Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for ACC: I present a legislative statement on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want first to acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee which has reported back on the bill. The bill makes three changes to the Accident Compensation Act, all broadly focused on improving equity of access to the accident compensation scheme.

ACC is an integral part of our social support system in New Zealand, and it has become part of the fabric of the country. However, we know that access to the scheme is currently not the same for all New Zealanders. As Minister for ACC, I want to ensure that ACC and the Government have high-quality data regarding access to the scheme by Māori and identified population groups. That includes injured people of those groups who have not yet made a claim to ACC. The bill helps us to do this.

The bill delivers on two of our 2020 election manifesto commitments. The first: to return ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury. The second: to address the changes that National made while last in office, which unfairly disadvantaged tens of thousands of New Zealand workers. I thank the select committee for its diligent consideration of such an important piece of work.

I also want to acknowledge everyone who has submitted on the bill during its select committee stage. I understand the committee considered submissions from many representatives and organisations. Their input has proven to be invaluable in this process. I am grateful for the thorough and careful consideration that the committee gave to the points submitters made.

Some submitters were concerned that the wording of the bill did not appropriately acknowledge Māori as tangata whenua and as Te Tiriti o Waitangi partners to the Crown. This was because it referred to Māori and other population groups without acknowledging that status. This is why I’m pleased with the change the Education and Workforce Committee has made to the bill. This was to change wording requiring ACC to report on access to the accident compensation scheme by “Māori and other population groups” to “Māori and identified population groups”. It also changes associated wording to be consistent with the change. I am confident that the committee’s change ensures that the bill now acknowledges Māori appropriately.

The select committee process also thoroughly explored the idea of specifying population groups that are to be reported on. Access for Māori will be reported on every year, but the identified population groups to be reported on by ACC are not specified in the bill. This process has given me confidence that the approach taken in the bill is the best one to ensure that the wording allows ACC flexibility to evolve its approach over time in response to the evidence while still having confidence that appropriate groups will be included in the reporting.

I also want to acknowledge the differing views of ACT, the Green Party, and the National Party in the select committee’s report. I understand that these concerns have been explored during the committee process. That said, I look forward to having a robust debate of these differing views today and at the committee of the whole House stage of the bill.

As has been said before, this bill also addresses one of the changes National made while last in office, which unfairly disadvantaged tens of thousands of New Zealand workers and returns ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury.

This bill is our commitment to gather high-quality data on how Māori and identified population groups are accessing the accident compensation scheme, any disparities in access, and the causes and drivers of any disparities. Putting the reporting requirement into legislation means it will endure across Governments and Ministers. It also allows for the creation of time series and clear visibility of trends, given the extent of time for which data will be collected and reported.

I look forward to seeing the outcomes of this work and to ACC and the Government having the data needed to understand the picture of what accessing accident compensation looks like for all New Zealanders. I intend the changes in this bill will be used as a basis for better understanding of and improvement of access for those not currently accessing the accident compensation scheme, to ensure that all workers will be better supported by ACC. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to talk on this bill at its second reading.

One of the trends I see emerging out of, certainly, this Government, since the last election, is the number of well-meaning changes sought to be made that could easily be done without legislation. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has been considering the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill—a waste of time. The Business Payment Practices Bill—a very well-meaning waste of time. The Governance and Administration Committee wasted its time and this House’s time on a member’s bill about plain language—we all want plain language in documents, but is the State legislating for these things actually going to improve outcomes? To that list, and many others, I would add the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—a well-meaning waste of time.

Now, as I’ve mentioned in this House, between 1996 and 2001, I was a manager at ACC.

💬 Tama Potaka: Oh, you lucky thing!

I was its national contracts adviser—lucky me!—where we implemented the elective services purchasing framework for the delivery of contracted health and rehabilitation services, a framework that endures 27 years later; it was a very good framework. I was on the first floor, for at least some of that time, of Shamrock House on Molesworth Street; the department next to me was the department that gathered and reported on ACC statistics. From the mid-1980s until about 2006, ACC produced a very comprehensive document—I recall it was larger than its annual report—that summarised all manner of ACC statistics. I find it somewhat ironic that Minister Russell, in moving this motion, talked about how this being put into legislation will ensure that the expectation endures across Governments and across Ministers. Well, that’s highly ironic, because it was the Clark Government that dispensed with the collection, collation, and reporting of ACC statistics in 2006. Nevertheless, the data still exists.

