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

I will continue my very good speech to go over some of the background. Basically, the new provision regarding cover for traumatic events during the course of employment is very unfair and inequitable. In my last call I was elaborating on how the provision is unfair because, as the levy comes from the work account, it covers people only for injuries incurred during the course of their employment. The Government was not of a mind to extend cover to people injured in non-work situations, which is why the provision is unfair and inequitable. I am not too sure why the other parties are supporting the provision. The costing is also a worry. The officials gave us an indication that it will range anywhere between $7.6 million and $72.2 million. That is not what I would describe as an estimate; that is almost a wild guess. That is why employers and the self-employed are anxious. They are wondering why this legislation is being introduced when its financial impact is just a wild guess and the cost of everything is going up.

The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) put out a press release about the very unfortunate tragedy that occurred in the last 2 weeks in South Auckland. Ms Joanne Wang, the owner of a bakery, had her bag snatched, then was run down by the offender’s car. Her 8-year-old was very unfortunate—he witnessed the whole thing. As the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) pointed out, the poor young boy, aged 8, would not be entitled to any claim to damages. Where is the equity in that? Members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee asked officials why the Government had decided not to extend coverage to non - work-related events. We were told that consideration was given to providing cover for mental injury—not limited to work-related injury—resulting from witnessing a traumatic event, as part of the policy work undertaken prior to the introduction of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001. At that stage it was considered that the provision of entitlements for witnessing a traumatic event was unaffordable. When it comes to general funds, the Government says that such entitlements are unaffordable, but when it comes to a levy to be imposed on employers and the self-employed, they somehow become affordable.

I also point out that this new cover would extend to overseas visitors. Let us imagine a situation in which overseas visitors are here for work purposes—they would actually be eligible for cover for mental injury caused by a traumatic event. Can we imagine that? I have already received lots of complaints from people asking why New Zealand taxpayers are paying for health care for overseas visitors who have been injured in car accidents. Let us consider the case of a bank robbery. If an overseas delegation from an overseas trading bank came here to witness, learn, or train in a local bank about its operation, and they witnessed a bank robbery in action, then technically, under this legislation, they would be eligible to claim. Not only do we believe that the estimated cost—which varies between $7.6 million to $72.2 million—is a wild guess but I am not too sure that people understand that the funding would also have to cover people who have travelled from overseas to New Zealand. I am not sure whether that cost has been included; I am not sure that the officials have a real grip on that issue.

The other issue is subjectivity. The nature of mental injury, which is being introduced in the legislation, is very subjective. It is another case whereby lawyers will have a lot to argue, as will psychiatrists and people involved in the health sector. I could just imagine that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) would appoint its own assessors, claimants would have their own health professionals, and each of them would have their own sets of lawyers arguing how serious the traumatic events were, whether the injuries related to particular traumatic events, and whether the injuries occurred in the course of employment. The ACC is already facing a lot of complaints. I have received complaints from self-employed and small-business people about levies and also about petrol increases. A lot of people might not realise that from 1 July there will be a 2c per litre increase in petrol, which is already expensive, just to cover the accident levy on motor vehicles. Let us think about all these additional costs.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). Part 1 covers much of the meat of this bill. It includes clause 5, “Cover for personal injury suffered in New Zealand (except mental injury caused by certain criminal acts)”; clause 6, relating to cover for work-related mental injury; clause 7, relating to cover for personal injury suffered outside New Zealand; clause 8, “Personal injury”; clause 9, “Work-related personal injury”; and clause 10, “Personal injury caused by work-related gradual process, disease, or infection”.

I can only agree with my excellent colleague Pansy Wong, who said that this bill is riddled with inconsistencies and inequities and has a very, very loose evidence base on the part of the Government. I was very alarmed when I first read some years ago the report of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Work-related Gradual Process, Disease, or Infection. Right at the beginning of the report, on page 3, is the statement: “The advisory panel recognises that further research is required to fully calculate the cost implications of the advisory panel’s recommendations.” Sadly, that statement has just so much come home to roost in reality.

I am afraid to say this legislation is very typical of this Labour Government, which is always prepared to take on some great cause at the drop of a hat, but never really looks at the practicalities and realities—

💬 Pansy Wong: So long as somebody else pays.

—as my colleague Pansy Wong says—as long as someone else pays. It is of huge concern when we look, for instance, at the cost-benefit analysis of mental injury caused by work-related traumatic event and we see the huge variation. The cost range is estimated to be between $7.6 million and $72.2 million per annum.

