Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698941763401.pdf (New Zealand)
No 208 House of Representatives Supplementary Order Paper Tuesday, 17 June 2008 Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) Proposed amendments Hon Maryan Street, in Committee, to move the following amendments: Clause 2 To insert the following subclause after subclause (2) (after line 10 on page 3): (2A) The following provisions of this Act come into force on 1 Oc­ tober 2008: (a) (b) sections 5(1), 6 to 9, 11, 12, and 14 to 17: section 33(1) and the Schedule, in so far as they relate to the amendments to clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the principal Act.
Clause 6: new section 21B(1)(a) To omit “1 August 2008” (line 31 on page 5) and substitute “1 October 2008”.
Clause 16: new section 87(2C) To omit this subsection (lines 22 to 27 on page 10) and substitute the following subsection: “(2C) However, despite subsections (1)(b) and (2B)(b), the Corpor­ ation must not take into account as a factor against providing vocational rehabilitation that the claimant is, or may become, a person to whom clause 52 of Schedule 1 (relationship between weekly compensation and New Zealand superannuation) ap­ plies.” 1 SOP No 208 Proposed amendments to Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) Explanatory note This Supplementary Order Paper amends the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) to ensure that the age limits for weekly compensation are not taken into account when deciding whether vo­ cational rehabilitation would be likely to be cost­effective, which is one of the statutory criteria used by the Accident Compensation Corporation in deciding whether or not to provide vocational rehabilitation.
Currently, the Accident Compensation Corporation is required under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) to consider, among other things, whether vocational rehabilitation is likely to be cost­effect­ ive, having regard to the likelihood that costs of entitlements under the Act will be reduced as a result of the provision of vocational rehabilitation.
The Bill, as introduced, proposed an amendment to the Act that would have required the Corporation not to take into account any reductions in the costs of entitlements because the claimant is no longer entitled to weekly compensation.

This amend­ ment would have only applied to a claimant who has already lost his or her en­ titlement to weekly compensation, but not to a claimant who is approaching the age limits for weekly compensation that are set out in clause 52 of Schedule 1 of the Act.
The proposed amendment to clause 16 is intended to ensure that the Corporation cannot take into account the age limits for weekly compensation that are set out in clause 52 of Schedule 1 of the Act in deciding whether vocational rehabilita­ tion would be likely to be cost­effective and eventually in deciding whether to provide vocational rehabilitation.
The proposed amendments will also— • defer the commencement of certain provisions of the Bill relating to vo­ cational rehabilitation and to work­related mental injury from 1 August 2008 until 1 October 2008 (clause 2): provide that a person has cover for a personal injury that is a work­related mental injury if the mental injury is suffered on or after 1 October 2008 (clause 6).

• 11 2 Wellington, New Zealand: Published under the authority of the House of Representatives—2008