Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

This bill took a long time to be drawn from the ballot. I almost forgot that it was in the ballot. I put it in the ballot when I first came into Parliament, almost a decade ago, and when it was drawn it was a bit of a surprise for me that I could get that lucky, whereas some new members have had other bills drawn—once, twice, some of them three times.

This Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation, I believe, to fix an existing anomaly in New Zealand’s ACC law. At present, the law prohibits migrants and returning New Zealanders from receiving ACC support once they reach superannuation age even if they are still unable to work as a result of their injury. This is because the weekly compensation that ACC provides to claimants currently ceases once a person reaches the New Zealand superannuation qualification age, on the basis they are now receiving superannuation. However, that leaves those that may not meet the requirements for superannuation without support.

There are a number of returning New Zealanders, migrants, and citizens who are not eligible for weekly compensation because they cannot currently qualify for the residential criteria. To me, that seems really unfair, because these are people who have lived and worked in New Zealand who, through no fault of their own, suffer an injury as a result of an accident which means they can’t work, causing them to rely on the support from ACC to get by.

The Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill will amend the Act to allow continuing ACC weekly compensation for this group of people until such time as they meet eligibility for superannuation. It is important that this gap in ACC provision is filled to ensure support for people when they’re at their most vulnerable. For context for this bill, it is not simply an issue for foreign workers but also for hard-working Kiwis who may have been born in New Zealand but gone abroad for part of their lives and are now returning to New Zealand to continue working and raising their families.

The example I actually gave some of the Opposition spokespeople on this was that of a Kiwi who was born and raised in New Zealand and had, at the age of 49, an amazing job offer from, let’s say, Europe, decided to go overseas and have an amazing career there, and then decided at the age of 65 that they wanted to return to New Zealand but continue working, because, you know, people are still continuing to work after the age of 65. If they returned to New Zealand and had an accident, they would not qualify for the residency requirement of New Zealand super even though they were born and raised in New Zealand, had lived here and paid taxes until the age of 49 or 50, and then had gone overseas, because you have to be in New Zealand for at least five years after the age of 50 in order to qualify. So that New Zealand - born Kiwi who had in fact travelled overseas and worked and come back has to wait five years to qualify for that. Ultimately, what it means for that person is that they would not, at the age of 65, qualify for the ACC weekly compensation, and nor would they qualify for New Zealand super.

The ACC weekly compensation pays 80 percent of people’s wages. This person does not qualify to transfer to New Zealand superannuation, which sort of becomes the surrogate payment for ACC when they reach the age of 65. The 65-year-old migrant who becomes injured on their first day of work will be entitled to treatment and ACC weekly compensation at 80 percent of their access earnings for up to 24 months, or until they regain capacity or are vocationally rehabilitated. If they regain capacity, then their weekly compensation will stop once that is determined, and they can return to their jobs. If they gain vocational independence, but not capacity to return to their old job, then they have three months from the date that they are assessed to be vocationally rehabilitated. They too, once they reach the age of 65, would not qualify, because they would not meet that residency requirement for New Zealand super.

I believe that this Parliament and this country care about the most abandoned in our society, and we talk about those issues quite often in this House. And National cares about the most vulnerable in our society, as well. It is our job to find a solution and get these people’s lives back on track once they have an accident. They otherwise are, you know, stuck in this legal quagmire where they don’t get the compensation through ACC that they should, and nor do they get that surrogate payment through New Zealand superannuation. With the growing age of New Zealanders, there is an ageing workforce, and as more diverse nations move into New Zealand, more people living in New Zealand may be working after the age of 65. If they have an accident, they will not qualify for the ACC weekly compensation.

Officials so far have been unable to identify how many people are being affected by the weekly compensation stoppages and can’t access New Zealand super due to residency requirements, but I think, going back to when I first drafted this bill, there were about 90 people who actually did get their ACC weekly compensation payment stopped at the age of 65. Some people transfer on to the New Zealand super. Some people choose not to, but the thing is that once it actually gets to the age of 65, the data doesn’t seem to sort of exist. It may not be a lot of people, but the thing is that it is that vulnerable group of people who should be paid ACC weekly compensation but are not.

For many New Zealanders and hard-working residents of our country this loophole needs to be closed. This is in the interests of fairness and of justice, and to ensure that our laws actually work the way we want them to. I note that the Hon David Parker and the Ministry of Justice informed me on 14 February—Valentine’s Day—that this bill was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that is important, because this bill is designed to ease the suffering of the forgotten few who are unable to have their voices heard and their issues resolved without the passage of this bill.

This bill is about righting a wrong and about supporting our fellow Kiwis and friends who were invited to build their lives in Aotearoa, particularly because those affected are near the end of their working life. And it is not just about migrants but also about New Zealanders who were, in fact, born in this country and travel overseas but come back to live and retire in this country. If they actually have an accident, they should be supported, as well.

