Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. This bill continues the Government’s commitment to a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme for reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. The Government has already made substantial changes to the scheme, including returning responsibility for cover for workplace accidents to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), and the introduction of the new treatment injury provisions. These changes have been major steps in the Government’s goal of making the scheme more responsive to the needs of claimants. The bill continues to progress this goal by making changes to cover for work-related injuries, eligibility and entitlement to weekly compensation, and entitlement to, and processes for, vocational rehabilitation.

The bill introduces cover for a mental injury caused by exposure to a sudden, traumatic event in the course of employment. This means that, for example, a train driver who hits someone on the tracks, or a bank worker who witnesses a colleague shot during a robbery and goes on to develop a mental injury as a result, will now be covered by the accident compensation scheme.

The bill introduces changes to the cover provisions for work-related gradual process, disease, and infection to ensure that people harmed by their work receive greater access to cover and more clarity around whether cover is available and how it is determined. It does this through amending the test of work-causation, set out in the existing Act, to provide greater certainty of cover for claimants with these conditions.

The bill also introduces changes that allow greater flexibility to amend the list of occupational diseases provided in schedule 2 of the principal Act. It also updates the weekly compensation framework to improve access to weekly compensation in this increasingly varied labour market, particularly for seasonal and casual workers. The changes to the weekly compensation provisions make the assessment more reasonable and easier to understand for claimants. The bill provides fairer and more straightforward weekly compensation for seasonal and casual employees through improving access to weekly compensation for people who are injured while temporarily between jobs. It allows earlier access to minimum weekly compensation for certain claimants and increases the rate of weekly compensation paid to potential earners.

The bill enhances the existing legislative provisions for vocational rehabilitation, to provide better outcomes for claimants. Together with the existing provisions, the changes help to ensure that injured people are able to return to work or look for a job. This is important for the people and their families, as well as for the economy of New Zealand. The bill provides ACC with discretion to extend the 3-year limit on vocational rehabilitation, where appropriate, so that claimants who require ongoing assistance can return to, or stay in, the workforce, with more vocational rehabilitation. It also removes the upper age limit for vocational rehabilitation so that claimants who are no longer eligible to receive weekly compensation, because of the age limits on that, will still be eligible to receive vocational rehabilitation.

I also intend to move further amendments to the bill at the Committee stage. These amendments will ensure that the age limits for weekly compensation are not taken into account for vocational rehabilitation decisions relating to claimants who are still receiving weekly compensation but who are approaching those age limits. This will provide clarity for ACC when making decisions about vocational rehabilitation for older people.

The bill also addresses a number of other policy issues and improvements aimed at making the scheme clearer and more responsive to the needs of claimants. During the consultation process, the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received 50 submissions on the bill. The committee has recommended two technical amendments to the bill and some changes to its work-related mental injury provisions to clarify the situations in which cover will be provided. The provisions in the bill providing cover for work-related mental injury resulting from exposure to a single traumatic event drew considerable comment from submitters. Some submitters considered that cover should not be limited to a single event, but should be broader, and that the provisions create an inequity in relation to non-work mental injuries. Other submitters expressed concern that introducing cover for work-related mental injuries would place a substantial cost burden on employers. Concerns were also raised that the current drafting may not provide cover to those for whom it was intended.

The changes to the provisions about work-related mental injury make it clear that the bill is intended to provide cover for work-related mental injury caused by an event such as a road accident, even though some people might view the event as consisting of a number of interrelated events. For example, the committee was told that a truckdriver hitting a person on the road could be construed as a number of events—the event where the driver saw the person, the event where the truck hit the person, the event where the driver stopped to ascertain injury, and the event where the driver actually saw the person’s injuries. The policy intent is that if the truckdriver developed a mental injury as a result of an accident, the driver would be covered by the accident compensation scheme for that mental injury.

However, the bill is not intended to provide cover for work-related mental injuries caused by a gradual process, such as mental stress caused by work overload. Similarly, the bill was intended to provide cover for a work-related mental injury caused by encountering a traumatic scene such as a serious industrial accident, even though the person may have encountered the scene after the accident had occurred and was not present at the time of the actual accident. This change would provide cover for emergency services and medical personnel if they were to encounter something sufficiently traumatic. For example, again if a worker developed a mental injury as a result of encountering a scene where another worker had suffered horrific injuries in an accident, the intent of the policy is that the worker would be covered by the accident compensation scheme for that mental injury, even though he or she was not immediately present at the time the other worker was injured. It is intended that encountering this kind of situation could in itself amount to a traumatic event. The committee has recommended changes to the bill to make this intention clear, and I welcome the select committee’s recommendations.

I also thank the committee for its work and all those who took the time to make a submission. But I have to say that I am more than a little disappointed with the National Party’s approach to this bill. Its MPs sat in the committee and listened to the case of former train driver Terry Bristow, whose train ran over people on railway tracks and who tearfully detailed how the experiences had changed his life. This grandfather was faced with these tragedies twice in a 3-year period. Unable eventually to cope, he was retired from Tranz Metro in 2003, after 35 years’ service. It was a truly tragic case, and it took courage for Mr Bristow to detail his story in such a public manner for the good of others, knowing that this legislation is not retrospective.

The case of coalminer John Stone, revealed today by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, was another case in point. In 1991 Mr Stone was buried alive for 20 hours in the cab of his mining vehicle, after the mine he was working in collapsed. He has subsequently been unable to face work underground. This, too, resulted in a significant cut in his pay but he too was ineligible for ACC compensation or counselling.

FinSec, the bank workers’ union, today also spoke of the experience of staff traumatised by armed robberies, but it appears that National MPs will not listen to their consciences, and I believe that that is sad. Of course, it is clearly symptomatic of what would happen to accident compensation under any National Government.

New Zealanders want a fair, just, and universal accident compensation scheme and I am proud to be part of a Government that is working to make it more responsive to those needs every day. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The public should be very concerned about the affordability of the accident compensation scheme in the future, under the Labour Government. Tonight, for the first time, I am pleased to share with the public that the Minister for ACC, the Hon Maryan Street, has admitted that, after nearly 9 years of incompetent management by Labour, the accident compensation scheme is at risk. Let me quote what she said at the launch of the book Blood on the Coal: “… when we look at the forecasts, which show injury rates are getting much larger and at a frightening rate. ACC figures from recent years show that: … Claim numbers are rising steadily. … Costs per claim are rising faster than inflation. … Serious injury costs are rising even more and account for about 56% of scheme costs. … Road injuries are a major concern, with casualties rising and hospitalisations still high.” The Minister for ACC has admitted to the public that, after 9 years of incompetent management, the affordability of the accident compensation scheme cannot be guaranteed in the future.

