Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18541] 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she have concerns that former employees of James Hardie Industries’ south Auckland asbestos factory who are now dying of asbestos-related diseases are entitled to a $68.77 a week “independence allowance” as compensation while Australian victims have negotiated lump-sum payouts from James Hardie Industries that average over $272000; if so what does she intend to do to rectify this inequity? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I want to make two points in answer to this question. Firstly it is incorrect to represent that these claimants receive only $68.77 a week because that is only the independence allowance. They may also be entitled to weekly compensation home help childcare treatment costs personal care medical products housing modifications and a number of other supports. Their estate should the claimant die may be entitled to funeral grants and their dependants to survivor grants. The second point is that former union employees of James Hardie Industries’ south Auckland asbestos factory do have an agreement with the company for lump-sum compensation for employees who were employed on 1 April 1974. I will seek to table this document at the end of this question. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Government be applying the same sort of moral pressure on James Hardie Industries as the Australian Government applied which successfully brought James Hardie Industries to the negotiating table in Australia to include New Zealand sufferers from asbestos in its compensation scheme; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I outlined in the answer to the primary question there is already an existing agreement for union members who were former employees of the factory in south Auckland if they were employed on 1 April 1974. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why has confusion arisen about lump-sum compensation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Confusion has arisen because the former National Government removed lump-sum payments from the accident compensation scheme in 1992. Our Government reinstated those payments from 1 April 2002. A High Court case is pending to clarify whether entitlement to a lump-sum payment for people with asbestos-related diseases should stem from the period of their exposure to asbestos or from the day on which they first sought treatment. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why is the Minister not prepared to go in to bat for all asbestos sufferers regardless of when they contracted the disease and why is she allowing the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to engage in a mean-spirited legal battle to challenge the lump-sum compensation that was recently awarded to a dying asbestos sufferer? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In my view it is appropriate for a Minister to support his or her department or corporation in applying the law in the way that it believes it is correctly interpreted. In this situation I believe it is appropriate to let the High Court determine its interpretation on that confusing aspect of deemed date of injury. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she really believe that $66 a week is enough to compensate—and I was referring to compensation I tell the Minister—victims of a debilitating workplace disease that will kill them or are she and ACC just following Treasury advice that they should avoid any compensation payouts to asbestos sufferers who contracted the illness before 2002 because it could set a precedent for other gradual process illnesses which is a risk that is explicitly identified in the Government’s financial statements? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Given that we had a 10-year period during which no lump-sum compensation was available and therefore no levies were collected in order to pay for it it is a responsible response from the Government to listen to the financial implications of any retrospectivity of the reintroduction of lump-sum compensation. That is exactly what we did. How else would we pay for it? 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware that if ACC does succeed in its appeal against those extremely ill people the accident compensation scheme itself will no longer meet minimum standards required under ILO Convention 42 ratified by New Zealand as long ago as 1938; if so is it no longer Labour Party policy to uphold internationally required standards for workers’ rights? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not agree with that interpretation of the application of ILO Convention 42. That convention says that we must ensure that gradual process illness and injury has a comparable level of compensation with other injuries. If there were no retrospectivity at all which is the matter being determined it would be exactly comparable. 
I seek leave to table the document the James Hardie agreement which I referred to in the answer to the primary question. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.