The role of Parliament is to hear out, and speak for, the forgotten few, as well as for the masses, and I’m here today to speak out for those very few affected by this oversight in New Zealand law. I implore you all to vote for the Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill, in the interests of fairness and of those affected. Hopefully, members opposite would vote for it, but the smiling Minister, Iain Lees-Galloway, who’s actually looking very dapper with a bowtie, by the way, did actually tell me that Labour’s position is to actually oppose this bill. I have to say I’m very disappointed, but I will look forward to hearing why he feels that a few people in this country—I mean, it’s not like it’s going to cost the Government amazing amounts of money—will miss out on an ACC weekly compensation that they should rightfully be paid by ACC.

Often, some of these people will actually transfer on to benefits, and, you know, technically, that means Government doesn’t actually spend money. If they’re hard up they will be going for emergency benefits or what have you, but ACC should be the ones who should pay for it, because it is due to their accidents and their inability to continue their work.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, first of all I want to thank the member Melissa Lee for bringing this bill to the House. I want to congratulate her on getting her bill drawn from the ballot—some members do have to wait a very long time before they get a bill drawn from the ballot, and it is a thrill to be able to introduce legislation to the House and to have it debated in the House—and I want to thank Melissa Lee for the conversations that we have had and the opportunity for the Government to consider our position on this legislation. In considering it, what we had to do was consider the principles of the accident compensation system, and also the principles of the New Zealand superannuation system, and decide whether we felt this legislation was consistent with those principles.

What the bill seeks to do is to allow people who do not qualify for New Zealand superannuation to be able to receive weekly compensation from ACC, that other people over the age of 65 would not be entitled to, until such time as they qualify for New Zealand superannuation, which could be up to 10 years. I think it’s important the House understands exactly how this works. When a person is injured and they are over the age of 65, they are entitled to one year of weekly compensation alongside their New Zealand superannuation. The second year is an election, so they need to choose between their New Zealand superannuation or the weekly compensation. So people aged 65 and over can get two years of weekly compensation, and the reason that is limited is not, as the member stated, that they receive New Zealand superannuation. The reason it is limited is that there has to be a point at which we determine people have come to the end of their working life and are no longer eligible for weekly compensation, because weekly compensation is a replacement for lost wages. And so in the accident compensation scheme we use 65, the age at which people become eligible for universal superannuation, as a proxy for the end of a normal working life.

We know that people do work beyond 65, but we need to have a point. We need to have a rational point to stop the payment of weekly compensation. I want to make that clear: it’s not because people receive superannuation that they become ineligible for weekly compensation, or in fact they have an up to two-year limit on weekly compensation; it is simply the fact that in the accident compensation system, we need to have a rational point where we determine that people have come to the end of their working life, and the age of 65, because it is the point at which people become eligible for superannuation, is used as a proxy for that end of working life.

That’s one side of it. We then need to look at the other side, which is New Zealand superannuation. And, yes, we do say in New Zealand that people need to have lived and worked in New Zealand for at least 10 years from the age of 20 onwards, and at least five of those years have to be after the age of 50, before they become eligible for New Zealand superannuation. That is because New Zealand superannuation is something that we all contribute to through our taxes, and we expect people to make a contribution through their taxes here in New Zealand. If people are working overseas, they’re likely to be paying into superannuation schemes overseas. If they have not, well, actually, we do have an expectation that when people migrate to New Zealand that they come with the resources necessary to be able to support themselves.

I would actually refer the House to the fact that the previous Government actually temporarily closed the parent category for family visas, because of concerns about older people migrating to New Zealand—the parents of people who had already migrated to New Zealand—where the children had made a commitment to sponsor those parents, to support them, to ensure that they have the resources necessary to meet their living costs, to meet their health costs etc., and there was a suggestion that sometimes the children of those elderly migrants were not providing that support and the New Zealand welfare system had to step in and provide that support.

So acknowledging that that was inappropriate—that people should come to New Zealand without resources to be able to support themselves in their old age—the previous Government temporarily closed that category so that we could actually review the evidence and the facts and see whether that was the case, whether the immigration system needed to respond to that, and whether any changes or obligations needed to be placed upon those older migrants to make sure that they’re able to support themselves.

So it’s true that for some older migrants New Zealand superannuation is not available to them. There is an expectation in our system that they come to New Zealand able to support themselves. Now, if they work in New Zealand and they get injured, just like every other person working in New Zealand, they are eligible to up to two years of weekly compensation if they are over the age of 65. We make no distinction between whether someone has been in New Zealand all of their life or if they have recently come to New Zealand; ACC is available to everybody, and there is no distinction in the way we treat people who are aged 65 years or older.