National opposes this Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2), because it fails to deliver the stated purpose of the legislation, which is to maintain a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme by reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. We will go through the three major provisions, and then we will look at which part of those provisions will indeed deliver the stated purpose of being fair and sustainable.

One of the major changes introduced is that claims will be allowed for those who witness or who are exposed to a sudden traumatic event during the course of their employment. The estimated cost of this provision, according to the bureaucrats, ranges anywhere from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. Any other accountants, financial analysts, who provided anybody with that type of estimate would have their case chucked out. The range is from $7.6 million to $72.2 million.

Submitter after submitter came in front of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said that people who are exposed to a sudden traumatic event in the course of their employment should be able to make a claim. For example, we were talking about a bank clerk who had witnessed a colleague being shot—and, by the way, may I remind the public that after a total of 9 years of failed law and order management under Labour, that event will not to be a one-off event; indeed, it will happen quite often. That bank clerk should be able to make a claim, but what happens to individual members of the public who happened to be doing their banking for domestic purposes and who witnessed the same event? They would not be entitled to the same treatment.

When two firefighters attend the same traumatic event, the paid firefighter can claim, but the volunteer firefighter cannot. Where is the fairness in that? Diligent members, like National Party members—because we are the only ones who sit and ask these questions at the select committee—asked the intelligent question as to why this Government, which says it cares for New Zealanders so much, is not looking into extending the same treatment to people who are exposed to the same traumatic event at the same time but who have not witnessed it in the course of their employment. Oh well, we were told by the Government that it was too expensive. When one New Zealander’s life—apparently, in Labour’s book—is more valuable than another New Zealander’s life, I ask where the fairness is in that.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not like doing this, and I intend no offence to the member, but I have trouble hearing. The sound in here is actually hurting my ears, because there is something wrong with the sound system. I think it should be better moderated.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Mr O’Connor for bringing that matter to my attention. We will see what we can do.

I am will not apologise for feeling quite emotional and passionate in arguing against the Labour Government treating the lives of New Zealanders as if they have different values. When a person witnesses a traumatic event in the course of employment, he or she gets compensation, but a volunteer firefighter will not be subject to the same treatment.

The reason Labour is quite happy to introduce this provision is that the cost of the levy—the payout—would be imposed on the employers’ account and the self-employed work account. So where employers and self-employers are concerned, Labour is very happy to say “thou shall pay”, but when it comes to the general fund that is paid for by the taxpayer, Labour says: “Wow, it is too expensive. We will not do that.” Where is the fairness in that? Just because employers and the self-employed are made to pay for their levies, the Labour Government will be generous. But when it comes to the Government having to pay for claims from the general fund, which it cannot use to waste on other areas, then it believes it is too expensive. Where is the fairness in that? This is outrageous. Submitter after submitter asked why this Government is treating New Zealanders as if their lives had different values, and I think the Government has a lot to answer for.

Another issue that I feel very passionate about and outraged against is the second major provision, whereby this bill removes the disentitlement for wilfully self-inflicted injury. This bill is telling people that compensation will be available in respect of suicide and self-inflicted injury. If anybody else were to go out to incite that type of activity, then New Zealanders would feel outraged. This is an evening when New Zealanders will feel very angry that this Government is removing the provision that sends the message that the accident compensation scheme is for injury where victims forgo their right to sue and, therefore, the compensation is there. In the case of a self-inflicted injury, if there is a mental illness involved, then National has no problem with extending the entitlement. But to extend the entitlement to compensation to situations where there is a lack of proof that a mental illness is involved is outrageous.

The third provision is to change to the process of claiming for a work-related gradual process injury. The estimate of that cost ranges between $58 million and $124 million. Once again, just because the levy—the cost—is borne by employers and the self-employed, the Labour Government has no respect towards that burden. It just says: “What does it matter whether it is $58 million or $124 million?”. It has not even applied some diligence to ensure that the cost is accurate, rather than being within such a broad range. So this bill will further endanger the affordability of the accident compensation scheme, and it will certainly endanger fairness in terms of the treatment of future claimants and members of the public under the scheme.

The bankruptcy of the National Party in terms of policy on anything other than “it will cost money” was just portrayed in that speech. When New Zealanders gave up the right to sue, they expected to have an accident compensation system that would compensate them for it. But thanks to the National Party, and people like Bill Birch and Pansy Wong, they destroyed that system, privatised it, and took away the entitlements that New Zealanders expected. They would do it again if they had the chance, and Pansy Wong has just showed that.

We would expect Pansy Wong now to be walking to the Table with an amendment. Her speech, or much of it, was about how unfair it was to deal with the workers out there who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and told us about the traumatic mental injuries they had suffered as a result of their work. Pansy Wong’s logic, and the National Party’s logic, is that it is not fair to do that because we are not going to be compensating a person who is not at work. If the National Party is to be believed, and logic were followed by the National Party, its members would not be voting against this. They would be amending it to cover all those people whom Pansy Wong says she is really feeling very sorry for, such as the person who is in the bank doing his or her domestic banking and witnesses a bank robbery. Pansy Wong says that person should be covered. It is unfair that the person behind the counter who has a gun pointed at him or her will receive accident compensation for mental trauma, if he or she has a mental trauma, but the person watching from outside, who walked in to do his or her banking, is not covered. The National Party is so appalled by this that it wants to see it changed. Well, when is Pansy Wong going to put up that amendment? Never. Pansy Wong and the National Party members in the select committee voted against it, they voted against it in the House, and they will vote against it right the way through because they have no interest in fairness.

Let us listen to what we were told. A train driver who came to the select committee, a very brave man, suffered the terrible tragedy of a young person throwing himself in front of the train that he was driving. He was unable to stop, and that person was killed. He had to stop working. He took a long time to recover. He received no accident compensation, as a result. He went back to work and—members will not believe this—it happened to him again. He is now no longer able to work, and he is unable to get accident compensation. Because he has no earnings like he used to have, he cannot afford to get out of his house. He lives next to the railway lines, and he has to listen to those trains going back and forth every day of his life. The National Party will vote against him getting compensation under this scheme, because Pansy Wong says it is not fair. Well, members should try and figure that one out. If there is any logic in that, I will go “he”.

National’s position has nothing to do with fairness. Its position is purely based on the fact that the insurance industry that National represents is dying to get its hands on the scheme again, like it did last time—to wreck the scheme like it did last time. Well, I have told National that it should not go there, because that will put our costs up too much. I say to Dr Mapp that we can prove it. We know who wrote National’s accident compensation policy last time, and they will do it again this time. National will dutifully follow it because that is the way National members always operate. Whoever pays National writes its policy—that is how it works. Labour members have read all about it and we know what happens; we have seen it before.

I sat through the urgency debates in this House and watched the people from HIH sitting up there giving National members the hand signals of what to do. What happened to the people from HIH? They were the worst crooks ever; they wrecked the system in Australia. That is who owns the National Party—it is those sorts of people.