Now, we talk about in this bill “and other groups”, but, actually, this is about equity for Māori—a very important goal because we all want Māori and all communities to have access to Government and publicly funded services at the same rate and at the same quality and quantity as non-Māori. We also know that Māori in our fatal and non-fatal injury statistics are largely overrepresented, and in our workplace injuries that’s actually understandable. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment reports that sectors with higher harm rates have greater representation of Māori. Take forestry—I mean, I think forestry is still our riskiest industry—34 percent of that workforce are Māori. Construction and manufacturing is also highly represented by Māori and overrepresented in our injury statistics. Māori workers have high rates of temporary and precarious work, and there’s a high correlation between that and injury rates. We know that, in the last 20 years, fatal injuries amongst Māori are about 20 percent higher than the overall population—I think it’s between 40 and 50 per 100,000 over the last 20 years; whereas the total population rate is about 20 percent below that. When it’s combined with fatal and non-fatal together, it is marginally higher, not quite as marked a difference.

But there are some particular highlights. I think we have a 67 percent higher rate of motor vehicle injuries amongst Māori, usually young Māori men—and if one goes to the Ōtara or Burwood Spinal Unit, tragically, young Māori men are overrepresented in those wards. We know that assault victims are three times more likely to be Māori than non-Māori. And in our work stats, as I say, they’re certainly more highly represented. Interestingly, they’re lower by half in the statistics for injuries by falls, and one wonders whether that’s a genuine data point or, in fact, whether they are truly being underrepresented in that having suffered an injury by a fall, they’re less likely to lodge a claim with ACC or seek medical attention.

But the point is this: why do we know all of this? We know all of this because we’re already gathering and reporting the data. The data is easily found in ACC databases. And on our Statistics New Zealand website, a simple search of this tells us what we already know. You don’t need to legislate for ACC to report; they’re already doing it—not nearly as well as they used to before the Clark Government dispensed with that requirement, but it is there. It’s not that hard to find.

In our pursuit of equity, we need to ask ourselves three questions. Are Māori at increased risk of injury? Well, on the face of it, one would suggest yes. Secondly, when they are injured do they access health and ACC services at the same rate as non-Māori? Well, when they are seriously injured, it’s very hard to avoid those services, but it’s worth verifying: particularly when one looks at the falls data, perhaps there is an issue. And the third question is this: when they are accessing those health and rehabilitation services, do they access those services at the same level of quantity and quality as non-Māori? Now, Minister Sepuloni in her first reading speech actually addressed this to some degree by referring to the Ngāi Tahu Māori health research unit data that actually found that, “at least for some injuries”—I’m quoting the Minister here—“ACC supportive claimants, once they’re already in the system, appeared to be on par for Māori and non-Māori.” I mean, that’s good. On the face of it, there doesn’t appear to be material inequity, but we should redouble our efforts to make sure that we continue to ensure that equity.

But equity, for me, is not making sure that when they are injured, they are accessing those services at the same level of quantity and quality. Injury prevention has to be of paramount importance—that actually preventing injuries at home, in our workplaces, in our motor vehicles, on our rugby fields is lowered for Māori, because, at the moment, it is unacceptably high. There are a number of ways we can do that, and, in particular, those high-risk areas we need to continue to focus on are health and safety and harm reduction, rather than counting the number of deaths or injuries. If only we spent as much time in this House and in select committee and in the ministries taking steps to reduce the incidents and prevalence of injury and harm as we have wasted on needless legislation, then perhaps our iwi would be better off.

So I say again that this is a well-meaning waste of time. Let’s deploy these resources in a much more productive manner. Let’s find those ways to prevent harm before it occurs, but when it does let’s ensure that all New Zealanders—Māori, Pasifika, of whatever ethnic and cultural background—are cared for equally. This bill will do nothing to improve that, and, as a consequence, National will continue to oppose it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I just want to mention that the Hon Michael Woodhouse said that this bill is a “well-meaning waste of time”; a well-meaning bill cannot be a waste of time.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes it can.

No, it can’t—no it can’t be. This bill simply amends the purpose of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to help people with personal injuries, including those who have not yet made a claim, to access and benefit from the accident compensation scheme. The bill, as introduced, would require ACC to monitor access to the accident compensation scheme by Māori and other population groups. I say by Māori because Māori are specified in the bill to reflect the Crown’s obligation to Māori as partners under the Treaty of Waitangi.

💬 Toni Severin: What about the other identified groups?

The other groups are mentioned as well. This is another step towards our manifesto—for us, simply, this is another step towards our manifesto commitment to return ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury. The Government is laying the foundation for a better future by improving equity and helping outcomes for all New Zealanders through amending ACC legislation, including taking the steps to modernise ACC and make support more accessible to New Zealanders who need it. This bill seeks to bring forward the eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation from six weeks’ to one week’s incapacity.

