Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18672] 
12.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any advice as to the number of people who have qualified for lump-sum compensation for asbestos-related illnesses under the agreement between James Hardie Industries and former union employees that she tabled on 10 February 2004; if so how many people have qualified? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 No. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why then did she emphasise the 1974 agreement between former union employees and James Hardie Industries in her answer to questions from Sue Kedgley on 10 February last week as if this agreement was a panacea when in fact it actually has not helped a single victim as far as we can identify? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Because the primary question from our colleague Sue Kedgley actually related to the comparable document that is an agreement between James Hardie Industries and employees in Australia. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Could the Minister tell the House again what assistance the Government gives to people with work-related asbestos-related illnesses? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Claimants may receive a weekly independence allowance which can be capitalised. They may also be entitled to earnings-related compensation; home help; childcare; treatment costs; specialist medical treatment; personal care; non-emergency transport; medical products; aids and appliances; housing modifications; and pharmaceutical medications. Their estates may be entitled to funeral grants and any dependants may be entitled to survivor grants. 
Sue Kedgley 
: If James Hardie Industries accepted liability for New Zealand employees who worked in its south Auckland asbestos factory on 1 April 1974 why then is the Minister not putting on the company the sort of pressure that the Australian Government applied to it in Australia to get it to accept liability for sufferers of asbestos-related illnesses who worked in its factories there after 1 April 1974? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have had no formal approach from either former or current employees of James Hardie Industries about my entering into that sort of negotiation with the company. I would consider it if such an approach were made. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr Pam Smartt who was reported in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 as saying that the Accident Compensation Corporation needs to adopt “a more lenient and positive approach” to those who are entitled to claim in respect of asbestos-related diseases; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Accident Compensation Corporation is required to administer the legislation. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that it is unfair and inequitable that a person who is diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness after 1 April 2002 is entitled to lump-sum compensation but someone diagnosed a few months earlier is not; and why is a Labour Government with a tradition of treating workers fairly not ensuring that all people afflicted with these terrible diseases are entitled to the same compensation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The determination of deemed date of injury is a matter that is currently before the courts and I do not wish to comment on it.