Effectively, what this bill does is it asks the ACC scheme to offer an opportunity for people to get superannuation when they otherwise would not qualify for it, and that is not the role of the ACC scheme. If we want to have a debate about whether people who have lived in New Zealand for less than 10 years should be entitled to New Zealand superannuation, that is a debate we should have, but we should not ask the Accident Compensation Corporation to fund that superannuation if we were to determine that that is something that we wanted to do.

I think if you take a principled approach to this, if you look at how the ACC scheme works, if you look at how the New Zealand superannuation scheme works, if you look at what our expectations are around recent migrants, then the only conclusion that the House can come to is to oppose this bill. Now, it’s not to say that the member’s heart is not the right place. She is looking out for people who could very well find themselves in a situation where they don’t have the resources to take care of themselves. But, actually, we need to make sure that our immigration system does not allow people to get themselves into that situation, which is exactly what the previous Government did in closing down the parent category.

Whilst I acknowledge that the member is trying to do a good thing and is trying to support a small group of people who may have got themselves into a less than ideal situation—

💬 Melissa Lee: Returning New Zealanders.

—this is not—well, returning New Zealanders as well. It’s fair that the member asks that I refer to returning New Zealanders. The same applies. We expect that if people have been working overseas, they’ve either been saving or contributing to a super scheme while they’re overseas and they’re able to bring that back with them to New Zealand and they’re able to support themselves in New Zealand. Again, I go back to the principle of the New Zealand superannuation system, which is that we contribute to it through our taxes through our working life and we have an expectation on people who have not made that contribution to spend at least 10 years in New Zealand before they become eligible, so exactly the same principle applies to the returning New Zealander as it does to the new migrant.

If you take that principled approach, if you look at it with clear eyes through that lens, then there is only one view that the House can take, and that is to oppose this bill.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. In the closing moments of her address, Melissa Lee, the member introducing this bill, complimented the Minister for ACC on his very dapper appearance, and I heard him charitably call out “Flattery will get you everywhere.” Well, I would like to suggest to the Minister that the lovely way that he could show that he really meant it would be by changing his position and supporting this bill.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: That’s the best reason you’ll come up with tonight.

Ha, ha! I too will pay him a compliment if I think it might have that effect. But I would like to just say to the Minister, thank you for an intelligent engagement in the issues being presented. There are, clearly, valid points of view to be considered, and it’s for that reason that I’d like to urge all members of this House to support this bill at least through to select committee by passing it tonight in its first reading so that those valid considerations can be given a thorough examination with expert advice and people being able to submit, and we can get to grips with just how significant a problem it is and whether there is a way to fix it, because I believe that there is. I want to congratulate Melissa Lee on her success in having this bill drawn. I’m beginning to think that Nicky Wagner, Michael Woodhouse, and I are the only MPs who have been here for more than 20 minutes who haven’t yet had that opportunity.

I am very proud to support this bill in what is my first speech in the House as the Opposition’s spokesperson for ACC, and that’s because there hasn’t been any legislation introduced by the new Government on this particular topic since they took office. It’s another reason why I’m really disappointed to hear that the Labour Party at this stage is intending to oppose the bill. I can only hope that New Zealand First and the Greens will see the merit of giving it a fair hearing and will help it through to select committee.

I also hope that we’ll have another chance to consider an ACC measure this year when I finally do get lucky and have my own success in the Parliamentary Lotto syndicate that is the members’ bill system and the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decision) Amendment Bill is drawn to widespread rapture and thunderous applause. My bill is also designed to correct an anomaly in our system, as does Melissa Lee’s, which fixes in unfair provision, as she’s outlined, prohibiting migrants and returning New Zealanders from receiving ACC support once they reach superannuation age even if they are still unable to work as a result of an injury.

The weekly compensation that ACC provides to approved claims currently ceases once a person turns 65—it’s that qualification age for commencing receipt of New Zealand superannuation. Now, most make the transition at that point from ACC to national super, so that’s why it’s inequitable and anomalous that a number of New Zealand citizens who return from overseas at or beyond that age, as well as some migrants, are not eligible for weekly compensation despite the fact that they have lived and worked in New Zealand, paying taxes, and have unfortunately suffered an injury as a result of an accident which prevents them from being in paid employment.

Those are the circumstances that ACC was set up to support us through. It’s a scheme which we can all be very proud of and which has been a vital source of protection and security for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, sometimes for relatively short periods but, in some instances, for very lengthy spells. All of us who represent electorates in this House know many constituents in those circumstances, and many of us, of course, have close family and friends who’ve also been in that category. Now, you can think of somebody who may, as Melissa Lee has said, have spent 49 years continuously in this country, almost entirely in work apart from during their schooldays, and yet because they’ve taken the opportunity to go overseas—and you can perhaps think of Chris Liddell in this category, although I have people of more modest means in mind—and because they’ve spent that time out of the country between the age of 50 and 65, suddenly, on coming back here, as they’re perfectly entitled to do as returning New Zealanders, to have their final days in this country, they find themselves left out because of this anomaly in our legislation. To keep them waiting until 70 in those circumstances is manifestly unjust.