We received about 15 submissions from 15 people—individuals and organisations; we heard from nine oral submitters. I’d like to thank the people, everyone who submitted to our select committee. I happened to be a member of the Education and Workforce Committee that oversaw this bill. Even though we disagreed with other political parties in views, I’d like to thank them for their hard work and collegiality and respect—because sometimes we can disagree but we can disagree respectfully, so that occurred in our committee. I would like to thank the members who were members of our committee.

This bill is a good bill. It’s going to make a difference in a lot of people’s lives. Regardless of how the Opposition try to portray it, it’s a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, second reading. Now, I haven’t been on the Education and Workforce Committee, and I’m probably thankful that I wasn’t, because, as the House knows, National won’t be supporting this bill.

I just want to start off with that comment from the former member who just sat down, Ibrahim Omer, who said, “If something is well meaning, then it can’t be a waste of time.” Well, I’ll give you one example: you can have a well-meaning Government that is a waste of time. That is the best example I can think of.

Unfortunately, this bill is a waste of time because if we had good management, if we had good governance around the ACC, they would be doing this anyway. They would be putting in place proper reporting, working out how often people get access to claims, when they get it, how much they get paid, and all of those factors, right? And they would be monitoring it. They wouldn’t be loose. They wouldn’t be allowed to just float in the ether.

Now, all of us know this—well, certainly if you’re an electorate MP, because we have many people front up to our offices. Currently, probably 30 percent of my time is taken up with ACC matters. And why are these people coming in to see me? They’re coming in to see me because they have put in claims for injuries—and many of them are Māori—and said, “Look, I’ve put this claim in.” And what’s the reaction? Well, there’s either been a long delay in getting a response to their claim, or there’s been a view, after several months of going through the process, of an assessment of a pre-condition issue—right?—which means they don’t get any claims. Now, that is the big issue for ACC: people not getting timely access, and not getting resolved quickly and getting a fair outcome.

Now, if this bill was about that, National would support it—would be absolutely over it. But this bill is about creating a framework to try and find out what is happening to one particular group—and, of course, Māori are significantly affected. But what this bill should be doing is requiring ACC to do a better job in terms of assessing all of the population and making sure that we’ve got the measures in place to report. But we know the Government has chosen to get rid of all the reporting requirements of many of our organisations because it’s simply not a great step to be able to assess and monitor, because it makes it transparent and makes it public.

So if this was about this—about adequate reporting; about making sure people get access to the right outcomes—then, yes, National would be supporting it. But to go down this route of just saying, “Let’s do a bit more reporting and make it tailored to one particular ethnic group.”, albeit an important one—that is not the outcome that New Zealand should be striving for. We should be striving for an outcome where all New Zealanders—those most in need—are getting access to timely, fair outcomes from the Accident Compensation Commission. And I think that is probably the biggest issue about this bill and what we look at. Obviously, it has some aspects to it about the minimum return or minimum rate of weekly compensation—changing arrangements around that—but the prime issue about this is ACC should be doing this anyway; if it’s not, we would have a good Minister that would be overseeing it.

My wider view about this is that I feel like this is part of a scorecard that members of the Government are trying to do, which is to say, “How many pieces of legislation have I got through?” So we’ve got Ginny Andersen pushing through the business payment practices—waste of time; even the select committee had problems with it. Then we’ve had Duncan Webb pushing through a bill around directors duties, which even the Law Society said was an absolute waste of time. Here’s a third example of another bill going through—a waste of time. I think it’s Ministers trying to say, “I’ve done something; I look like I’m busy, even though I’m doing nothing.”, and that is what is an example of a well-meaning waste of time bill.

I take it you’re finished, Mr Bayly.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Yes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to reassure the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, that, actually, this bill, the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, is about improving access for everybody. I’m really, really pleased to be taking a call, because this bill does deliver returning ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—who have had an injury. There are two main ways that we’re seeing that happen in this bill: one we’ve talked about—the data—and I might get on to that in a moment, but I really want to talk about the fact that we are restoring access.

In 2010, the previous Government made changes to ACC to lower scheme costs by restricting access to cover and entitlements. We are restoring ACC and improving access. The previous speaker was concerned about our intent and our ability and our actions around making sure that more people in this country get what they need to become healthy after an accident, and we are doing that. One of those, when we bring forward the eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation for people who worked full-time at the time of their incapacity, is a restoration. We get challenged that we’re not doing enough. We are taking action. This Government is a Government that does things. We don’t complain; we take action, and I’m really, really proud to be able to say that we’ve done that.