The Labour Government proclaimed 9 years ago that it would lift New Zealand into the top half of the OECD. And what has happened? Very sadly for New Zealand, we have fallen down two slots. This is hugely significant for our ability as a country to be able to afford good health, good social security, and good education services. If, indeed, the Labour Government had raised New Zealand to the top half of the OECD, then we might have been able to afford a much more generous accident compensation system than we have at present. But when we see wild—absolutely wild—estimations, from $7.6 million to $72.2 million, as in the costs and benefits of this scheme, we have to fully realise just how loose this Labour Government has become in its dying days.

It is not just in this part of the legislation; one could go on to the costs and benefits the Government has estimated for weekly compensation. It has suggested that the indicative full-funded cost per year of the package is between $63 million and $138.6 million. Once again, that is a huge variation, and can members guess who pays? No one pays other than one group, which happens to be those in the work account. The employers and the self-employed have the whole burden of this scheme that the Labour Government has so inappropriately foisted on us.

When we look at Part 1 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2), we see some of the fundamental parts of this legislation that have created a number of problems that previous speakers have identified. The legislation itself, as portrayed, tries to fill a gap that was left in the system through changes that have occurred over many years. However, although the identification of a gap may be relevant, the solution proposed in this bill certainly does not provide the comprehensive solution that would be sought if somebody really wanted to cover that gap.

For example, Part 1 talks about the amendments, and one of the key components of them in clause 9 concerns the term “work-related personal injury”. The distinction between work-related and non - work-related injury is fundamental to some of the problems that National has with this legislation. Why is it good enough for work-related injury to be covered when non - work-related injury is not? What is the point of difference that the Labour Government sees between people who have encountered a situation that causes an injury and are covered because they are in a work environment, and those who are not covered because they are not in a work environment? What gives the Labour Government the ability to determine whether a non - work-related injury should not be covered? What is the fundamental basis that gives it that right? There is none.

What does Labour care about volunteers—people who go into workplaces and see something go wrong that causes that fundamental injury? Those people are not covered, simply because they are not seen as being part of that work environment. I was wondering whether union officials who go into a worksite would be covered. That would be interesting to know, would it not? The vast majority of Labour Party supporters might not actually be covered by this legislation. We can imagine the situation that would occur if union officials went into a site, experienced some mental injury, and were not covered. I sure we would see an amendment from the Labour Government under that circumstance very quickly. I am sure the Minister would like to take a call to explain why her own people will not be covered by this legislation—why the very people who pay for her to sit in that seat will not be covered by this legislation.

It is a shame that Labour, in trying to deal with this issue, has made a number of distinctions between the work-related and non - work-related capacity of the person who suffers the injury. It is a distinction that will haunt Labour, just like the distinction between those who have suffered the injury in the past and those who suffer the injury in the future. This legislation is based a lot on the personal accounts of people who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and spoke about having encountered mental injury in the past, but they will not actually get the benefit of this legislation. This legislation is not retrospective. All the people who brought those heartfelt stories, which the members of the committee listened to, will not gain anything from this legislation. If Labour was genuine about wanting to have mental injury covered, the legislation would have covered not only those who are currently experiencing such injury, or those who will experience it in the future, but also those genuine cases that came before us—the retrospective cases. That is another distinction that the Government of the day has overlooked when it was doing this legislation. It has looked at what it thought was appropriate to cover; it has not covered what, on a policy basis—if it was going to follow through on its policy—it should have totally covered.

The reason Labour has not provided retrospective cover is that it knows that would be costly. It will cost a lot of money to implement this legislation, and it is an unknown cost. It is one of those Labour Party election party promises that we do not actually know the cost of, and that Labour does not worry about the cost of, because it is an unknown cost in the future. A very small proportion of the cost can be identified, and Labour can get away with that. But the real costs that come through will be much higher than that. My colleagues have identified that one of the key concerns with regard to this legislation is that those costs could balloon out to become quite extravagant costs, which will be borne by employers with no recompense from the Government.