ACC is all about fairness, security, and New Zealanders avoiding costly judicial proceedings, which, frankly, only benefit the lawyers. So this Parliament should be eager to protect that fairness and support for our own, and it’s for that reason that I again strongly urge members from all parties to support the bill at its first reading through to select committee. Let’s have the chance to consider its merits, if necessary to make some changes to it, but to ensure that we don’t do a chronic injustice to our own.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too just want to begin by thanking the member Melissa Lee for bringing this bill to the House, and, as the Minister said in his speech as well, I acknowledge that the member’s heart is in the right place. However, this is a slightly murky bill, if I may put it that way, because it kind of conflates two completely separate issues, and I’ll just provide a little bit of context before I make the points that I’m about to make.

Basically, what this bill, the Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill, does is it affects two separate Government schemes, one being the ACC weekly compensation scheme, or that particular part of the ACC compensations. ACC, of course, provides financial compensation and support to pretty much everyone—citizens, residents, temporary visitors to New Zealand—who has suffered personal injuries through no fault of their own. Let’s park that there for a second. So that’s the ACC scheme. You get the weekly compensations if you’ve been in, say, an accident that has rendered you incapacitated and you can’t work—you’ve been working full-time, and you can’t do so anymore. The ACC weekly compensation scheme then provides you compensation for the loss of income, and that’s, basically, what that scheme is about.

Now, New Zealand super is completely separate. You’re eligible for New Zealand super, obviously, if you’re aged 65 or over, if you’re a legal resident of New Zealand, and if you’ve lived in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20, with five of those years being in New Zealand since you turned 50. So those are, basically, the eligibility requirements for NZ super. It’s a universal Government pension scheme meant to provide for you, as it were, to support your retirement. So two completely different things: one about accident and loss of income, the other about supporting retirement in your twilight years. That’s what we’re talking about.

What this bill does is change the eligibility for super for a certain group of people. It’s actually quite a colour-blind policy, or amendment, if I could call it that, because it’s not specifically just about migrants; it’s about returning New Zealanders as well, and I acknowledge that. However, what it does is—and let me just give you a quick scenario so that people who may be watching from home understand this a little bit better. Now, if I’m a migrant and, say, I come to New Zealand when I am 40 years old, I’ve got a job—full-time employment, I’m contributing to New Zealand’s economy, society, in fine ways. I work for about 20 years, I suffer that horrible accident, and I can’t work anymore. I’m 60 years old and I get weekly compensations if I’m eligible and I meet the other criteria. I get that for five years till I turn 65, at which point I transition into New Zealand super. That’s one scenario.

The other scenario: same migrant comes to New Zealand when he or she is 60 years old—fine citizen, or resident, or person resident in New Zealand. He or she works and contributes for a year, has that same accident, is incapacitated, gets weekly compensation just till they are 65—so, for four years, basically—at which point, I take your point, they’re not compensated through accident compensation.

But the point of this is that we’re not meant to be transitioning from the weekly compensation straight into super; that’s not the point of the two different schemes. It’s actually about the retirement age. The age of 65 is a bit of a proxy for a retirement age, from the point of view that at 65 is generally when people stop working, and so it’s rational. It’s a rational conclusion, and it’s logical that you would not then be compensated for loss of income past 65, because under other circumstances you actually wouldn’t have been working past 65. So it’s not an automatic transition. The New Zealand super is not a social safety net. It’s actually two different things that this bill conflates, in my view.

Also, I’ve got to say that it doesn’t take into account the fact that if, in the second scenario, I’d moved to New Zealand when I was 60, chances are I’d be contributing to an overseas pension scheme that I would still be getting money from. So this bill doesn’t take that into account.

I’ve got to say, in closing, that the Minister stole my thunder a little bit, because the only category that would have been affected by this is the parent category, those that came here as parents of their dependent children, and that was closed by the former Government. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, he mihi mahana ki a koe [Good evening, Mr Assistant Speaker, and warm greetings to you], and thank you very much for the opportunity to stand and speak on this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. I’d just like to reiterate the call to Melissa Lee and congratulate her on having this bill come before the House, the Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill. It is a thrill indeed, as I have had my first bill read, and I’m sure, even after a decade, a thrill it is indeed to have a piece of legislation before the House.

I like to make mention of the Minister, Mr Lees-Galloway, and the statement he made right at the beginning of his contribution on this bill to consider the principles of the Accident Compensation Corporation as well as to consider the principles of New Zealand superannuation. I’d also like to thank the Minister for the detailed explanation that he gave of how ACC works for those who are over the age of 65. His clarity on this is much appreciated.