The data is important. It isn’t about the politics—which Government took something away or didn’t do something. I think that was a really great example of why we need to lock it into law: so it doesn’t become something that is at the whim of politicians but enables those of us who love statistics. It gives us longitudinal data, rich data, to make sure that what are doing is effective. That is why I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party on the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t privy to be able to sit on the select committee to hear the hearings, which had nine submitters and 15 individuals that submitted. However, most of the submitters recommended that our other population groups be named.

So the ACT Party supports the aim of the bill to provide quicker access to the accident compensation system, and the collecting and reporting of data on population groups, so that there is equality for all to access the ACC system. The ACT Party recognises the importance of improving the access to ACC system for individuals—partly those who are on that lower-income system—and so we are now bringing it back down from six weeks.

However, we cannot support this bill in its current form, primarily because it creates a double standard by specifying a data collection reporting requirement for Māori above all other population groups. We are concerned about the high numbers of Māori and the accessibility of the ACC system for them. However, every New Zealander is inherently equal in society, and we found it inconsistent and unfair to single out that one group above the others. Most of the submissions in the select committee, as I said before, suggested that we name the groups—and once we’d named those groups, we could put other identified groups at the end. Now, these identified groups that ACC have mentioned that we need data on is a very huge range, which fits into all of New Zealand. We find that we don’t have enough reporting on women, Pasifika, other ethnic groups, refugees, asylum seekers, people who identify as LGBTQIA+, people with disabilities, and young and old people. This singling out of one population group undermines our principle of equality, and we cannot support it.

Government advisers have noted that the regulations would limit the ability to adapt data collection and reporting in the future, and this could create unintended consequences, hindering the provision of healthcare for the future. However, if we named the groups that we know are not getting equality within the ACC system—they should be named, all of them, and we can put that proviso at the end in terms of other identified groups that we are unsure of at this stage.

In conclusion, the ACT Party supports the idea, as we said, about compensation for those who cannot continue working due to injury. The ACT Party also supports collecting and reporting data on accessing the system so that we can see where there are inadequacies in our system in order to make sure it is fair for all New Zealanders. However, we cannot support this bill. It is a “double standards” approach to only specify data collection reporting required for Māori and other identifying groups—for me as a woman who is on that list and who says we don’t access it enough, it is disgraceful. We believe that all New Zealanders deserve equality, and this bill undermines this principle. ACT opposes this bill.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise with pleasure to speak in this, the second reading of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I do want to actually just commend the Hon Michael Woodhouse for his contribution. While I come to a different view from him, at least he was demonstrating a knowledge of the system to a certain extent, which is a significant improvement on the National speeches on the first reading of this bill, where there was the question being asked, like, “Where’s the evidence?” Actually, there is so much evidence that it was a bit embarrassing. So I thank him for at least engaging with some of the real issues around this.

I do want to just note that the Green Party is supporting this bill. Despite what the Minister said, we didn’t put in a minority view on the bill; we just indicated that we supported calls for the legislation to provide direction on an intersectional approach and to include a non-exhaustive list of population groups that would need to be monitored—didn’t amount to a differing view, because we were very much in support of the bill, but as a distinction from where the rest of the committee got to.

I do just want to go back to some of what the bill is about. It’s aimed at helping put more momentum behind the shift that has been started to try and get ACC to be able to deliver on its purpose equitably across all groups in our country. We know that ACC is not delivering fairly to all groups in our country, and it has been mentioned by some of the previous speakers, but I will go over some of the data that we have on this. We know that Māori benefit less than non-Māori in terms of access to prevention, access to care, access to recovery, access to compensation, and even access to the disputes process enabling access to justice. Forty percent of Māori participants who had a disability at 24 months post-injury had had trouble accessing healthcare services, something that should’ve been facilitated by the corporation, and that the Māori population, possibly partially at least as a result of this, has a health burden of injury double that of non-Māori. I think it’s for me that this point is really important and this work is really important, because we’ve acknowledged that our healthcare system has been absolutely failing Māori, and we’ve provided a structural solution to that through the Māori Health Authority.

We need to acknowledge that ACC is part of our social safety net, in terms of incomes, and our healthcare and rehabilitation system. It does not make any sense to me whatsoever to acknowledge the inequities so strongly in the formal health system and come up with these really tentative attempts at just providing visibility and transparency within the ACC part of the system. But it is a first step, and I acknowledge that.

In recognising the change in the language that came through in the bill from “Māori and other population groups”, which failed to acknowledge the fundamental Te Tiriti relationship in the country—that was changed in the Education and Workforce Committee to “Māori and identified population groups,” that tacitly recognised Māori as Te Tiriti partner. I want to acknowledge, again, that the Greens are disappointed that despite all of the submissions on the maternal birth injuries bill that called for a Te Tiriti clause within the ACC legislation, that work has not happened. Again, we had submissions from everybody telling us that we needed that in this legislation, but the work has not yet been done and is not ready, so we just have this step until we get there. I look forward to that work being prioritised to ensure we have consistency across our healthcare system.

