monday in order to reduce that risk, because the next day, I would hope—and I understand that it’s really for the Clerk’s Office to determine how quickly Royal assent can be arranged with the Governor-General and that the House doesn’t actually have control over that. But I’m sure the Minister can appreciate why I’ve asked this specific question around the commencement and just particularly that we’ve had to undertake this in urgency in order to, essentially, not engage with stakeholders and actually keep stakeholders in the dark around what’s happening.

I can see the Minister has, hopefully, received some advice, so I’ll be very interested in receiving that. Thank you.

I’ll allow another question on commencement just while the Minister is clarifying.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s just a supplementary, really, because when I was looking through the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—and I did mention it in a previous contribution—in terms of the date of wanting to get the alignment of the levies, I believe there was a date of July 2024. It’s a bit rushed for me to go through it now, because we are in urgency, but there was a specific date mentioned. So the risk question aside, which is separate, I’d like to ask the Minister: perhaps that’s the tidiest date to peg this to, rather than just having Royal assent, which leaves us hanging, and is the Royal assent date because this is a piece of work that has taken some time to shepherd through? Is that why it hasn’t been tidied up to actually have a more specific date to peg it on? Because I do share the concerns of my colleague Rachel Boyack, not so much around the risk but just the need to have a specific date that ensures that we get this passed and that it meets the purpose that is stated via the RIS, which talks about cleaning up as the sort of architecture of the levy is being aligned for rationalisation. That date was mentioned, so perhaps he could consider that date.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I too have two questions around the commencement date. Again, I understand the idea that with Royal assent, we’re looking at immediacy of the enactment of this particular bill. But one of the things the Minister mentioned before was something that I wasn’t aware of, and it kind of really piqued my interest, and that is the date that the regulatory impact statement was produced, which was 12 April 2023. So that’s over 12 months ago. I understand that last year, as we were kind of going through campaigns and all of that—you know, there is a reason. But I’m curious to know—the first question to the Minister, on the date, is: why wasn’t it introduced earlier?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I don’t think it’s fair to ask questions through the Chair of the Minister about a date that happened before he was the Minister.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: But, I mean, I’m curious to know when he became the Minister and was aware of this issue. I mean, OK, I understand—I will leave it to the Minister at his discretion on how he would like to respond to that.

The second question I have is around the process that we are undertaking right now, and my colleague Scott Willis before mentioned, in terms of the fact that when we are looking at the impact statement, we are looking at the fact that ACC said that, as a result of the change, the validation of this process that ACC has already undertaken, it maintains the status quo—so no real gain or loss in terms of the revenue to ACC. So I am also curious to get some clarification from the Minister: if there are no fiscal or revenue implications to this, what was the reason why this needs to be done under urgency, as part of the Budget urgency, since there is no financial and revenue implications?

I’m genuinely interested in hearing what the Minister has to say, because, for me and many of our colleagues, this is our first term as MPs; this is our first Budget. I myself have only been an MP for 11 weeks. So this is something I’m still kind of getting the hang of, in terms of what sort of legislation is being put through under urgency, what the implication of the commence date is, and various commencement dates we have seen across the board, what will be the difference here between Royal assent and having it as 1 July, as with many of the other bills we have seen.

So the first question to the Minister—if you wouldn’t mind clarifying at your discretion, since you became a Minister and it was alluded to this report—is: what is the reason it wasn’t brought in earlier, which then echoes what our colleague Rachel mentioned in terms of, again—the same concern as our Labour colleagues—the legal implications of it. And the second question is around the relevance it has under Budget urgency—if you wouldn’t mind clarifying those?

Madam Chair, thank you. I just thought I’d wrap up those last three contributors. I think there was a question raised around the date of 1 July. Obviously, that’s the next financial year, and that is in there because that’s the next round of invoices.

I think the issue around assent reinforces why the bill needs to be passed as soon as possible to minimise risk. I’ve been advised the Royal assent can occur urgently.

The question around how the bill is here today: I suppose the officials raised it with me and I decided it was the right course of action. That needed to go through the legislative programme for this Government, which is clearly a busy Government and has a busy legislative agenda. This is why we’re here tonight under urgency, ensuring that we pass this bill, where there has been for some time a level of uncertainty. And tonight we are clarifying that certainty, and that’s been requested by both the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and ACC.

I move, That debate on this question now close.