Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16953] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The title of this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) is too bland when we relate it to the serious issue I am about to raise. In Part 1 a very important change takes place and I think New Zealanders would be appalled to learn the substantive change. Currently the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has the authority not to pay compensation for self-inflicted personal injuries and suicides. This legislation would change that; it will actually contravene a principle of the accident compensation scheme. That accident compensation scheme principle is to minimise injury while not putting an unfair burden on levy payers.  
Let me share this case with the public. On 21 June—last Saturday—the  
New Zealand Herald  
stated: “A 44-year-old west Auckland man was treated in hospital today for self-inflicted sword cuts after he threatened his family and ‘smashed the hell’ out of his house and car.” The police said that by the time they reached him he had “lost all his puff and was curled up on the couch in a bit of state.” They also said that alcohol was involved.  
In 2005 according to official statistics 5000 people attempted suicide and of those 1150 filed a claim with the ACC. This is serious. Some members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee argued that most of those people have mental injuries and therefore they asked what the point is of having a provision that gives the ACC the safeguard of satisfying itself that people have not injured themselves intentionally and do not have a mental health problem.  
I challenge New Zealand First particularly Peter Brown in this instance. He keeps us quite entertained with lots of his sailor stories but some of his stories are more serious. He said that it was quite common apparently for people to pick up heavy tools or boxes and drop them on their own feet to claim injury or health insurance. If Mr Brown continues to support this provision then I want him to also explain on one hand why he told us that people intentionally injure themselves and on the other hand why he is supporting a provision that takes away any safeguard against those deliberate acts. 
There is a more serious side: if anybody was to dangle money in front of other people and say that if they tried to kill themselves they would get that money then that person would probably be prosecuted for that scheme and everybody would be outraged. But we now have a Government bill—a Government bill—that would actually entitle someone who commits self-harm or who attempts suicide to compensation. In any environment I find it outrageous to legislate for a change that would almost endorse or normalise the behaviour of suicide. I am sure that my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison would be appalled because doctors are trained to save people. 
Accident compensation legislation is meant to minimise injury. Tonight we are debating legislation that says that it is OK to attempt suicide and that in fact compensation will be paid. I think that this is appalling and that it is being done without much research. The number I have just mentioned of 5000 cases of attempted suicide does not include people who may have self-inflicted injuries and who have attended only general practitioners and clinics. Who knows how much the compensation for their injuries would cost?