We also know that in terms of other population groups, in picking up on the last speaker from ACT, acknowledging that other groups also—we do have some doubts that they are missing out. Women, at least ahead of the maternal birth injury changes, were, I think, per year getting $1 billion less out of the scheme than men. It’s a pretty profound inequity in terms of access to the schemes, and it’s deeply built into the way the scheme is set up. It’s set up, like, on a 50-year-old kind of understanding of work and injury and has a very biased gender lens embedded in that.

Also, for Pasifika, we know that they have low awareness of the scheme and how to access it. They’re lodging fewer claims and getting less support than their share of the population, and that’s exacerbated for Pasifika women. Pasifika people are returning to work more rapidly than other groups, and the assumption around that is because, actually, they’re not getting paid out in terms of ACC compensation at a rate that enables them to actually rehabilitate at the pace that’s needed, so they’re being forced back into work earlier than is appropriate for their health. And Pasifika with serious injuries face inequities in receipt of treatment relative to Pākehā.

Now, I heard the Hon Michael Woodhouse say that, well, all of this evidence is proof that we don’t need this bill because we have this information. Well, we have this information, quite a lot of this, because the previous ACC Minister directly asked ACC to brief her on the access of those groups to the scheme. That was not being provided, that information, to the Minister or the public, and for me that’s a key point. Embedding this into legislation is driving a transparency and accountability for the agency that could not be achieved if this was just the board asking for this information.

After my first reading speech, I had an email from somebody working within the corporation in one of their research teams, who said, “You are exactly right.” They provide the information, but because of the corporatised culture and the culture that we know exists around disentitlement and looking at savings for the agencies instead of delivering on their purpose, the data does not incentivise change across the system. They see the inequities, they note it, they move on.

What this bill does is give us the tools to hold the agency to account, to be able to push for that change. You have to acknowledge that ACC is not a ministry; they are a step removed from the Minister, so that normal sense of the Minister being able to direct an agency—that is not the same relationship with ACC. They do have a board, and that relationship tends to have to be more careful. So these are useful tools.

The Greens, however, would’ve liked to have seen the population groups specified, as I said earlier, and with a clear direction towards intersectional analysis. We were assured by the officials that that would be provided through the process of their work. However, considering we’re needing this legislation to give us that guarantee and confidence, that argument didn’t really stack up to me—“Trust us, we’ll do it anyway.”, whereas, actually, this legislation is saying, “We don’t really have that confidence at the moment, because this has gone on for a very long time without any change, so we would like to see it in legislation.”

The Greens also wanted to see not just reporting on the inequities but we wanted ACC to report on what actions it was going to take in response to this information to be reducing those inequities and taking action to ensure that everyone had access. We were told it’s a very complex system, ACC’s not responsible for all of it—I don’t buy that either. That could’ve included actions that had them talking to other agencies, working with them. It could’ve had them having actions around policy work on legislation.

So it is not as strong as it could be, but it is an important step forward, and I acknowledge the Government for going in the right direction, if too slowly.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have always felt that our ACC system is a powerful statement about who we’ve decided we are to each other. It’s a fundamental part of our ethical architecture, and, because of that, it has to be fair. And that is what this bill is all about. The ACC system we have now arose from the 1967 Woodhouse report, which was a report that resulted from a group chaired by Sir Owen Woodhouse. When he spoke of the system, he said “Injury arising from accident demands an attack on three fronts. The most important is obviously prevention. [The] next in importance is the obligation to rehabilitate the injured. Thirdly, there is a duty to compensate them for their losses.”

If prevention is the most important principle, then you want to know who is accessing the system, and how they’re accessing the system. You want to inquire whether a population grouping is accessing the system more than the percentage that they are of our demographics, or considerably less than.

So I believe that there is a strong argument that we should be including this in legislation. I don’t think any parties around the table believe that we shouldn’t have this information in front of us. The National Party colleagues are really arguing that it shouldn’t be within legislation. However, I would argue that there are plenty of examples where we as a Parliament require reporting and data collection. The Data and Statistics Act 2022 is a great example of this, almost in its entirety, as is the Public Finance Act 1989, which requires a significant amount of reporting. I would say that it’s not unusual for us to be requesting this whatsoever. I do believe that this is a sound piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

I understand this is a split call. I call Tama Potaka—five minutes.