One of the other examples that I think should be read out here relates to coalminer and Engineering, Printing and Manufacturers Union member John Stone. In 1991 John Stone was buried alive for 20 hours in the cab of his mining vehicle, after the mine that he was working in collapsed. Despite suffering ongoing trauma and not being able to continue to work underground after the experience, he has not been able to access accident compensation for loss of earnings or to pay for counselling. National is going to vote against people like him getting that in the future. What John Stone and the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturers Union are saying is that the payment will not be able to be backdated, but that we should make sure it does not happen again.

Pansy Wong sat there and pretended that she was really concerned about that train driver, as did the other National Party members—oh yes, they were sympathetic, they were empathetic, and they said that it was terrible—but they are voting against the bill. That is the truth of the matter. National members should hang their heads in shame, because they are saying to that guy, and to Mr Stone, that they do not like the bill, that it is unfair, and that they are going to vote against it because not everybody in the world can get it. What utter nonsense!

They will also be voting against older people getting access to rehabilitation, and I know that Peter Brown will talk about this in his speech. Mr Brown is very hot on this issue of over-65s who continue to work in this country and make a contribution. Labour wants them to be able to make that contribution by having access to rehabilitation, and the National Party will be voting against them, as well. National members will say that that is unfair, and that somebody will have to pay for it. Well, that is what accident compensation is about: spreading the cost across the whole of society so that it does not cost individuals their livelihoods, their houses, and their families. And it does not cost the average New Zealander a lot, whether he or she is an employee or an employer, because we spread the cost fairly, and our system is much more cost-efficient than anything one will find elsewhere in the world.

Members should look across to Australia. Australian politicians were here this week, asking us how we did it—how we got this wonderful accident compensation scheme and how we made sure we got it through the political system. Well, we used to have a National Party with members who had some principles, but they are gone. National members pretend they are people of principle, but if they were people of principle they would put aside that nonsense about the bill being unfair and they would vote for it.

Then Pansy Wong stands up and says how shocking it is that people who currently have an injury due to mental illness and are eligible for accident compensation should not continue to get that. So National will be voting against that, as well. National members think a whole lot of people out there deliberately self-inflict injuries at work so that they can get compensation. They do not understand the system, they do not understand people, and they have no concept of humanity. Anybody can understand that when one does serious injury to oneself, one has mental health problems. National wants to deny that, and to have a system that puts those people up against the system to prove it, when we on this side of the Chamber all know, as do people out there who are practitioners in accident compensation, that that is an unnecessary process. It will not cost any more than it costs now, so why are National members voting against it? National members are saying it is a signal for people to go out and hurt themselves. For goodness’ sake! What century do those members live in? Do those members understand mental health issues, or do they just pretend that they have some concern?

I look at Dr Paul Hutchison, who has medical training. He knows what I say is the truth, and he will have to put his conscience aside and vote with his National colleagues against that part. He knows that he is wrong in doing so. As somebody who has worked as a health professional for many years, he knows that people do not self-inflict to get compensation, and that there is something of a mental health problem there that leads to that sort of behaviour. For National to pretend otherwise, I find despicable. For those arguments to be put up in the way that Pansy Wong did, I find despicable. It is absolutely wrong to say that people will go out and self-inflict so that they can get compensation. It is time that National got out of that mind-set, came into the modern world, and understood those issues. If National members ever wanted to convince people that they are worthy of Government, they have just proved why they should not be in Government.

National is opposing the train drivers, coalminers, and truckdrivers who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said: “Please don’t let this happen to others in the future. Please undo the wrong.” But National members will sit there and vote against it. They will say to elderly people that they do not care about their rehabilitation, they will say to the mental health community that National will put their cause back 100 years, and they will say to workers who have a gradual process injury that, no, they should not get looked after, either. Well, we know what National did to accident compensation last time it was in Government. It attempted to wreck it. It privatised it. It downgraded the system as much as it could get away with. Let us not have this country make that mistake again, and let us not allow National ever to get near this again. Members should look at what National is doing now. It is voting against progressive policies that 99.9 percent of New Zealanders know are fair.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). We have heard a somewhat high-minded tirade of moralising from the previous speaker, Mr Gosche. One must ask why it has taken 8½ long years before this moralising morass that is left of the Labour Government has finally brought in this unfortunate amendment to the legislation. Those members get very heated up and very moralistic, but it has taken them until the zenith hours of the dying Labour Government before finally getting around to bringing in this legislation.

The reasons that National is not supporting this bill are manifold. It has not been well thought out. It is, undoubtedly, inequitable. Different groups of people are treated in different ways, and there is no doubt that there are, clearly, disadvantages for the employer as compared to the general taxpayer. There is no doubt also that this legislation blurs the margins between injuries caused by accidents and other medical conditions, and it is extremely poorly costed. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, but I did speak in the first reading debate on this bill last November. I was appalled to read just how wide the costings were in various aspects of the bill. In fact, it was estimated originally that the total claims for witnesses who are exposed to a sudden traumatic event during the course of employment could cost between $7.6 million and $72.2 million—ten times as much. There is a variation of up to ten times as much in terms of what the reality of the costing of this bill might be, and that is just indicative of how little a hold on reality this dying Labour Government has. That is the problem. It is all very well to have a high-minded, moralising Mr Gosche come into this House, but then we see that the reality is a variation of up to 10 times the cost.

It is all very well for Mr Gosche to go on, but 9 years ago the Labour Government said it would raise New Zealand into the top half of the OECD. Instead, what has happened? We have gone down—sadly—two slots in the OECD rankings during the tenure of this Labour Government, and it is more and more difficult to afford the high-quality health, education, and social welfare services that most New Zealanders would like to enjoy. There is no doubt that this, again, is an example of one of the realities of why under Labour it is not possible for that to happen.

As well as that, together with the changes to the cover for work-related, gradual process disease or infection and changes to weekly compensation, the estimated cost varies between $58 million and $123.7 million. Once again the reality check that should be put on the Labour Government is sadly and absolutely lacking. No wonder the Labour Government has failed New Zealand! No wonder the Labour Government has brought New Zealand down two notches into the lowest quartile of the OECD rankings for per capita income! That is the sort of thing we should be focusing on—indeed, that is what a new National Government will be focusing on. The purpose of this bill is said to be the maintenance of a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme, but there is no doubt that with those sorts of costings, sustainability of the scheme is all but impossible.

I think it was Mr Gosche who talked about the origins of our accident compensation scheme in New Zealand, which actually occurred under a National Government in the 1970s. He was quite right when he said that New Zealanders had to give up something when the scheme was brought in, and that was their right to sue. No political party that I know of would like to bring that back, but it is important to realise that that inability to sue does come at significant cost.