Looking at the bill, the Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill, what does this bill do? In reality, who will it affect? It’s going to be a very small group of people that this legislation will create a change for. The bill will contain provisions to continue entitlement to weekly ACC compensation for those who are over 65 years of age. They may be recent migrants or they may be returning New Zealanders until they meet the qualifications for New Zealand superannuation.

So this small group people—who are they? Well, if you take a look at the numbers, and if we go to the 2015-2016 statistics of those granted residence over the age of 60, 90.7 percent fell under the parent category. That’s a very large number in there, that 90.7 percent in that parent category. Now, those under this category should be in fact supported by their children if they happen to injure themselves, so why would they need ACC? Now, currently, migrants and expat Kiwis are entitled to full New Zealand super after just 10 years’ residency. Now, this also requires that five years has to be after the age of 50. However, I’d just like to note that recently it was amended for a small group of pensioner residents in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—there has been a change there. Ten years to receive full super is unusually generous by international standards.

So just taking a look now at the member Melissa Lee’s press release that she put out on 1 February, she says this is unfair in terms of making these changes for this small group of people because these are people who have lived and worked in New Zealand who, through no fault of their own, suffer an injury and as a result of an accident maybe, which means that they can’t work—causing them to rely on support from ACC to get by. But, I don’t in fact believe that that is strictly correct, and I’ll point out why. Migrants who have not been in the country for 10 years have not paid much into the ACC, as much as maybe the average citizen who’s worked and spent their life working here in New Zealand. So, frankly, it would be a little unfair for them to be utilising the ACC system when they’ve not paid any substantial amount of money.

Now, if this amendment did go through, depending on the individual’s income level even from a short stint on ACC they would have drawn more from the system than they’d actually contributed to. This bill could force New Zealand taxpayers to help pay for double superannuation for non-residents who may be injured in New Zealand but receive also at the same time an overseas pension. Now, that’s not fair on New Zealanders either, and it certainly doesn’t make sense. Migrants who have had permanent residency for two years will in fact be eligible for sickness or invalid’s benefits, so it’s not like there isn’t a basic minimum already in place. There’s already a mechanism for them to be taken care of by the State.

So ACC, if someone did get injured, it would be 80 percent of their income, and if someone is over the age of 65—maybe they’re a lawyer and they’re still working—imagine the cost of that to the State. At 80 percent income cover, it’s usually more than the New Zealand superannuation if they happen to be injured and can no longer work. So just in summary, New Zealand First—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Congratulations to Melissa Lee for bringing the Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill to the House. I know that Melissa Lee brought this bill to the House because there is an identified gap of entitlements for a number of returning New Zealanders or migrants. The numbers may indeed be small, which has been pointed out by Government and support party members, but they are people who have reached the age of 65 and, it was noted in a previous speech, that’s generally about the time these days that people seek to retire. They have had an accident that does prevent them from working. They’re not eligible for ACC, they’re not eligible yet for national super, and so there is indeed a gap in support for people in New Zealand, no matter what their status.

I’m surprised at the Government’s attitude—its seemingly hard-hearted attitude—towards this small group of people. When I contrast it to their throwing money at students in their first year of study, for whom nobody asked for that support. It has had no impact on the number of students accessing tertiary education, and just the sheer cost of that policy compared to the very modest cost impact—because we are only dealing with a small group of people who are not well because they’ve had an accident, they cannot work because they’ve had an accident, and they’re not eligible for national superannuation. So where does that leave them?

As a constituency MP, I’ve had a number of people come into my office in very stressed circumstances. There are a number of reasons for that stress for people who come into my office, but what happens is that some event happens in a person’s life. They have an accident—and I’m just broadening my example here. They may have lost their job. They’re 65 or they’re 66 or they’re 67 and they’re not entitled to national super. And then very quickly we find that people’s lives can unravel. They unravel to the point where if they own a home they may have to sell that home, if they own a vehicle they may have to sell that vehicle, or perhaps they can’t afford to run the vehicle. They have to go to bed early at night because they find electricity charges—I’m talking about the deep South here; it gets cold in winter.

So I have seen over the years people coming into my office whose lives are literally spiralling downwards because of an event in their life, and in the case of this bill, that Melissa Lee has brought to the House, it is because they have suffered an accident in their life. These are the people that this bill seeks to assist, and I’m surprised—frankly surprised—that the Government of the day is not prepared to have the generosity of spirit to send this bill to select committee for further examination of the issues that it raises. I’m surprised that this Government, who so willingly supports other groups of New Zealanders, has chosen to target this particular group, and potentially penalise this particular group who fall between the cracks of accident compensation and national super.