Tama tū, tama ora; tama noho, tama mate. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on a subject matter that dominated my youthful life, being the accident compensation scheme, on this second reading of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and perhaps as the only New Zealand Māori male—actually, the only Māori male in the Chamber at this late Thursday hour—I feel eminently qualified to speak to this matter. I feel like I am the last cheese roll sitting in the warmer late on an Invercargill afternoon. Everyone is looking at me to understand whether or not I have any issues; what is wrong with me. In many ways, however, I don’t need another statistics inquiry—noting that, over the past two months, I’ve had four or five visits from census workers after I sent in my actual census forms. Another statistics worker coming by my place to ask me about personal injuries is, candidly, one bureaucrat too many at my place. The Education and Workforce Committee—beautiful; it should be acknowledged for hard work, and maybe I’ll make it to that station one day—now brings back more proposed legislation exposed to semantic “slip, trip, and fall” into the legislative waste ether.

Before I go on, I wanted to recognise that ACC Hamilton West now hosts a beautiful ACC building for 650 workers—I couldn’t think of a better place to have an ACC building—and congratulate Waikato-Tainui and Tainui Group Holdings—where’s my brother Jamie Strange?—for their marvellous effort. The lack of parking at the building gives me some discomfort, but I’ll leave that for another forum. In addition, the work that ACC undertook recently at Te Matatini—Delwyn Abraham and others—kei te mihi.

The number of personal injuries I’ve suffered in my formative years is long—heads, shoulders, knees, and toes; eyes, ears, teeth, and nose—and it was only mitigated by the incredible ACC scheme and indoctrination by admired law lecturer and veritable Scotsman John Miller, a sentinel of the Vic Uni Law School and Wellington-based defender of injured persons. My esteemed peer and in-law, the Minister for ACC, the Hon Peeni Henare, for his youthful vigour in presenting this bill, which seeks to improve the focus and understanding of how people with personal injuries are accessing the scheme, to increase transparency of levels of access to the scheme, and to give better effect to the purpose of weekly compensation—kei te mihi.

The amendments insert a new function in the corporation and also bring forward some eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation, although we haven’t talked about that today. Alas, taku taokete toi ahurewa o te Kāpenata [my illustrious brother-in-law from Cabinet], the National Party and I oppose the bill today. I respect the Minister’s honourable intent and effort, however cannot bring myself, as a Māori man—I could say a Māori cis man—to support the proposed pathway forward, and we are willing, as we always are, to work constructively in the select committee, to understand why the bill is in the Whare, in this House, to really understand equity and equality of opportunity and why the Government’s interpretation is more reliant on input and less on outcomes. As my learned Ōtākou colleague Mr Woodhouse commented, and in reflection, we are reminded that, for about 24 years, ACC published in-depth data on injuries each year—not required, but ACC thought it was useful, until the former Labour administration of the day thought it was unnecessary. ACC can do this again and does need legislation and regulatory requirement to crack on with the mahi. In fact, there are a lot of things that the right people in the right place at the right time can do without the need for more regulatory compliance. There was a time, in our short time on this side of Papatūānuku, that we could get reliable statistics in a timely manner; unlike now, when we’ve got more barbecues down at Mount Smart!

The National Party has not seen evidence demonstrated that any Māori or any population groups struggle to access ACC. I’ll happily receive that data. It may be that Māori men are the highest users of ACC per capita, given the propensity of Māori men to be in higher-risk industries—in that regard, reducing accident rates to achieve equity, not by wondering why other cohorts don’t get injured as often as Māori men. Spending more money on gathering stats for statistics’ stake is likely pouring health moneys into Molesworth and Murphy Streets instead of attracting and retaining nurses and supporting them in the delivery of health services. We don’t need another clunky effort to count Māori males like me; what we need is a reduction of personal injuries incurred by Māori males. The easiest way to do that is less spending on the labour workforce in ACC and actually getting the services and the action out there.

In relation to the eligibility, the minimum rate of weekly compensation, as no regulatory impact statement has been done or notified to us, we have no idea how many people this affects, if any. We are yet to receive a number for how many people would be affected, or even any scenario where this could apply. With relevant evidence, National would not be opposed to this change. We wait with it but, with no evidence, we continue to oppose. Kia ora tātou. Love those cheese rolls!

Thank you so much for that, the previous speaker, Tama Potaka, who read their speech so well—with little conviction, though, sadly. I’m not sure if there was much belief behind it, but a good reader none the less—none the less!

For this piece of legislation, it is around disparities across ACC and disparities across the scheme, particularly for Māori, particularly for our Pacific community, particularly for people with disabilities, our ethnic community, children, and youth. Hence why we’re here this afternoon, on this side of the House, passionately supporting something that is actually going to bring about change, as opposed to the negativity and criticising just for the sake of criticising.