I can think of a young Queenstown businessman, the father of three children, who had an unfortunate accident. He was paralysed and now he is in a wheelchair. He had put most of his money into his business so he was not bringing in much of an income, which means that for the rest of his life he is destined to get 80 percent of the fairly low wage he received at that time, and he has three young children to look after. The point, clearly, is that the loss of the right to sue is very significant, and it is very important that New Zealand is able to sustain a high growth rate—something we have certainly not seen under this Labour Government.

I was fascinated to read the submission from New Zealand Steel on this bill. I was particularly interested to read that company’s submission because it is well known for being a very good employer. It has 1,200 local employees and about 5,000 employees around New Zealand. Among those local employees in four parts of New Zealand, including Port Waikato—an area I am very proud to represent—the average wage is $90,000. New Zealand Steel is well known for its great efforts to make the workplace safe and to ensure fairness in its dealings with its workforce.

Why does New Zealand Steel say about clauses 5 to 9, which deal with the cover for work-related mental injury? It says: “We oppose these clauses as they significantly increase the scope of cover offered by the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001. Furthermore, the proposals offer an increased level of cover, but only to one group of levy payers—those funded by employers. This creates further inconsistencies in the recognition of a condition suffered by an individual. If an individual suffers a mental injury from witnessing a traumatic event whilst in the course of their employment, they will be covered. However, if another individual witnesses the same event but are not in paid employment or not at work at the time, they will not be covered.”

There is no doubt that this is the sort of inconsistency that the Labour Government is only too ready to perpetrate. Firstly, we have seen its wildly varying costings. Secondly, we have seen its total lack of reality—the absolutely unreal grip it has. Thirdly, of course, there is inconsistency and inequity throughout this bill. I refer now to clause 10. What did what New Zealand Steel said about that? It said: “The proposed changes remove all onus of proof from an individual claimant in terms of justifying whether a claim is work-related or not.” It said: “Given that gradual processes claims are not covered for non-work exposures, there are significant incentives for both individual claimants and their medical practitioners to have gradual processes claims accepted as being work-related”. They say: “It is virtually impossible to investigate a person’s non-work environment without encroaching on an individual’s right to privacy.”

There is no doubt that when there is a clear base of evidence behind work-related disease, it is clearly justified. But this is a blurring of the margins. And when we have the example of a good employer such as New Zealand Steel pointing out the practical problems of this totally impractical bill that Labour is bringing into the House, we are forced to oppose it.

I listened intently to the member who has just resumed his seat, because I know that when he was the National spokesperson on accident compensation he shared the concerns about accident victims that New Zealand First had. He had a good deal more compassion then than he displayed in that contribution. He spoke about the “reality”. Well, the reality is that there are accident victims in our society, they are hurting, and they are not being looked after well enough. This bill goes some way towards addressing those issues. I have to say to the honourable member who has just resumed his seat that it is much better, and of a much clearer, cleaner conscience for us, if we put a value on looking after accident victims as against putting a dollar value on paying for their circumstances. The member started his contribution by giving the clear impression that the dollar was much more important than the people it was paid out to.

💬 Ron Mark: Typical National.

I have to say that in the way that that party is going, it is becoming typical National.

💬 David Bennett: Oh, get over it, Peter.

The honourable member David Bennett raised his voice there; I heard the melodious tones. But I say to that member that I guarantee he supports private insurers. I guarantee it. I have noted his attitude in this House and at the select committee, and he would like workplace compensation and compensation paid for and funded by private insurers. I tell the member that this bill is about coverage and entitlements, and the private insurers would go along with this.

💬 David Bennett: Think about it.

The member sits there harping on, but private insurers have told me they will give better coverage than accident compensation. They would embrace all of this willingly.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s exactly right—

The member Wayne Mapp acknowledges that, but he takes exception because the Accident Compensation Corporation has the monopoly. Well, we say loud and clear to Mr Mapp that we have an accident compensation system in this country to cover accident victims, and we want it to be as good for the accident victims as we possibly can make it. [Interruption] I say to that member who is yelling and screaming that he would not be able to put two, two, two words together to make sense out of this bill.

💬 David Bennett: Toot, toot, toot!

The member sits there making a joke, but I am sure he was on the select committee when a train driver came before the committee to outline his concerns about an accident and its effects on him.

💬 David Bennett: Why don’t you make it retrospective, then?

Would the member support that? We will put a Supplementary Order Paper up if the National Party tells us it will support it. There is silence. We will put up a Supplementary Order Paper if the member will say he will support it. We will make it retrospective. Even Labour is thinking about it. I ask him to give us an answer about whether he would support a Supplementary Order Paper from us to make it retrospective. Will he support it? I think the answer is no.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Will your mates support it?

I got more of an indication from them than from National members who are asking me to make it retrospective. I think anybody in this Parliament would have been moved had he or she sat in the select committee when that train driver made a submission. It brought water to my eyes. That is the only way I can describe it. I felt the moisture not only coming out of my eyes but running down my cheeks. I am not a man who easily succumbs to that sort of thing.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Oh yes, you are. You’re a softie.

I see my old accident compensation colleague there, Paul Hutchison, interjecting. I guarantee he would have been taken aback by this man’s submission. He spoke genuinely and he outlined the circumstances. It was actually a very sad event that he witnessed. In fact, it was more than one event that he witnessed. It is only right and proper that a system like accident compensation covers individuals like him. [Interruption] We are doing our best to do that, I say to Mr Bennett.

The other point I would like to make is that this bill goes some way towards giving coverage—if that is the right word—to people who are aged over 65 and who are currently in the workforce. Currently, 12 percent, or thereabouts, of New Zealanders are over 65, and many of them work. That percentage will increase as time goes on. We are an ageing population, and I think that figure is forecast to reach 25 percent by the year 2050. More and more of those New Zealanders will be required, or need, to work not only for their own advancement but, more important, to provide the essential services that New Zealanders require. This bill does not go far enough in addressing the concerns of those folk.

Age Concern has put in a brilliant submission, and I am disappointed that my Labour Party colleagues could not take it on board to give it a little more thought and consideration. I know that it touched them, but they stuck with the basic clauses in the bill.

This is an issue that sooner or later we parliamentarians will have to face. We have an ageing population and we need more and more of those people to work, to continue working, and to do essential tasks, and we need to give them better accident compensation cover. I can recall a nurse coming to see me. She was well into her 70s, although one would not have thought it to look at her. She was a night nurse and had had an accident caused by lifting patients in the middle of the night. The accident put her off work. She was covered by accident compensation and was told she needed to be operated on. I think the accident affected her knee. She did not make the recovery from the operation in the short term that she was expected to and was left high and dry on superannuation. As we well know, people who are over 65 in that situation get either one or the other. If they get accident compensation they do not get superannuation. It is one or the other. It does not apply to anybody else in society, but if one is over 65—I think there is a year’s running in—then it is one or the other.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: No one can actually get superannuation other than people over 65.