So I do urge the Government and their support partners, who have traded for many, many years on looking out for vulnerable people, to recognise that this bill from Melissa Lee targets and aims to make better the lives of those same vulnerable people who have suffered an injury and for whom there is a dearth of support. So I think it just goes to show that people like Melissa Lee, a member of the National Party, do, in fact, consider the needs of vulnerable people in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I too would like to offer my congratulations to the member Melissa Lee for getting this bill drawn and for starting this discussion. I do want to acknowledge that I think the member’s intent with this bill is positive and good, and I think having the debate is useful. The Green Party, however, can’t support it—

💬 Hon Members: What?

We won’t support it. You’re right—of course we could, but we haven’t been persuaded by the evidence. I do want to reflect on some of the discussions that I’ve heard and the assumption that people who would be covered by this legislation, who have had an accident and who are not entitled to superannuation, are de facto in need and that they’re a vulnerable group.

Actually, we don’t know that. We don’t have the evidence that they’re not entitled to superannuation from an overseas scheme, and we know that probably many of the New Zealanders coming back will be. We also know that people coming in as recent migrants are required to show, as part of their visa conditions for gaining entry into New Zealand, the ability to support themselves in the event of unemployment or the inability to be in work. So actually we haven’t had the case made that there is hardship here. It sounds persuasive, as if people are falling between a gap, but actually we don’t know that.

What this does in the way the legislation is set out is that it’s saying that people who are not entitled to ACC or superannuation because of that age and residency threshold would be entitled to either weekly compensation for an extended period of time or the New Zealand superannuation rate, whichever is less, which is in effect giving people access to New Zealand superannuation if they’ve had an injury and they don’t otherwise meet our criteria for accessing New Zealand superannuation.

That’s quite a big debate. We know the social contract that exists around New Zealand superannuation is something that a lot of thought has gone into in this country. There’s been reticence from previous Governments, including the previous National Government, to reopen the debate about shifting that social contract of who is entitled to superannuation or the age at which people should be entitled. The Green Party doesn’t believe that that debate should happen through this member’s bill in this way—that if you want to challenge the access to entitlement to New Zealand superannuation, then that’s a big discussion for us as a country and isn’t one, we believe, to be dealt with in this narrow way.

I do also just want to remind people listening, where there is that sense that maybe there are people who may be in crisis and without support, that they will still access treatment and rehabilitation services from ACC for as long as they need them. None of that is being cut off through our settings as they exist at the moment. Also, the perception that it cuts off exactly at 65 is inaccurate. At the moment, if somebody suffers an injury close to the age of 65, there is provision to get weekly compensation for up to about two years after the event of that injury, even after the age of 65. So the perception that at 65 it’s all over and there’s no support is really a very inaccurate portrayal of the situation. There is support for people beyond that point. Most of the people in this situation will have their own means, and there is baseline support through our Work and Income system as well. Let’s not reopen the debate on entitlements in the social contract of superannuation when we don’t have evidence that there is even a group of people suffering.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to reflect and provide comment on this bill this evening. I do want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Melissa Lee for being lucky in getting it drawn from the ballot and being able to debate the work that she has put together. I get quite enthusiastic when people talk about vulnerability and find solutions to resolving it for those who through, sometimes, no means of their own find themselves in situations where they need genuine and authentic assistance from the State. So when I started hearing the Opposition talking about these words and the word “compassion” too, I thought, “Well, then there’s something in here that must be good.”

However, when I looked closer and more deeply into what’s being proposed, I reflected on what the Minister said when he introduced the paper around principles, first, because I think a good amendment—or a good bill, full stop—should be based on solid principles. He reflected on the superannuation scheme and ACC, and also—he didn’t talk about this but important to the conversation—there is immigration. So when I looked at what underpins those three areas, I suddenly found myself thinking there’s a lot more to this, and, when I looked at the vulnerability and compassion statements, I thought even in the previous bill around triangular employment that that would make a big contribution, and it was a pity the Opposition didn’t support that because that would go in itself a long way to supporting some of the migrant communities—in particular, women—who would benefit, and, in fact, will benefit, from the outcome of that bill.

The Minister talked, I think quite strongly, about just getting very clear around what was the guts of the bill in terms of what was in and what was out and who it would impact. I think the thing that struck for me was just a couple of themes: one in terms of migrants, those coming to New Zealand—that they come with the resources necessary to ensure that they have the support in their old age. That was one theme. Secondly, when you work in New Zealand and you are injured at work and you are over the age of 65, everyone gets treated the same anyway. I thought that’s another theme that’s important to the debate this evening.