I won’t talk about cactus today, as I did yesterday, but I want to move on and just talk about this ACC. This is a world-leading scheme that we’ve had for many, many years, and we need to continue to hone it and make it actually work correctly. That’s why we’re here today, looking at the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

I believe that most things that have been said on this side of the House have mostly been said, so I think I’ll call it quits right there and commend this bill to the House.

Noa’ia, e te Mana Whakawā. Always an honour and a privilege to stand and make a contribution in this House, especially this one—Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Before I continue, I just want to acknowledge that I’ve just come back from my cousin’s big farewell. May she rest in peace—Lu’isa Mapili Halasili. And, yeah, life is too short for disparities.

So these changes live up to the Government’s pre-election commitment to return ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders who have had an injury. This will amend the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

As we’ve heard from members of this select committee, the Minister had asked for reports from ACC that he requested last year. What evidence showed is that there are disparities in the access to the scheme by Māori, by Pacific, by the ethnic groups, by disabled, by young people, by our senior citizens.

I want to say this again: the purpose of this bill is to improve the focus and the understanding of how people with personal injuries are accessing ACC; to improve increased transparency of access, including disparities in access for Māori, Pacific, older people, disabled communities, our ethnic communities—basically, our groups that actually need to have access increased for them.

I started by saying that these changes live up to the Government’s pre-election commitment to return ACC to its original purpose of assisting all New Zealanders, and I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I too find it a great pleasure to rise on the subject of the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the contribution, actually, of my colleague and friend Tama Potaka. He’s taken on a number of roles since coming to Parliament, and to that we can add cheese rolls as well.

This is, inherently, an unambitious bill. It’s not about access, it’s not about compensation, and it’s not about rehabilitation. It’s to provide a focus on access, compensation, and rehabilitation; an increased understanding—and understanding’s important, obviously, because it’s a precursor to these other things actually being provided. But there is very little tangible benefit in terms of lives being improved regarding what the service is required to provide to them, except, only—and this is the best that we can say for the bill—that it will legislate to require certain forms of reporting on certain items. But, actually, there is nothing to stop that already taking place at the moment, and I would have thought that government—and I use that term broadly; I appreciate there’s different levels of governance and control within the organisation. But it seems to me if there is something so broken with the way that ACC is operating that they cannot be required by the current masters to provide such basic information as to who is accessing the scheme and whether such access is equitable and so forth, then we’ve got much bigger problems than whether the reporting takes place by way of annual report or not, or whether there is a very specific statute on the books to require that or not.

So however we look at this, and the very worthy arguments about the need for equitable access by way of different population groups—and we can slice and dice those in different ways, and we can examine the way that these are characterised in terms of all groups or naming specific groups and referring “other” undefined groups. But the reality is that every New Zealander should have good access to our accident compensation scheme, and if that’s not the case—and there’s little evidence, I understand, at the moment—and if evidence can be garnered to that effect, then that is a wrong that should be righted, of course.

We’ve got a bit of a logical problem with this bill whereby we don’t know what we don’t know. So, of course, the Government might say, “Ah, well, the lack of evidence of certain groups being precluded is exactly why we need the bill”, but one is reminded of that age-old joke—and I’m afraid it’s not a very good one, but why would I break tradition now? It goes along the lines of asking, “How do elephants hide in cherry trees?”, and the answer, which is deeply unfunny, is that they paint their toenails red—to which, of course, the rejoinder is “Well, how could that possibly be effective?”, and to which the further question is, “Well, have you ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?”, of course suggesting therefore it must be effective. And the point is: if we don’t know that there’s a problem, it’s not enough merely to say, “Oh, well there might be a problem, therefore we’ve got to pass a very specific law”—primary legislation, no less—“to say that we’ve got to find out if the problem exists or not.” Surely there is some way that the ACC regime can orientate itself towards understanding whether it is working at even such a basic level of access by different demographic groups, and, if not, as I say, we have much bigger problems on our hands.

And, actually, there are quite a few problems with ACC. Let us be honest in this House and say that for every one of us who is a constituent or a list MP based in a constituency, we’ve all had people come through our doors, I’m sure, and my colleague and friend Toni Severin is nodding—she will have seen in her area, no doubt, people say, “Dear member of Parliament, I’ve had a problem with accessing these Government services. I would like you to help me, and my problem is X, or my problem is Y, my problem is Z.” There’s a variety of different complaints that people have about either the design of the scheme or, oftentimes, the fact that in the mind of the constituent, they are entitled, already, according to the design of the system, to certain benefits which they’re not in fact receiving. So there’s sometimes a disconnect between the view of the corporation—and I think that’s the right “C” in “ACC”—in terms of what the entitlement is for that person given certain factual bases on which their claim has been made.

