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

There will be one debate, three questions, and three votes.

The title of this Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) is too bland when we relate it to the serious issue I am about to raise. In Part 1 a very important change takes place, and I think New Zealanders would be appalled to learn the substantive change. Currently, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has the authority not to pay compensation for self-inflicted personal injuries and suicides. This legislation would change that; it will actually contravene a principle of the accident compensation scheme. That accident compensation scheme principle is to minimise injury while not putting an unfair burden on levy payers.

Let me share this case with the public. On 21 June—last Saturday—the New Zealand Herald stated: “A 44-year-old west Auckland man was treated in hospital today for self-inflicted sword cuts after he threatened his family and ‘smashed the hell’ out of his house and car.” The police said that by the time they reached him, he had “lost all his puff and was curled up on the couch in a bit of state.” They also said that alcohol was involved.

In 2005, according to official statistics, 5,000 people attempted suicide and, of those, 1,150 filed a claim with the ACC. This is serious. Some members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee argued that most of those people have mental injuries and, therefore, they asked what the point is of having a provision that gives the ACC the safeguard of satisfying itself that people have not injured themselves intentionally and do not have a mental health problem.

I challenge New Zealand First, particularly Peter Brown, in this instance. He keeps us quite entertained with lots of his sailor stories, but some of his stories are more serious. He said that it was quite common, apparently, for people to pick up heavy tools or boxes and drop them on their own feet to claim injury or health insurance. If Mr Brown continues to support this provision, then I want him to also explain, on one hand, why he told us that people intentionally injure themselves, and, on the other hand, why he is supporting a provision that takes away any safeguard against those deliberate acts.

There is a more serious side: if anybody was to dangle money in front of other people and say that if they tried to kill themselves they would get that money, then that person would probably be prosecuted for that scheme and everybody would be outraged. But we now have a Government bill—a Government bill—that would actually entitle someone who commits self-harm or who attempts suicide to compensation. In any environment I find it outrageous to legislate for a change that would almost endorse or normalise the behaviour of suicide. I am sure that my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison would be appalled, because doctors are trained to save people.

Accident compensation legislation is meant to minimise injury. Tonight we are debating legislation that says that it is OK to attempt suicide and that, in fact, compensation will be paid. I think that this is appalling, and that it is being done without much research. The number I have just mentioned, of 5,000 cases of attempted suicide, does not include people who may have self-inflicted injuries and who have attended only general practitioners and clinics. Who knows how much the compensation for their injuries would cost?

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement clauses of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I agree with my colleague the excellent Pansy Wong, who said that the title is somewhat bland. There is no doubt that the title could refer to a great many different things. The bill could be called the “Labour Government: Forget About Who Pays the Levies Bill”, or, in fact, the “Forget About Who Pays Bill”.

When I spoke in the first reading debate on this bill about a year ago, I looked with horror at the potential costs of this bill and their wide variation. Yet tonight Minister Street admits that the spectrum of costs that was put out a year ago is still as wide as it was then. In fact, in the mental health areas, costs go from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. That is a range of 1,000 percent. No business anywhere in the world could run on that sort of incomprehensible range. It is not just that cost that has not been fixed by the Labour Government over the last 11 months. There are also changes to weekly compensation where the range is $63 million to $138.6 million, and Minister Street says: “Don’t worry; this is just a new little experiment by the Labour Government. The imprecision doesn’t really matter all that much. We are just lemmings and we want to go over the cliff.”

Another appropriate title for this bill could be the “Compensation for Self-inflicted Harm Bill”. I think it is really important to look at what New Zealand Steel said about this. It said the proposed changes 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. This does seem lunacy on the part of the Labour Government—but, then, there are other titles that would also fit this bill.

The bill could be called the “Labour Government: When Economic Conditions Get Rough For Business We Will Make Them Even Rougher Bill”, because that is exactly what it does. Again, I cite the example of New Zealand Steel. It points out that the levies fall on the employer and the self-employed, and on no one else. They fall quite inequitably, and that is the problem with this bill—it is indeed inconsistent and inequitable. That would make another good title for this bill. It could be called the “Labour Government: How to be Inconsistent and Inequitable Bill”.

One other thought that has crossed my mind is that perhaps we should dedicate this bill to none other than the Minister herself, Maryan Street, who at one stage of events was talking about the accident compensation scheme being second to none. Of course it is second to none! It is the only scheme like it in the whole wide world. Therefore, we could appropriately entitle this bill the “Maryan Street Second to None Accident Compensation Scheme Bill”, but that would leave her name on some legislation—an amendment—that is clearly quite ridiculous, inconsistent, and inappropriate.

One of the other names the legislation could appropriately be given is the “Let’s Blur the Margins Between Injuries Caused by Accidents and Medical Conditions Bill”. This is particularly important, because back in 1974 when National legislated for the accident compensation scheme, it was very thoughtful about it. Wisely, it brought in a scheme that recognised that the compensation for injury in this country was particularly poor and unfair. I cannot imagine those same visionary people believing that in 2008 self-inflicted injury would be compensated.

I probably will not take my full 5 minutes, but I want to respond to what Pansy Wong said. She made some interesting comments. She drew New Zealand First, and me personally, into the debate about self-inflicted injury. She is correct inasmuch as I did express some concern about that clause at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and she approached me and intimated that National would produce a Supplementary Order Paper to delete the clause. I said, if I recall correctly, that New Zealand First would give that strong consideration.

But after that I spoke with officials and various other people, and I put our view this way: New Zealand First accepts that people who attempt suicide, successfully or unsuccessfully, are, in general terms, suffering from some mental disorder. We do not think it is a natural thing to do, and we would not challenge that as being beyond the coverage of the accident compensation scheme.

Pansy Wong said I made it appear that it was a common occurrence for people to drop heavy boxes or weights on their feet to avoid work. I certainly did not want to give the impression that it was a common occurrence, and I would go as far as to say I did not give that impression. But I am aware—and I state it again tonight for Pansy’s consideration or knowledge—that I am aware of people who have dropped heavy boxes on their feet to get a few days off work. Their injuries were not serious, but they were covered by the accident compensation scheme and they got a few days off work.

But it was pointed out to me by officials and by other people that to do anything about that, in terms of engaging lawyers and taking the battle to court, would cost more than it would achieve and was not worth pursuing. But had the National Party members been serious in their assertions, and had they come up with a Supplementary Order Paper—as I was expecting—to delete clause 20 from this bill, my colleagues would have been prepared to give it strong consideration and vote—

💬 Simon Power: Would the member have voted for it?

We were going to consider, depending what National said, whether to support it. We were seriously going to consider supporting it. But National members did not raise the concern at the appropriate time. They did not even raise it during the debate on Part 1, and it came up again in the debate on Part 2 and the debate on the title. It is the same with Mr Bennett. He raves on about retrospectivity, but he said nothing about it at select committee. He got it all confused, and he was torn to shreds by Russell Fairbrother. He was torn to shreds, and I know that he did not mean what he said.

These National guys, particularly the guys speaking on the bill tonight, are phoney—absolutely phoney. [Interruption] No, they have no intention of delivering on what they have been saying. Their speeches are full of hot air, and they have absolutely no concern for accident victims—no concern whatsoever. They are just trying to attract media attention or something else. Will those members use taxpayers’ money to address some of the concerns they have, should they get to the Government benches? The answer is no. Will they rescind this bill? I do not think so. I think it is all hot air and bull from the National members. The sooner we get this bill passed the better for everybody involved.