He also talked about the age of 65 and why they use it with ACC. What it suddenly became was “What is the problem that we are trying to fix here? Is there a problem here that still exists?” We know that the category was closed—the parent visa category was closed by the previous Government—so when you join the dots around principles, these themes, and the current situation, I struggled to see what this bill was going to achieve and what problem it was going to fix. I think that’s fundamental to anything that comes through this House: what exactly does this bill want to achieve? I think that that’s where there are some issues because I’m not sure if this bill will fix the problem that it purports to resolve. If we want to have a conversation about extending access to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund or the scheme to a new group, then that is a different conversation from what we should and are having this evening. So Labour doesn’t support this amendment bill. I can’t find what it’s trying to fix. I don’t say that in a mean-spirited way, but I think there are other bills that will deliver the compassion and vulnerability solutions that this bill may try to achieve. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call on the Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill. I would like to join other colleagues in congratulating the member in charge of this bill, Melissa Lee, and I have to admit this, that I used to hear this all the time—that sometimes a bill can sit in the tin for a number of years and not get drawn, and this is a real example, so I can fully understand the excitement that the member had when the bill was drawn.

It’s really unfortunate to see that the Government members don’t see any value in supporting this bill. Whereas this is to support a small number of people, that doesn’t mean the impact of this is small. The impact of the current system can be quite huge on this small number of people. This bill is actually to link ACC payment to superannuation payment rather than linking it to the superannuation age, which is 65 at the moment. So this bill is correcting that assumption which is there that when someone is receiving ACC payment, when that person reaches the age of 65, by the time they have reached 65 they are unable to come back to work, that their superannuation payment will kick in at the age of 65.

So that assumption is not correct. For some individuals, superannuation payment does not kick in at the age of 65 because they have not fulfilled the criterion that is there for residency here in New Zealand. We know that people are required to fulfil this criterion of being lawfully resident in New Zealand for 10 years—this is after the age of 20—and five after the age of 50. So this can be the case for New Zealanders coming back to New Zealand and this can be the case for immigrants coming to New Zealand.

I heard a Green member’s contribution before—that this is a big issue and should not be considered through a member’s bill. I refute that argument. Just because it’s a big issue doesn’t mean that this cannot be raised through a member’s bill. Then I also heard another member, the Labour member Mr Paul Eagle, who spoke before me. He said that when immigrants come to New Zealand they are expected to bring resources to live through their retirement. That is true in some cases, but when they come as skilled force to fulfil the job vacancies here in New Zealand we cannot expect them to bring resources that will be enough for their retirement. So this bill is not about that.

This bill is actually ensuring that when an individual is injured and is unable to get back to work by the time that individual is 65, and their superannuation payment has not kicked in, the ACC payment continues until the superannuation payment kicks in. I fully understand that, yes, it is not at 65 that it necessarily gets cut off. The ACC payment can continue for two years after the age of 65, but that may not be enough, because it will depend on when that individual will fulfil that residency criteria that is there to become eligible for superannuation payment. So this bill actually brings in an amendment that helps that small number of people, but it is a very useful amendment in the Accident Compensation Act.

For us, it’s really important that we look after our elderly, because the well-being of our elderly actually reflects the state of our country. People deserve to spend their older age with dignity. Monetary support is important for all age groups, and it becomes even more important for that age group that is 65-plus. So ACC payment at this stage is linked to age—that is, 65—but this bill is to change that to link it to when the superannuation payment actually kicks in. Yes, I fully understand we have a very good welfare system. People can go on benefit, but that is not fair for those individuals, and we should not assume that people want to retire at the age of 65. There are people who might want to continue working after the age of 65 as well, so ACC cover should be available to them.

So I think it’s a good bill. It’s really unfortunate to see that Government members are not supporting this bill. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

As New Zealanders, we are, I think, rightly proud of our accident compensation scheme. It’s an astonishing scheme. It is based on the idea that we need to look after people who have had accidents, and we do it on a no-fault basis. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve caused the accident yourself. It doesn’t matter particularly what the circumstances are around it. If you have been injured—whether it’s at home, at work, on the sportsground, bungy jumping, or whatever, and you’re injured—we will look after you. We’ll ensure your injuries are treated, and if your injuries are such that you cannot work, we will even replace your income. It’s an extraordinarily generous scheme.

That generosity is actually part of our superannuation scheme, too. Just as we led the world—and still lead it, actually—with our accident compensation scheme, we led the world with New Zealand superannuation. It started in 1898. It was extraordinarily early for an old-age pension but, back then, it was only a small payment. You had to have lived in New Zealand for 25 years to get that old-age pension, and it was only available to persons of good character. We actually had a moral character test sitting in our superannuation. Now, over the years, we have changed that. We have no moral character test for our superannuation, just as we actually have no moral character test for accident compensation. We’re not interested in testing people’s morality; we are simply interested in ensuring that they are supported, as needed.

Of course, we’ve actually changed some of the aspects around these schemes, and, in particular, these days, we have some time requirements around New Zealand superannuation. It’s not as hard; it’s only a 10-year test. Provided you’ve lived in New Zealand for at least 10 years after age 20 with at least five of those after age 50, you are eligible for New Zealand superannuation. The extraordinary thing is that if you arrive at age 65, then at age 75, you can collect New Zealand superannuation. We really are very generous when it comes to supporting people.