So, for example, a gentleman who was in my constituency—he’s now moved; actually, for reasons related to his post-accident experience—had recently started a business. Because he hadn’t had much time operating the business, and therefore a strong record of income, and therefore an effective basis for which a weekly or hourly wage could be calculated, it was said, well, according to the way the scheme was set up, that he would just be assessed as being at the minimum wage, which was a pretty pessimistic view, but that’s the way the scheme regards these things. Well, he then, of course, received 80 percent of the minimum wage because one receives 80 percent of the wage that they were either on—or deemed to be on, in his case. So he was at well under the minimum wage—or, you know, 80 percent thereof—and that was extremely difficult for him. He faced, therefore, severe financial challenges as well as emotional and mental challenges relating to the physical injury itself, as well as the difficulty of paying a mortgage loan and doing other things that one plans to do with one’s life before one is injured, in his case in a treatment injury, so-called.

So there are many legitimate complaints that can be made about the ACC design. I do acknowledge, actually, in relatively recent times, a bill brought to the Parliament and supported, I think, unanimously in terms of improving access to ACC in relation to maternal injuries—I think I’ve characterised that correctly—and that’s right. I do congratulate and thank those who did that work to bring that forward: the advocates who suggested that in the first place as a piece of law reform; those on the Government side who proposed it, put it forward formally; and those who supported it on this side of the House, too. That’s a good example of a design flaw within ACC that was recognised, it was known, it was reported, it was discussed—possibly at greater length than it should have been—until the change was made. But credit where it was due: the people who made the change should be applauded for having done so, and that, I think, would be a better use of the House’s time in considering what could be done to improve the ACC regime than merely requiring a certain reporting standard or format by way of primary legislation.

So, I think, with the point having been made that no regulatory impact statement can be found to support the claims on which the bill is based in the first instance, it is difficult to take that seriously. But, as I say, there should be no reason that any such gaps cannot already be identified, and if they can, then, of course, they should be rectified. Such outcomes should be the aim of this Government, and, indeed, any Government, and we would urge the Government to concentrate its energies and finite resources—and I say that because every Government has finite resources. Priorities must be made, decisions must be taken for what the energy of the House of Parliament as well as the Government, more generally, should be directed towards. This is not the best use of those resources, and so, on this side of the House, in the National Party, we can’t support it.

And I will just add, if you’ll indulge me for a moment: the Warriors are playing this weekend against the Bulldogs, and I hope they don’t receive a disproportionate share of 50/50 calls against them, as has often been the case observed by such long-suffering fans as myself and others. And I make that point under parliamentary privilege because I can, and I think it’s important. Thank you.

I think what we’ve been listening to this afternoon from the National Party is a whole lot of denial. There’s denial that there is a problem in the ACC when everybody knows that there is a problem, there’s a denial that Māori face inequity, and what’s most worrying is there is a denial that evidence-based research makes for good policy, and that’s really worrying. It sounds like their solution is to sit around, maybe have a chat, think up some policy, but not to look at the evidence base for it and require the rigour and the discipline of getting the data that is needed to make meaningful change.

So ACC is problematic. There are inequities, and I would refer to an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal, “injuries”—I’m sorry, the heading is slightly cut off, but it’s “injuries differ between Māori and non-Māori? Findings from a cohort study of injured New Zealanders”. There’s some really good research that’s been done by a number of experts, and I won’t read all their names, but what that research found was that Māori are more likely to experience serious injury, less likely to lodge claims for serious injuries, and—most worryingly—be less likely to be referred.

I think that third pillar of it is something that is deeply worrying because this is people having their fate put in trusted medical practitioners. If there are reasons why significant anomalies exist in the referral rates, then that certainly is information that we need to have. The researchers in that article have suggested a number of systemic issues which we know exist across the health system, including lower rates of Māori access to quality healthcare; the treatment costs; the ability to get transport to seek treatment; other disparities, including the ability to get childcare or sick leave; sometimes poor communication; or limited culturally safe practice, which means that it has a knock-on effect of reducing access.

Most compelling in this report is a finding by the researchers. They say—and I quote—“it is imperative to establish routine systems for collecting data about needs, treatment pathways and outcomes.” It is imperative, they say, and it needs to be routine. The best place to require that is in legislation because this is about governance. It is about having a statutory and a mandatory requirement to get the data that is needed so that the agency that doesn’t know what it doesn’t know is required to get that information. That is how we will put sunlight on to this.

That is how we will get the information that we need to ensure that the system that is there for all New Zealander is, in fact, providing that. It’s very clear from the evidence so far that it is not. There is a clear problem. I am deeply worried by the denial that has come from the Opposition on this bill. I commend it to the House.