The member is exactly right, but other people can get an income from other sources and it does not get stopped. The point I am making is that these people paid their taxes to get superannuation and they paid their premiums to cover them against accidents, and their employers paid their premiums to get accident compensation, yet in our wisdom we stop one or the other. We give people over 65 the choice. We tell them they can have this or they can have that. That is not fair. People pay tax, levies, and what have you, to get entitlements, and that is not fair. I think Wayne Mapp is suddenly beginning to agree with me. I made a technical mistake, but he is recognising that the principle I am outlining now is correct. I just say to Mr Mapp that he has no hope in respect of his colleague David Bennett at the back. He needs to take him aside and give him some good, solid political education. There is no hope for the guy. He is an accident victim in his own self.

New Zealand First is quite pleased with this bill—not totally pleased, but we will be supporting it all the way.

The Green Party supports the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) being read a second time, as we recognise the steps it takes towards having a fairer accident compensation scheme for this country. However, the bill does not go anywhere near as far as the Green Party would like in terms of making accident compensation once again the fair, equitable, no-faults scheme that Sir Owen Woodhouse once upon a time envisioned. It is actually a rather timid little bill in its own way.

I am pleased that the new provisions relating to workplace mental injury cover have been clarified by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to ensure that cover will be extended to claimants who suffer mental injury as a result of witnessing a succession of closely related events in the workplace, or who encounter a traumatic workplace scene even though they did not witness the event or events that gave rise to that scene. However, I am disappointed that the select committee did not take on board the concerns of those submitters who put forward the view that cover should also extend to those who suffer mental injury as a result of a series of workplace events, or, in the parlance of the Act, as a result of “gradual process”. That creates a major inequity.

An employee who suffers a mental injury as a result of witnessing one death in his or her workplace will receive cover. An employee who suffers mental injury as a result of a cumulative effect of witnessing a series of deaths in the workplace over a period of time—as may happen with emergency workers or health professionals, for example—will not. That is simply unfair.

The Green Party does not accept the view expressed in the select committee report that difficulties in determining causation, and particularly in establishing that the mental injury was caused by factors in the work environment, is a reason to exclude from cover mental injury caused by gradual process. These difficulties are not significantly greater than those encountered in working out whether a physical injury is caused by work-related gradual process. In making a decision on the balance of probabilities as to causation, it is a matter of seeking expert opinion from appropriately qualified health professionals. Although this may involve a psychiatrist as well as an occupational medicine specialist providing expert medical opinion in the case of mental injury, these so-called difficulties are far from insurmountable.

More telling is the comment of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report that “The effect of extending cover to gradual process work-related mental injuries would be significant increases in employer levies.” Once again, we see equity and fairness to people who suffer injuries sacrificed in the interests of minimising employer levies. The flip side of that argument is that employers will continue to have no financial incentive to minimise hazards likely to cause gradual process mental injuries in their workplaces—most notably workplace stress—because the incidence of such injuries will still have no impact on the levies that they pay.

The Green Party shares the concerns regarding the position of older people in the workforce who are injured that were raised particularly by the New Zealand First minority view in the select committee report. The amendment that the Minister is proposing in a Supplementary Order Paper will address that concern, at least in part, by ensuring that claimants approaching the age limits for weekly compensation will not be discriminated against in the provision of vocational rehabilitation on the basis that, because of their age, vocational rehabilitation will not be cost-effective. However, the amendment does nothing to address the blatant discrimination in the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 that disentitles injured people to weekly compensation on account of their qualification for New Zealand superannuation. The Green Party believes that the accident compensation scheme should provide equitable compensation for all injured people, and the age discrimination that remains in the Act is a matter that needs urgent attention.

Furthermore, the bill continues to fail to address the inability of injured people who were non-earners at the time of the injury to access vocational rehabilitation. These are the forgotten people under the accident compensation scheme—injured people who are left to languish for years on a social security benefit because neither accident compensation nor Work and Income has the capability to provide them with the rehabilitation they require to return to the workforce or get into it in the first place.

I am pleased that the select committee majority has recommended that clause 17 of the bill be passed. The vocational independence assessment process completely disentitles a person to weekly compensation if he or she is found to be capable of working 35 hours a week in some occupation for which he or she is qualified or experienced. This is another unfair aspect of the way the accident compensation scheme operates. I am aware of many claimants with well-paid pre-incapacity employment who have been shunted off weekly compensation because they were assessed as capable of doing some menial job that paid little above the minimum wage. Clause 17 of this bill will at least ensure that claimants’ pre-incapacity earnings are taken into account when assessing whether an occupation is suitable under the vocational independence assessment process.

The Green Party would go further. We would abolish the vocational independence assessment completely. It is unnecessary. The requirement to look for suitable employment can be included as a part of claimants’ individual rehabilitation plans, and a claimant who fails to seek suitable employment can be disentitled to weekly compensation on that basis. We do not think it is fair or reasonable that claimants lose their compensation when work may be suitable for them but is not available to them.

The Green Party supports this bill because it makes some progress towards improving the accident compensation scheme. It is one step further forward from National’s disastrous gutting of the accident compensation scheme in the 1990s. However, there remains a long way to go before we have an accident compensation scheme that returns to the principles of community responsibility, comprehensive entitlement, complete rehabilitation, real compensation, and administrative efficiency that was Sir Owen Woodhouse’s vision all those years ago.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). We are seeing from Labour members classic fear tactics with regard to their arguments in support of this legislation. They are trying to create fear in the public’s mind that the National Party is out there to change the way we engage in looking after vulnerable people in the workplace, and that the National Party is not there to look after all members of our society. Well, that is not true. The Labour Party constantly brings up this fear tactic at election time. It preys on the weakness of people’s inhibitions about what can or cannot happen in an election campaign. It fights campaigns on fear, on mistrust, and on trying to take advantage of people’s unknown futures.

Well, let us think about this for a second. If the Labour Party was so fair and principled, it would be doing what the Green Party has been talking about doing. If Labour wanted to cover the full ambit of this legislation, it would not cover just those who sustained a mental injury in a work situation, it would cover those who witnessed the cause of the injury, and it would cover those injured retrospectively, as well, in that period of time where there had been no coverage. But, no, Labour will not do that. It will not stand for its principles. Labour members go out there creating only more fear. They go out there saying they have done something about this in year 9—it has taken them 9 years. If these people are the people they actually wanted to look after, why has it taken those members 9 years?