Now, we need to test the eligibility for claims on it, and there are some complicated rules around accident compensation for what happens when someone has an injury just before the age at which they might have received New Zealand superannuation. If you are injured less than 12 months before your 65th birthday, then from age 65 you can choose super or ACC, but only for another 12 months of ACC, maximum. But if it’s 12 to 24 months before your birthday, you choose again, but there’s a limit on it. You can only claim 24 months’ max of ACC. If you’re injured two years or more before your 65th birthday, then, again, your eligibility for ACC stops at age 65, and that’s because, actually, people do stop working.

The problem with this bill suggested by Melissa Lee is that in some cases for migrants, it would somehow extend that eligibility for ACC for up to 10 years. Now we know that people are working longer. We know that people do work past age 65, and we know many people who work up to their late 60s, but I suggest that, in most cases, we do not have people who work full-time up to age 75.

Here’s the thing with ACC: we replace 80 percent of your income. That’s a lot of income that we’re replacing, and in the way that this bill is drafted, someone would be able to choose that right through for nearly up to 10 years. Now that might help a small group of migrants, but it would be unfair to other New Zealanders who, by the time they’ve been injured for two years after their 65th birthday are kicked off ACC. That is the unfairness that is in this bill.

So I commend the idea behind it. We do want to make sure that people do receive support, but we want to make sure that it is fair, that it treats all people living in New Zealand fairly and reasonably, and that they are treated as much as possible with parity. This is why I do not support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’d like to first of all kick off my final speech on this bill by thanking all members who have contributed to this debate for their considered debate tonight. One of the things that I’d like to talk about is—I think I’ll start from the back. Ms Deborah Russell was talking about how she wants the ACC to—it is a fair system. But I don’t want people who are listening at home and anyone who is listening to this debate to actually think that this debate was all about redefining New Zealand superannuation. This was not it.

It’s also not a back-door entry into receiving New Zealand super for new migrants who come to this country. This debate was about people who are actually working before they have an accident at the age of 65, for example. They have to be working in order to qualify for the ACC weekly compensation. So if they happen to be working and they have an accident, they are entitled to that ACC weekly compensation.

However, as one of my learned colleagues, Mr Tim Macindoe, suggested, it could even be Chris Liddell, for example, if he had returned at the age of 65 and, working in New Zealand, he had an accident. If he hadn’t actually been in New Zealand since the age of 50 for five years, Chris Liddell would have to wait for five years before he would qualify for super, which would entitle him to the ACC weekly compensation. When they hit the age of 65, superannuation kicks in, rather than the ACC weekly compensation. People have to choose whether they do the ACC weekly compensation or they go for New Zealand superannuation. Most people tend to go for the New Zealand superannuation because they are entitled to it, but if you are not entitled to it, you’d choose ACC, and it literally, basically, gets stopped if you’re not entitled.

So I’m not just talking about migrants who come to this country, and often when migrants come to this country, they have the means to actually support themselves. Often, at the age of 65, if they’re coming into this country, they probably would not be entitled to the weekly compensation, as some members might actually suggest they would, because they’re not working, so they’re not entitled to this. This is purely about people who are working before they hit the age of 65. When they have their accident, they won’t be entitled to their weekly compensation.

And I know that Ms Jan Logie was talking about how there was no evidence. Perhaps I haven’t actually made it very clear: there have been complaints to the Human Rights Commission about the unfairness of the gap that currently exists for New Zealanders who actually have to come back to this country and don’t qualify for ACC weekly compensation. And perhaps it’s because we don’t keep the numbers—the records. I tried to get the number off the Minister, but he actually did not have them available. Perhaps when we actually go to select committee, maybe we might hear from some of these people who have missed out on this ACC weekly compensation. But considering the fact that there are members in this House who won’t be voting for this bill, it is unfortunate indeed that we will never find out how many people will, in fact, fall through the gaps.

I think this was actually about, as I said in my first speech—you know, we make laws for the masses in this country but we also have to make laws for the vulnerable few. Ninety people, basically, do not get paid ACC weekly compensation every year because they have to transit on to the New Zealand super when they reach it, because they have to choose ACC or super, and those New Zealanders who are coming back from overseas don’t qualify for either. And I know Ms Marcroft actually said that New Zealand has a very generous and great welfare system. Fair enough, but I don’t think it is about paying them welfare; it is about their rightful payment pathway. If you have an accident, you should be compensated by way of ACC weekly compensation if you happen to be working until such time that you’re able to return to work or are recuperated. And if you suggest that it stops at age 65, I urge the member to perhaps have a conversation with her leader.