I would like to take this call to refute some of the nonsense we are hearing from across the other side of the Chamber about the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). The National Party has never really understood accident compensation. Its members have never really understood the detail, and they certainly have never understood the policy since the days when the system was brought in by National members who had a more expansive vision than those who have come after them. National did introduce accident compensation—it is true. If members go back and read the words of Jack Marshall, they will see the vision behind the introduction of accident compensation. Jack Marshall was one of those who acknowledged the purpose and the visionary concepts and principles behind the Woodhouse report. It is a sad tragedy that latter-day National members have lost the vision of Jack Marshall—they need to go back to that.

I would like to say a couple of things in particular in response to the points made by National members. First, I will address the issue of mental injury caused by a traumatic event. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from a milk tanker driver and, I think, from a train driver, and we know also of a bank teller and of a miner. These people have all experienced an extraordinarily traumatic event, which has left them with a mental injury that has prevented them from returning to their workplace. It seems to have escaped the attention of National members that the reason we are introducing some redress and compensation for mental injury for workers such as those people is that these events have happened in the workplace.

These events have happened because this group of people comprises a bank teller, a train driver, a miner, and a milk tanker driver. When the milk tanker driver and the train driver saw people throw themselves in front of their vehicles, which they were unable to stop, they suffered a mental injury as a result. That is a diagnosable injury. There is a diagnostic process that I am sure select committee members were exposed to in the course of their deliberation, and it is referred to as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or “DSM-IV”. This is the set of internationally accepted diagnostic guidelines that have come out of the United States, and it provides for a diagnosis that allows somebody to recognise whether a worker has received a mental injury as a result of a traumatic event.

The four people I have been talking about have suffered a mental injury that has made it impossible for them to go back to their work. In the space of 3 years the train driver was subjected to that event twice. It is almost incomprehensible that somebody should suffer such an event once in their work career, but to endure it twice is an absolute tragedy. That demands our compassion. Those people came to the select committee knowing that the legislation was not retrospective, but they wanted people to be covered by such events in the future. Those events are drastic events.

I personally think that our accident compensation scheme is the best in the world. Certainly, it is recognised as being amongst the best. It is second to none because it is comprehensive and covers work injury and non-work injury.

I would like to greet the children from Prebbleton School who are up in the gallery at the moment, and the teachers and adults who have accompanied them. I am glad they are here today. I happen to know that currently there are members among them who are receiving benefits from the accident compensation scheme, and that is what it is for: it is for work injury and non-work injury. It is for children in playgrounds and for people who engage in sporting activities. It is for people who fall off the roof of their house when they are mending it. It is a scheme second to none. It is not just about workplace injuries; it is about injuries that anybody sustains.

The Labour-led Government recognises that compensation for workers who are taken out of the workplace as a result of an injury is an economic and social good for those workers. Rehabilitating them, which is another part of the accident compensation scheme, is good for them. Getting those people back into work fit and healthy benefits both them and the economy.

💬 Pansy Wong: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just wonder whether the Minister has mistaken this for a third reading debate. I thought we were talking about Part 1. The Minister’s description of accident compensation in respect of those specific cases is in no way relevant to Part 1.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you very much. That really is not a point of order, but I will take the point. The member has been referring to clause 5, and also to mental injury. I have been reading the legislation as it has been debated.

I would be very interested if National members, in opposing this improvement to what is already a scheme that is second to none in the world—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: It’s the only one. It’s the only one like it.

Exactly. It is second to none, as I say. What I want to know from National members is whether, in objecting to this legislation, they are looking to expand the coverage of accident compensation. Are they wishing to make the legislation retrospective? Are they wishing to make it apply to non-work mental injury experienced as a result of a traumatic incident? We have not heard that from them. I would be very interested to hear whether that is the case. If that were the case, it would seem to me that their underground plans for privatising the accident compensation scheme would have to take on a different colour. I would be most interested to know whether the provisions that we have in the bill currently would be expanded upon, given the song and dance we are hearing about them from those members.

I turn to the issue of costs. The National Party has made a substantial play about the range in costs. Coverage for mental injury as a result of a traumatic event is new to New Zealand. This is another incremental improvement on a good scheme, and, because it is new to New Zealand, we do not have the costings we can draw on from past experience. It stands to reason that we will range widely across the possibility of costs in order to get some indicative idea from comparable jurisdictions about the cost of such coverage. We do not anticipate that there will be many of these claims. If one looked back over the last 10 years, one would be able to count the number of mental injuries sustained from a traumatic event. These are not common, everyday experiences. The fact that there might be a range of costs simply means that this is an indicative idea. We are going forward into an area we have not covered previously.

