Fenton Darien: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16651] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I hope the House will bear with me; I think that I have caught Peter Brown’s bug—and now I know whom I caught it from. But it is a privilege to speak in the second reading of this bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I believe that this bill goes to the heart of the differences between the values of Labour and those of National. Labour is committed to a world-leading easy-to-access no-fault accident compensation scheme unlike the National Party which wants to continue the wholesale destruction of New Zealanders’ rights that it perpetrated on the nation the last time it was in Government. It astounds me that the National Party can vote against this bill so heartlessly particularly after hearing the testimony of the workers who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and who have suffered mental injury in the course of their employment after witnessing horrific deaths or accidents while performing their work. Those workers deserve nothing less than the full sympathy and support of this Parliament. 
Others have mentioned workers like Brownie Bristow of the Rail and Maritime Transport Union and Bruce Gardiner of Hamilton. I noticed that the member David Bennett from Hamilton did not mention Bruce Gardiner and I wondered what he would be saying to him after the speech he made. Those workers came along courageously to the select committee to tell us their horrific stories and to tell us about the suffering they have had to endure since. Hundreds of workers are in a situation like theirs—the bank workers shop workers security guards and many others who have been mentioned. I pay tribute to those workers and to the many workers like them. They know that this bill will not make their own situations better so I would say to those who have been criticising this bill because it is not retrospective that those workers were very very clear that they wanted to make sure that this did not happen to anyone in the future. They were not concerned for themselves and that is why they deserve the respect of this House. 
The other significant part of this bill that I would like to traverse is one that has been somewhat overshadowed by the changes made to the work-related mental injury provisions. The bill makes important changes to accident compensation for casual and seasonal workers. That will be of benefit to the more than 400000 people working in non-standard arrangements in a range of industries. From 1 August 2008 casual and seasonal workers’ long-term weekly compensation will be based on the workers’ earning periods rather than on the 52 weeks before the injury which often include non-earning periods. 
Casual and seasonal workers work across many industries. The ones we are most familiar with are of course those in agriculture and in meat plants but they also work in the retail tourism transport and hospitality sectors. Some of our biggest companies employ seasonal labour—for example Heinz-Wattie Sealord’s the meatworks and the orchards. Every year the New Zealand fruit vegetable and wine industries employ thousands of seasonal workers who harvest fruit vegetables and wine grapes. They pack and sort fruit and vegetables. They prune the fruit trees and the grape vines. They maintain the crops. Some plant vegetables and thin fruit—and the list goes on and on. 
Being a casual or seasonal worker in the agriculture industry is not very much fun actually. Those workers can be more prone than others to workplace injury given the heavy nature of the work the lack of experience and the high turnover in an industry that struggles to find workers. I am thinking right now about the pack-houses throughout the Helensville electorate and about the workers whom I have met who are employed as seasonal workers. I find it quite shameful that their local MP John Key obviously has no idea what their jobs are like otherwise the National Party would be supporting this bill. 
One big question hangs over this whole debate and it is one of those questions that John Key continues to fudge. If we look at National’s announced policies which National members have been distributing proudly all around the place we see that one of them says that National will provide choice for accident insurance in the workplace. I will make two comments about that statement. First of all National has not moved from its old language. “Accident insurance” is what National called it in 1992 when it put in place the first steps towards privatisation but that was just stage one. Stage two was when the previous National Government opened up the employers’ account to competition by privatising it through the Accident Insurance Act 1998. That Act deliberately set out to bring competition to aspects of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s business and to introduce insurance concepts and principles to the administration of the scheme. 
Secondly I want to address that word “choice” which we hear a lot from the National Party. The last time that National promoted choice in accident compensation was in its 1998 accident compensation insurance bill and we continue to hear about choice quite a lot from the National Opposition when it comes to talking about workers’ rights health and education and other social services. The word “choice” is one of those feel-good words that those members like to bandy about but usually what it means is a cover-up for the removal of people’s rights. The word “choice” has a history to it of political philosophy that goes back to Adam Smith and more recently Hayek Friedman Reagan and Thatcher. Choice is the Holy Grail of the free market ideologues and there they are. They are still sitting there in the National Party including Murray McCully who was the prime promoter of choice in the 1998 Act. 
But as we all know National’s choice goes only one way. The last time those members had their hands on our accident compensation scheme the only choice was for employers who could choose between insurers competing for business. There was no choice for injured workers. Workers were dependent on an insurance contract between their employer and an insurer that they were not even party to. I am sorry but when a worker has an accident and is lying comatose on the factory floor or when a worker has had a finger chopped off in a pack-house accident he or she is not equipped to make a choice. Workers will not say to their boss that they would rather that the boss insured with a certain company or with another company. The invisible hand of the market does not work in that situation and to be true to the Woodhouse principles the accident compensation scheme like other services should be run for the public good. 
Here we are heading towards an election with the National Party still seeing accident compensation and workers’ injuries and livelihoods as tradable commodities. National has been having secret meetings with business. In New Plymouth we saw National members chase the media out of the room and tell them and the insurance industry that they would privatise accident compensation early in their first term of Government should they get the chance. Private insurers are in business in order to make money for themselves and they have a powerful incentive to influence the party that will provide that business. History shows us that the big insurance lobby influenced the National Party at the last election and it is at it again. So let us beware of National members’ intentions. They dress up all kinds of things as choice when they really mean the taking away of rights. 
If National members will not come clean about their real intentions to privatise accident compensation we will tell the people of New Zealand. We will go out and tell the workers of New Zealand that National will take away their rights to a fair accident compensation scheme should it ever become the Government. No one wants to go back to those awful days. We want to continue to build on the gains that Labour has made. We have work to do to keep improving the lives of ordinary workers and their families as this bill does. Labour is the only party with a plan to do so. 
I will wind up there because I do not think I can speak any more but I will say this is a good day for New Zealand workers and I congratulate the Minister the Hon Maryan Street on bringing this bill to the House.