Why has it taken the Labour Government 9 years to look after its own people? It is because Labour members do not care. They just want to win elections. Michael Cullen has told us that; that is all they are interested in. This is just something they can go on the hustings to say they have done—at the eleventh hour. They will probably take the provisions away next year, anyway. It will be like those tax cuts—here today, gone tomorrow. The provisions will not be around. The Labour Party has no principles. It is desperate to get back into Government, and it will do anything, any time, anywhere this year to get that place. It is unfair. It is unfair on New Zealanders, because New Zealanders trust in this institution. They expect that the Government of the day will act in the best interests of all New Zealanders. They do not expect a Government that just acts for political expediency, and that is what the Labour Government does. This is political expediency from Labour, because all the examples that came before the select committee—and there were some very touching examples—are not covered by this legislation. The people who were the examples of what the Labour Party says it wants to cover will not actually be helped by this legislation.

💬 Darien Fenton: Oh, they will so!

They will not, because this legislation is not retrospective, and it will not help those people who stood in front of the select committee and told their stories. Those stories were just for Labour members to go out and use in their presentation of fear tactics, over the next election campaign. That is all they were after; they were not after helping those people.

💬 Sue Moroney: Rubbish!

They were not. They are not going to help them. Those people who came before the select committee will get nothing out of this bill, because this bill will not help them. That is the reality of what is going on in this legislation.

This is legislation that even the select committee knew had some serious flaws. There are some real questions about the differential between being in employment and not being in employment. There is the question of what we do with someone, like a visitor to a worksite, who sees something happen that could cause mental injury. Such people are not covered, are they? There are all these gaps in the legislation that the Labour members did not deal with. If they really wanted fairness, if they really wanted equity, and if they really wanted to provide for people who had mental injury, they would have covered the whole ambit. But, no—they know it would cost too much to do that. They would not do that. They have put a different price on somebody’s mental injury depending on whether the person was in or out of work. They have put a different price on somebody’s mental injury depending on whether the person was a visitor to a worksite or somebody who worked there. They have put a different price on the mental injuries of somebody who was a volunteer compared with somebody who was an employee.

Labour has put different prices on the same mental injury because of one thing—because they are only looking after paying back the people who support them. This legislation is payback for the unions. That is why it deals only with employment. It does not cover volunteers or visitors, because they are not covered by the unions. That is what this legislation is about. It is another payback for their old supporters who need to see something as we go into an election campaign. That is the Labour Party for us! If those members were really principled, generous, and looking after people who had suffered a mental injury, they would cover all those other situations. They would not limit the legislation to just those in employment. They would not worry about the size of the cheque book. Labour members say they are there for people. They say they are there for people with a mental injury, so why do they limit that by cheque book size? What cheque book size can they put on those mental injuries? That is what Labour members have done. They have gone out there and they have blatantly chosen whom they want to support. They have picked the groups. They have not gone out there and supported everyone who has had a mental injury, and then they have come into this House and talked about fairness. They have talked about policy. Well, let us see some Labour Party policy that is fair and equitable and just, because that is not what we are getting in this case. What we are getting in this case is a payback for Labour’s mates—and they are not even paying back the ones who were injured and are now suffering, and who came before the select committee. They will be paying back some people in the future—some taxpayer in the future who will earn some money in this country before leaving to go to Australia. That is who they want to pay back, in some foregone vision of New Zealand.

Let us get to the reality. The reality is that if they are to be so visionary, they will have to extend the legislation to cover all circumstances. If those members want to be so visionary and do that, then they will have to cover those other costs. But they cannot even work out what the costs of being in employment will be. So how will they work out the cost of including all other situations? They simply cannot do it, and they know they cannot do it. This bill is just some ploy for them in an election campaign. It has taken them 9 years to get to that ploy, but it is too little, too late, and it does not help the people who need it.

If we look at the cost of this piece of legislation, we see that it is not spread fairly. The cost is all on the employer. Why would members, if they are in the Labour Party, put the cost on to the employer? Because they do not care about those people. They do not care that they are the people who actually make this country strong by building the businesses and giving the jobs. Labour members do not care that employers are taxpayers who go out there and build businesses that keep New Zealand strong. Those members do not care about that if they are in the Labour Party. They just see employers as things they can kick around and tax, and then they put more charges and costs on to their businesses.

Labour members are reaping the rewards of that approach now, because in the world economy some things are going dog for the Labour Party. Those members can talk about fuel prices and the cost of commodities—and it is true that they are going up around the world—but this Government’s economic management has meant that it has not delivered a strong economy to get through these hard times. They have kicked businesses around, as they are kicking them around again in this piece of legislation, and the payback is coming now. We are seeing greater unemployment, high interest rates, and an economy that is slowing incredibly.

A lot of New Zealanders are hurting, and they are hurting because the Government does not care about all New Zealanders. It does not care about business; it cares only about so-called employees. It does not care about volunteers. The Government does not care about people who go on to a work site and are injured, but then it puts a price on mental injury. That is its price of caring. This Government is not there for all New Zealanders. This Government is there for the groups it wants to have at election time. This legislation did not even cover the people who came before the select committee, and that is a disgrace. It is a disgrace to the Labour Party and a disgrace to this Government.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou kua hui mai i tēnei pō. On first impressions, the purpose of this bill is pretty good. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee suggested that the amendments will maintain a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme by reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. This is an excellent objective, which, I believe, would find support right around this House. Yet a comment was made in the submissions presented to the select committee by Phillippa Martin of the Support Network for the Aldehyde and Solvent Affected (NZ) Ltd, which, I think, must be given some serious consideration. That comment was that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has developed a culture of denial. I will say it again—a culture of denial. It is a fairly hard-line comment to make. A culture of denial is like an alcoholic who is determined to deny he or she has a drinking problem, or like a perpetrator of domestic violence who is set on making excuses for his or her aggression. A culture of denial is what we might like to talk about when we fail to recognise that it is institutional racism that is restricting opportunities for persons of colour. We could say that a culture of denial might well represent the catastrophe of climate change, like a nation walking head first into an energy-depleted future, ignoring the inevitable warning signs along the way.

How could such a strong concept apply in the case of work-related injuries and vocational rehabilitation? The recommendation from Phillippa Martin was that the ACC mindset must change from finding every means to stop paying out on valid claims to finding every means to affirm a claim of honesty. In many respects this sums up the Māori experience of injury prevention, rehabilitation, and compensation: denial of entitlements, denial of access to information, and denial of opportunities. It is all well and good that there are mechanisms in place that supposedly cover work-related injuries, compensation eligibility, and the processes around vocational rehabilitation and independence. All workers have a right to expect that their workplaces, the work they do, and the people they work for and with are not compromising their health. Keeping people safe and healthy within their paid and voluntary work environment should be a right and not a privilege. Yet for far too many tangata whenua such protections are anything but automatic.