I return to my original point, which is that the National Party has never, quite frankly, understood the issues surrounding accident compensation—not in recent times. National’s only concern at this time, it would seem, is to ensure that it prepares for privatisation and that it sells the scheme to its friends in the insurance business, so that all levies will go up as a result. All levies, without a doubt, would go up.

I am really looking forward to the Minister for ACC, Maryan Street, taking many more calls. She just told us not to worry that the Labour Government has wasted so much parliamentary time on passing legislation to deal with this new cover for mental injury caused by witnessing a traumatic event, because there will not be many claims. That was the reason she gave—there will not be many claims, so we do not need to worry.

If the Labour Government is so compassionate that it wants to cover this injury, why has it taken so long to do it? It has taken 9 long years to introduce this cover. It takes Labour members 9 years to do something, even when they feel passionate about it. It really is tough. I think it is to do with election year. The Minister told us that essentially the legislation would not cover many people, but, sad to say, she was not prepared to make it retrospective to cover the four submitters the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from. I am not sure why we are debating this new cover if it will not happen very often. I have bad news for the Minister: I think it might happen quite often, because under the Labour Government law and order is out of control. The opportunities for people to witness a traumatic event during work hours might actually be on the rise. I think the only consolation is that there will be a change of Government so that law and order do not get out of hand.

I want to expand on another provision in the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2), which changes the cover relating to gradual or progressive injury incurred during work hours. There is a change in this legislation whereby the onus of proof is put back on the employer. If the employer cannot prove that an injury was incurred outside of work hours, then under this legislation it becomes a claim against the work account. That is different from the previous provision. One of the submitters was Massey University. People from the university came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said that as a good employer they have done everything they can. The area that most concerned them was that a lot of their staff use keyboards during work hours. They have done a lot in terms of improving the work environment, including regarding laboratory bench heights. They have taken a lot of preventive measures to make the workplace safe. If an employee uses a keyboard after work, if an injury is caused by an outside-of-work situation, how can it be justifiable that Massey University, even though it has been a good employer, is penalised under this legislation?

The Massey University submitters suggested quite a sensible way forward. It will be difficult, they agree, to prove whether an injury happened during work or after work. So they suggested that a percentage be worked out as to how much time a person spends at work and at home. That would make a claim a lot easier. Under this new provision it would be assumed that the injury was incurred in the workplace, and if there is a dispute, then the Accident Compensation Corporation can investigate. But can members imagine how difficult it would be for an employer to enter an employee’s home to look at his or her home environment and say whether a particular injury was more likely to be attributable to an outside-of-work situation?

Once again, this is typical of the Labour Government. As my good colleague Dr Paul Hutchison said, it just charges on, leading the world. Labour members do not actually know where they are leading; they simply lead like lemmings jumping off a cliff. As long as they are first, they do not care whether it will cost employers and they do not care whether it will lead New Zealand down in the OECD tables. They just want to lead, but without a target and without knowing where the pathway is or how much it will cost. That is why one submitter after another came to the select committee and asked how employers will be able to be good employers.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased to be able to speak to Part 1 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2), because this is a very important bill and it is worthy of an extensive debate. I must say I was very concerned when I heard Minister Street claim the National Party has never understood accident compensation, because, after all, it was the National Party that legislated for the visionary accident compensation legislation in the 1970s. What we do not agree with is the “foot in mouth, head in the clouds” dose of unreality that afflicts the modern-day Labour Government, and I must say that it is a very, very dismal disease that is afflicting the modern-day Labour Government.

I was interested to hear Minister Street discuss the question of the train driver and the very worrying and concerning submission he gave to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I was not there but I certainly heard about it. Yes, it is right and proper that the train driver was covered after that awful incident. But the anomaly and the inconsistency is in the fact that if a mother, with her child in a pram, was at that same train crossing and she was not employed outside the home, she would not be covered even though she had witnessed a scene just as horrific as the one witnessed by the train driver. That is why National is saying that once again we are seeing the inconsistency and inequity of the Labour Government.

It took Maryan Street something like 10 minutes of verbiage, including greeting the pupils from—is it Prebbleton School? Greetings to them, as well. We like the blue they are wearing; it is great to see. After that 10 minutes of unmitigated verbiage she had the gall to say, once again, that National did not understand the scheme. Then she went on to say that National makes play of the range of costs. Well, so we should. It is a great pity that this Labour Government, which has caused New Zealand to fall two places in the OECD rankings so that we in are the lowest quarter, does not take notice of this enormous range of costs, which varies by 1,000 percent. What business anywhere in the world could run successfully on those sorts of estimations? Yet this is the sort of legislation that this Labour Government is trying to bring in.

One of the submissions I was particularly impressed by was that of New Zealand Steel, which is a major New Zealand employer. It employs something like 1,200 people locally in the excellent constituency of Port Waikato, which I am very proud to represent. The average wage is $90,000, and it is regarded as a very good employer by its local workers, not to mention the 4,000 to 5,000 workers around the country. What New Zealand Steel says relating to clauses 5 to 9, which deal with cover for work-related mental injury, is worth noting. It says: “The proposal offers an increased level of cover but to only one group of levy payers—those funded by employers. This creates further inconsistency in the recognition of a condition suffered by an individual. If an individual suffers 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 are not at work at the time, they will not be covered.”

New Zealand Steel is a very realistic employer. It is regarded with great esteem by its workers, because of the fairness with which it employs them.

In terms of Part 1 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) and what my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison has been talking about, which is the work-related and non - work-related criteria, a good example was given by one of the submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I think people will gain a lot of benefit from hearing about it. This submission was made by the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management. It gave the example of a motor vehicle accident to show who would be covered, and who we might have expected would be covered but was not.

A motor vehicle accident may create two classes of injury. The employee who was driving will have his or her physical injuries covered, plus any mental harm that may arise—the mental injury is covered by this legislation. The pedestrian who was hit by the vehicle, and who was not at work, will have his or her physical injuries covered, plus any mental harm caused by the injuries—that is also part of this legislation. But a witness who was mentally injured, and who was not at work, will get nothing; somebody who received a mental injury as a result of witnessing a traumatic event will not be covered under this legislation. An ambulance employee who received mental trauma is entitled to claim—the pedestrian was the ambulance employee’s cousin, in this case. As members can see from this example, the proposed legislation creates two types of injury class: those who are not covered and those who are covered merely because of their employment status.

A number of submitters said that that was not in keeping with the original principles of the accident compensation legislation as put forward in the Woodhouse report. The witness in this case will not get any cover, even though the witness encountered the same traumatic event as, say, the employee did. That is part of the problem with the bill before the Committee. Two types of cover are being promoted by the Government in this case—

💬 Pansy Wong: Inequitable.

—and it is not equitable, because in some cases people will get cover and in other cases people will not get cover, even though they may have a legitimate claim in the sense that their injury is as great as, or, in some cases, greater than, the injuries of people injured in the course of their employment. That is the fundamental problem that the legislation encounters.

Many submitters brought this scenario before the Government of the day, but the Government was not willing to concede this point, because the Government is pushing through this legislation as part of the raft of legislation that it is promoting in its scorched earth policy in the last couple of months leading up to an election. The Government is more interested in what it can get through the House than in the content or success of the legislation in the long term. The Government is interested in going out there and promoting ideas that have no financial backing in the sense that nobody in the Government understands the financial implications, because that does not matter to the Government; its members want just to be able to go on the election platform and say that they have done something about an issue.

Well, they have not done something about an issue when the people whom the Minister for ACC, Maryan Street, spoke about—such as the person who had encountered two of these kinds of traumas in his working life—are not covered by this legislation because it is not retrospective. That person, who came before the select committee, had been dealt two bad hands of cards. People would not expect to experience one such situation in their working life; that person had experienced two such situations, and he is still not getting cover from the Labour Government.

Labour is going out there with this legislation as some promise for the future with no financial backing, and Labour is using it to say that it has covered off this situation after 9 years in Government. Well, Labour has had 9 years to get a solution. It could have done it at a much earlier stage, and in a form that would have provided retrospective cover and cover for non - work-related injuries. But it has forgone those opportunities, and has done this bill in a very quick and hurried manner, looking forward to an election. This legislation creates a number of holes.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the issue of accident compensation. I want to bring to the debate some experience that I had as a shearer and as a shearing contractor.

When I hear about the progressive injury situation, I know that it is a can of worms indeed, because it is a highly contentious situation. In my own life as a contractor I was subject to situations that I had absolutely no control over with regard to injuries that had happened outside the workplace—in this case, a shearing-shed. People would come to me to talk about back injuries and tendon injuries. One of the real issues we had with claiming for accident compensation was being able to establish the actual time when those injuries had occurred.