My experience is that the ACC is the hōhā of a Māori MP’s life. Far too many people come across our paths with anecdotes of the frustrations they have experienced in trying to swim through the maze of processes that are often too long and drawn out. For many of our constituents life appears to be about barriers and obstacles emerging on a regular basis. Last November Dr Fiona Cram released her report on occupational safety and health, which revealed what most of our constituents tell us. It revealed that awareness and monitoring of occupational safety and health issues for Māori is sorely lacking. Why should this be? Well, what we all know is that the patterns of occupational segregation tend to maintain Māori in more high-risk employment. The jobs that hit the all-time high-risk stakes are in agriculture, manufacturing, construction, and forestry—all areas in which Māori are overrepresented.

Then there is the shift work industry, where, again, Māori and Pasifika workers exist in high numbers. Shift work, as those who have done it know, is, to be blunt, the pits. If members stay late in this place they will hear the real stories of workplace risk from the Māori and Pasifika all-star cast that cleans these buildings and keeps these buildings secure, locks up afterwards, turns down the lights, and then gets ready to do it all over again for another day ahead. Actually, their voices should have been invited to this debate to tell us about another reality: the reality of broken sleep, obesity, hypertension, ulcers, heart disease, diabetes, and other disorders that simply come with the trade, with the job—and all for minimum rates of pay. In fact, in 2004 the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee detailed the full range of work-related disorders associated with shift work, such as the factors I mentioned earlier, and including psychological and relationship disorders, less time with family and friends, and eating habits being broken. Shift workers are unable to commit to any other interest—to being at school concerts or for child care, even. Their body clocks are stuffed. I am thinking about nurses, prison officers, night-duty reporters, fire officers, police, and accident and emergency workers. The ironic thing is that many of these professions are in fact our essential industries. They are areas where we expect workers to have their full wits about them. Then there are the workers in the hospitality industry, people looking after heavy-duty machinery, people stocking supermarket shelves, road markers, or those deep sea fishing crews trawling through the oceans for months at a time.

I have taken a bit of time to look at these issues to do with the culture of denial because we believe that, no matter what changes are made to the compensation framework, if the vital issues of access, participation, and outcomes for Māori are not taken into particular account, then progress will inevitably be limited. With the Māori Party’s support, changes are being made regarding work-related mental injury, and we support the intention for the cover to help ensure appropriate treatment and to facilitate rehabilitation.

The Māori Party is pleased to endorse any developments that seek to improve access to compensation for some disenfranchised groups, such as seasonal casual workers, those in non-standard work, those mentally injured by trauma, those between work, and young people who are injured. But the single crucial issue for us is that if people are taxed and levied for accident compensation cover and are then denied their entitlements, then we can hardly call this a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme. It would seem that there are still some technical issues within the bill that serve to deny entitlements to those who really need it the most. As an example, we were interested in the submission from the Human Rights Commission, which drew attention to the test of proving whether a mental injury is “reasonably expected”—a test that is not applied to physical injury. The commission saw this as being unjustifiably discriminatory and, in effect, establishing an extra hurdle for people suffering mental injury.

We support the intent of the bill in making the assessment easier to understand, allowing earlier access to minimum weekly compensation, and increasing the rate of compensation. These are all positive steps in the right direction. But again, it comes down to the spirit and intent of the five founding Woodhouse principles, which would suggest that further improvements to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act are needed to give full effect to the spirit of the legislation. The bottom line is that we know that Māori tend to present late across all conditions and outcomes of workplace injury. Workplace awareness, which is knowing they have a right to talk about their injuries, is vital. So, too, is having access to a case manager at the Accident Compensation Corporation who will work through the scenarios and answer questions such as: “What will I have to do?”, “Am I entitled to a cleaner?”, “Can I be transferred to lighter duties for the same pay?”, and “Can work point me in the direction of a physio?”. Far too many Māori stuck in low-paid work do not want to admit that they have an injury—that they are suffering from occupational overuse syndrome, backache, or even the impact of a trauma—because they fear that such honesty will lead to their dismissal.

We in this Parliament must confront the culture of denial head-on and realise that hazardous work conditions jeopardise workers’ health and safety. We must confront the reality that in 2003 Māori workers had the highest workplace injury claim rate and that most of these injuries are preventable. Why should we do this? Well, I will leave the last word to Dr John Broughton, who wrote the first comprehensive review of Māori injury. This comment is part of the context that makes us know why we must support this bill. He stated: “Although the frond will eventually die, it need not wither or die so soon or before its time.” Kia ora tātou.

I hope the House will bear with me; I think that I have caught Peter Brown’s bug—and now I know whom I caught it from. But it is a privilege to speak in the second reading of this bill, the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I believe that this bill goes to the heart of the differences between the values of Labour and those of National. Labour is committed to a world-leading, easy-to-access, no-fault accident compensation scheme, unlike the National Party, which wants to continue the wholesale destruction of New Zealanders’ rights that it perpetrated on the nation the last time it was in Government. It astounds me that the National Party can vote against this bill so heartlessly, particularly after hearing the testimony of the workers who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and who have suffered mental injury in the course of their employment after witnessing horrific deaths or accidents while performing their work. Those workers deserve nothing less than the full sympathy and support of this Parliament.

Others have mentioned workers like Brownie Bristow of the Rail and Maritime Transport Union and Bruce Gardiner of Hamilton. I noticed that the member David Bennett from Hamilton did not mention Bruce Gardiner, and I wondered what he would be saying to him after the speech he made. Those workers came along courageously to the select committee to tell us their horrific stories and to tell us about the suffering they have had to endure since. Hundreds of workers are in a situation like theirs—the bank workers, shop workers, security guards and many others who have been mentioned. I pay tribute to those workers and to the many workers like them. They know that this bill will not make their own situations better, so I would say to those who have been criticising this bill because it is not retrospective that those workers were very, very clear that they wanted to make sure that this did not happen to anyone in the future. They were not concerned for themselves, and that is why they deserve the respect of this House.

The other significant part of this bill that I would like to traverse is one that has been somewhat overshadowed by the changes made to the work-related mental injury provisions. The bill makes important changes to accident compensation for casual and seasonal workers. That will be of benefit to the more than 400,000 people working in non-standard arrangements in a range of industries. From 1 August 2008 casual and seasonal workers’ long-term weekly compensation will be based on the workers’ earning periods, rather than on the 52 weeks before the injury, which often include non-earning periods.

Casual and seasonal workers work across many industries. The ones we are most familiar with are, of course, those in agriculture and in meat plants, but they also work in the retail, tourism, transport, and hospitality sectors. Some of our biggest companies employ seasonal labour—for example, Heinz-Wattie, Sealord’s, the meatworks, and the orchards. Every year the New Zealand fruit, vegetable, and wine industries employ thousands of seasonal workers, who harvest fruit, vegetables, and wine grapes. They pack and sort fruit and vegetables. They prune the fruit trees and the grape vines. They maintain the crops. Some plant vegetables and thin fruit—and the list goes on and on.