I am particularly concerned about the muddying of the waters around the issue of the employers’ account, when a situation can be clearly sheeted back home to personal responsibility. I am talking about some of the incidents that occurred when I was a contractor, when some very good young rugby players would come to me on Sunday evening to say they had a sore back. I would have been watching the game of rugby where they had been at the bottom of the ruck, and out the back they would come. Those players would show great Kiwi ingenuity. They would throw themselves with ferocity at their opponents, and then they would try to say that they had injured their back while they were on the third run of the second day at the Tiroa E incorporation’s shed at Benneydale. In that situation, I was confronted with a compelling story, and had to decide whether to sign it off and face the consequences.

When it comes down to the accident compensation scheme, as marvellous as it has been—and it has been a wonderful insulator for the worker and his or her family, who are able to manage through those times when the worker is unable to earn an income—I believe that we have to be very careful when it comes to claims for a progressive injury, because it is wide open to interpretation.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: National Party policy—careful!

Much like the member opposite, it will not be with us for too much longer. With regard to this issue, it is about the very realities that we confront as employers and employees in the workplace. I know that it is probably quite cruel to say in a blanket way that we have to remove this provision and be black and white about it, but what scares me much more than that is that a progressive injury can be loaded against the employer and the employers’ account, and the consequences of doing that tend to undermine the very principle behind the accident compensation scheme.

After looking at my personal experience, I think that the Labour Government has gone one bridge too far. It needs to be very respectful of the balance around personal responsibility and honesty with regard to this situation. Repetitive injury is difficult to prove, and, on balance, this measure is something that I cannot support. Again, we are looking at what is already a gold-plated model. It is incredibly generous, and being able to bolt on or clip on some more variables will open up quite a minefield.

I just thought that I needed to make that contribution. I know that my friends and colleagues around me have debated this issue quite extensively, and they have had the benefit of going through the select committee process.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I have actually been listening to the debate quite hard. I will take Peter Brown. If I take any others after Peter Brown I would really have to have a new argument. The argument has been repeated now. I have been given new examples, but it is the same basic argument.

I hope that I will raise a new point. I did not intend to take a call in the Committee stage of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2), because I thought it was going ahead very straightforwardly and progressing quite well. But I take exception to what Colin King has just said. I do not know one accident victim who would describe the accident compensation scheme as gold-plated. I have never heard an accident victim describe this scheme as gold-plated.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I’ve never heard it described as that, either.

I have heard it described in many ways, but I have never heard it described as gold-plated. I know that member over there has quite a compassionate heart, and I would invite him to look at this bill from the point of view of an accident victim. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Order!

Let them go, Madam Chairperson. I do not mind.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I would like to hear the debate.

I have pricked their consciences, Madam Chairperson, so you have to understand that they feel a bit uneasy. The member has a compassionate heart, but I invite him to look at this bill from the point of view of an accident victim. I say to National members, because I think they are a cold-hearted bunch of squids—[Interruption]—I retract that comment in regard to Paul Hutchinson and David Bennett, because they have made some interesting contributions. We need to improve accident compensation and to view it from the victim’s point of view.

I am encouraged by the two National speakers before Colin King. Paul Hutchinson and David Bennett echoed the point—and it is quite correct—that if a person witnesses a traumatic event at work, and suffers mental injury, that person is covered by accident compensation. But if a person sees the same event outside the workplace, that person is not covered. The reason for that—and both my National Party colleagues understand this—is that the taxpayer pays for the people who are not at work. I take it from that, and the member can tell me if I am wrong, that National will produce a Supplementary Order Paper, which New Zealand First would support, to cover the non-working person who sees a traumatic event. I ask those members to put their money where their mouth is. They have said the bill is unfair in relation to a person who experiences a traumatic event and who suffers a mental injury at a time when that person is not working—that person should be covered. I take it from that that National will cover people in those circumstances.

Will National put that provision as a high priority? Its leader says that tax cuts are National’s highest priority, so according to those guys the money is there. I ask National to produce a Supplementary Order Paper that will cover people who are not in the workforce and who see a traumatic event. I ask Mr Bennett not to bob up. He should sit down and apply his intelligence to a piece of paper, and we will get—

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. It is quite unusual for the member from New Zealand First, Peter Brown, to make those arguments, because if one reads the commentary and the position of New Zealand First—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): What is the point of order?

💬 David Bennett: I would like to table the commentary, which shows that New Zealand First actually raised serious concerns about the bill and how it would impose additional costs on employers—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member will sit down. It is unacceptable to raise a point of order to deposit material in the middle of a person’s speech. That should be done at the end. If the member wishes to try again at the end of the speech, he may.

There is nothing in our minority view that we will retract. The Minister for ACC is well aware that we believe this bill should go further to address the concerns of people in the workforce who are over the age of 65. More and more people are working longer in their lives, and we think that this bill is an opportunity to go further. But that does not mean we want to stop the people like the train driver who came before the before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from being covered.

💬 Simon Power: No.

Simon Power says “No.”; he agrees with me.

💬 Simon Power: I do agree with you.

Support the bill then, I say to Mr Power.

💬 Simon Power: I don’t agree with you that much.

I ask Mr Power to show a bit of compassion, a bit of understanding! [Interruption] Bob Clarkson agrees with me. He would agree with anything. He is going, so he will agree with us.

This is a serious issue that I do not want to make light of. The train driver came before us and told us about the extenuating circumstances he was involved in when he ran over and killed someone and the first instruction he was given was to go along the lines and to look at what had happened to the individual. I think the whole of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was moved, perhaps not to tears but emotionally, by his statements. Let us think for just 1 minute about what that guy went through. He got out of his train and he had to go along the lines to see what damage he had done. That damage, which was through no fault of his—and I want to make that quite clear—was horrific.

I seek leave to table the commentary on the bill, which shows that New Zealand First has—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Leave is sought to table the commentary on the bill. Is there any objection? Leave is denied.

As I said before, Part 1 is a serious part of the legislation and it is worthy of full debate. I will refer to clause 20, which has not as yet been debated. Clause 20 deals with self-inflicted personal injuries and suicide. I think it is important, once again, to quote from New Zealand Steel, which is regarded as one of the very good employers around New Zealand, and particularly in Port Waikato—the area that I am so proud to represent. New Zealand Steel says: “We oppose this clause, which will repeal the existing clause and provide entitlements for individuals who wilfully self-inflict injuries, including suicide attempts.” It continues: “The proposed change will provide entitlements and incentives for individuals who wilfully self-inflict injuries—actions that New Zealand society considers abhorrent. It actually provides an incentive for individuals to self-harm.”

That quote comes from a large New Zealand employer that has an extremely good record of caring for its employees. It pays an average wage of $90,000, and I do not believe there have been any industrial problems on that site for decades—pretty well since it came into existence—because of its concern about its workers. So I think New Zealand Steel has the authority to speak out.

The very fact that this Labour Government seriously considers adding this clause is an indictment on this Labour Government, on its sense on fairness, and on the fact that it lacks a practical, common-sense approach to problems facing New Zealand society. When we hear the Minister saying that the Government will experiment a little in terms of what it is doing, that this is another step in change, and that New Zealand will be a leader, we can see that it does not seem to matter very much that there is a range of costs going from $7.2 million to $72.2 million—an increase of 1,000 percent. No business in New Zealand, let alone the rest of the world, could survive on that sort of loose accounting, yet that is what the Labour Government wants to do. It also wants to do this in relation to a situation that is particularly serious: that of self-inflicted personal injuries and suicide.

It is important to quote further from New Zealand Steel: “Providing ongoing entitlements over and above medical treatment is also inconsistent with the purpose of the ACC scheme, as outlined in section 3 of the Act. This requires the ACC scheme to be fair, be sustainable, minimise the incidence of injury, and minimise the impact of injury.” New Zealand Steel considers that the repeal of section 119 will encourage disgruntled employees to wilfully self-inflict injuries, which will result in more injuries, an unfair burden on levy payers who do not wilfully self-inflict injuries, and an unsustainable cost on the scheme. These are all very, very serious concerns put forward by New Zealand Steel.

The Minister Maryan Street claimed that the National Party has never understood accident compensation, but I say Labour has never understood the practicalities of a modern economy. That is the reason it is in so much trouble today. Labour members are keen to lead the country to goodness knows where. I was quite fascinated to hear Pansy Wong point out, quite appropriately, that they are like a pack of lemmings leading New Zealand over the cliff. This sort of clause would indeed lead New Zealand over the cliff.

I move, That the question be now put.