Being a casual or seasonal worker in the agriculture industry is not very much fun, actually. Those workers can be more prone than others to workplace injury, given the heavy nature of the work, the lack of experience, and the high turnover in an industry that struggles to find workers. I am thinking right now about the pack-houses throughout the Helensville electorate and about the workers whom I have met who are employed as seasonal workers. I find it quite shameful that their local MP, John Key, obviously has no idea what their jobs are like, otherwise the National Party would be supporting this bill.

One big question hangs over this whole debate, and it is one of those questions that John Key continues to fudge. If we look at National’s announced policies, which National members have been distributing proudly all around the place, we see that one of them says that National will provide choice for accident insurance in the workplace. I will make two comments about that statement. First of all, National has not moved from its old language. “Accident insurance” is what National called it in 1992 when it put in place the first steps towards privatisation, but that was just stage one. Stage two was when the previous National Government opened up the employers’ account to competition by privatising it through the Accident Insurance Act 1998. That Act deliberately set out to bring competition to aspects of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s business and to introduce insurance concepts and principles to the administration of the scheme.

Secondly, I want to address that word “choice”, which we hear a lot from the National Party. The last time that National promoted choice in accident compensation was in its 1998 accident compensation insurance bill, and we continue to hear about choice quite a lot from the National Opposition when it comes to talking about workers’ rights, health and education, and other social services. The word “choice” is one of those feel-good words that those members like to bandy about, but usually what it means is a cover-up for the removal of people’s rights. The word “choice” has a history to it of political philosophy that goes back to Adam Smith and, more recently, Hayek, Friedman, Reagan, and Thatcher. Choice is the Holy Grail of the free market ideologues, and there they are. They are still sitting there in the National Party, including Murray McCully, who was the prime promoter of choice in the 1998 Act.

But, as we all know, National’s choice goes only one way. The last time those members had their hands on our accident compensation scheme, the only choice was for employers, who could choose between insurers competing for business. There was no choice for injured workers. Workers were dependent on an insurance contract between their employer and an insurer that they were not even party to. I am sorry, but when a worker has an accident and is lying comatose on the factory floor, or when a worker has had a finger chopped off in a pack-house accident, he or she is not equipped to make a choice. Workers will not say to their boss that they would rather that the boss insured with a certain company or with another company. The invisible hand of the market does not work in that situation, and to be true to the Woodhouse principles, the accident compensation scheme, like other services, should be run for the public good.

Here we are, heading towards an election, with the National Party still seeing accident compensation and workers’ injuries and livelihoods as tradable commodities. National has been having secret meetings with business. In New Plymouth we saw National members chase the media out of the room, and tell them and the insurance industry that they would privatise accident compensation early in their first term of Government, should they get the chance. Private insurers are in business in order to make money for themselves, and they have a powerful incentive to influence the party that will provide that business. History shows us that the big insurance lobby influenced the National Party at the last election, and it is at it again. So let us beware of National members’ intentions. They dress up all kinds of things as choice, when they really mean the taking away of rights.

If National members will not come clean about their real intentions to privatise accident compensation, we will tell the people of New Zealand. We will go out and tell the workers of New Zealand that National will take away their rights to a fair accident compensation scheme, should it ever become the Government. No one wants to go back to those awful days. We want to continue to build on the gains that Labour has made. We have work to do to keep improving the lives of ordinary workers and their families, as this bill does. Labour is the only party with a plan to do so.

I will wind up there, because I do not think I can speak any more, but I will say this is a good day for New Zealand workers, and I congratulate the Minister, the Hon Maryan Street, on bringing this bill to the House.

I will take a short call to follow on from the good, wise words of my colleague Darien Fenton. This matter is something that I feel very passionate about. John Key has said that the National Party will offer choice if it were ever to get into power, and tonight we heard Paul Hutchison ask why a victim should not have the right to sue. Let us be clear here.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Rubbish!

Yes, he said that. It was another backbencher letting the cat out of the bag. Let us be clear here. What we are doing tonight is improving what is a very, very good system of accident compensation internationally. This is one of the best—the envy of every First World country. For those people who drive and create the wealth in this country—those people in the rural areas—it is absolutely essential that they understand their choice as we come into the next election. It is quite clear in relation to accident compensation that with a Labour-led Government, people will get the continuation and the improvement of the accident compensation system, but with the National Party, people will get choice à la privatisation of accident compensation and a return of the right of victims to sue. That is what Mr Hutchison said, and that is what John Key has said. Well, people should go and ask anyone around the world—whether it be in Ireland or the US—what the right to sue does. It means that all the money gets chewed up in the law courts around the country and less and less money goes to the victims. It is really essential that we understand that.

People in this country have taken for granted for too long that it is just automatic that we get proper rehabilitation, that we get proper compensation while we are off work, because that is the way it is. Well, it is not. The thing is that this Labour Government came back into power and reinstated a comprehensive accident compensation system, because the previous National Government had attempted to privatise it. We had started to see a breakdown in accident compensation. There is one thing that the rural sector—people who live far away from health care, people who live and work with animals, people who live and work with often dangerous vehicles, and people in the tourism system—should have, and that is proper consideration, protection, and compensation where necessary through the accident compensation system.

If the National Party ever comes to power and attempts to privatise the accident compensation system, we will see a breakdown in the New Zealand economy, and in the way of life that we enjoy. It is important that every single New Zealander understands what the National Party intends to do, and that is to privatise accident compensation, to break down the system that has grown the economy of this country to where it is today.

I rise to take a short call on this bill to congratulate my colleagues on bringing this measure forward, and also to congratulate those people who made submissions on it. Those people bared their souls and their lives so that we could make this very important change to the present Act. In particular I refer to Mr Bruce Gardiner from Hamilton. I know how sorely disappointed he will be in the speech made by David Bennett before, when Mr Bennett said that he would not support this legislation because Mr Bruce Gardiner would not be catered for retrospectively. I know that Mr Gardiner would want him to vote for this bill, because Mr Gardiner’s position has always been that he was fighting to ensure that in the future people did not have the same dreadful experience he had when, as a truckdriver, he was inadvertently caught up in a suicide. He was extremely traumatised by running over somebody and was unable to continue in his occupation. He has fought and petitioned to ensure that the change we are debating here was brought about.

I thank those people who have made submissions. I know they will be very pleased that this bill will be voted forward in its second reading. They will be sorely disappointed in the National Party and in the very cute arguments National members have tried to bring forward as pitiful excuses for not supporting this bill in its second reading. Thank you.