Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17001] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is an extraordinary admission that one’s plan for the future is as pessimistic as that of that member Pansy Wong; that one can be an Opposition spokesperson and longstanding member of Parliament—as that member is—whose main criticism of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) is that one does not want New Zealand to be a world leader in the area of injury prevention and compensation for working people. That shows a remarkable lack of optimism for our country and security and a lack of confidence in our people. I am staggered at the contribution that member has made because if there is one area where New Zealand has an extraordinarily proud record it is accident compensation. I say to Mrs Wong that we can be very proud of this scheme and that her speech and lack of policy detail and vision in this area are extraordinary. To criticise something around the edges then say she will not vote for the whole thing is absolutely unbelievable.  
Labour is very proud to support this legislation in Parliament this afternoon because in Government we have continually expanded extended and maintained the protections for our accident compensation scheme. That has been an important principle underlining our policy whenever we have brought bills like this to Parliament. The Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street has outlined the two key areas that the scheme will now cover: workers who suffer a sudden traumatic event and casual and temporary workers in our economy. The passing of this bill alone could benefit up to 400000 people. I find it unbelievable that any party could vote against a bill that could potentially extend the hand of support from our society to 400000 temporary workers. That is why this bill is so important and why our plan for the future is so important as well. 
The National Party’s record on accident compensation is woeful. We are more than happy to debate that with National members on the campaign trail because National’s policy will always mean less cover not more for the most vulnerable workers. That is the stark reality of National’s privatised model and the fact that National members will not talk about it in the debate shows how embarrassed they are about it. It is not aimed at helping the many; it is aimed at delivering to the few. That is why that party will not talk about it. But we know from National’s record in Government that the people it puts in charge of accident compensation are the likes of Jenny Shipley and Murray McCully. Those two names are an open-and-shut case as to National’s commitment to accident compensation. 
We know from the work that has been published—I know that the Minister recently launched a book by Hazel Armstrong and Rob Laurs that covers this area—how important this scheme that Sir Owen Woodhouse brought to our country has been. I say to Mrs Wong and the other members of her party that when we debate in Parliament the importance of the scheme we ought to debate how to improve the scheme—how to make it better and take it— 
Pansy Wong 
: We’re so scared. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member says she is scared but this is not about intimidating politicians. She is so limited in her vision that she thinks this is a political issue. This is about working people in our country and about making sure that if some terrible event happens to them—it could happen an hour from now and none of us would know about it—then our community gives them protection. If the member is too narrow-minded to support a bill that does that because she is interested in the politics rather than the principle and the policy then she can go out on the campaign trail and debate it. We want to do that; we want to make accident compensation an election issue. By passing this bill we can report to the people we believe in and represent that 400000 of them will get extra cover that they did not have before we became the Government. For that reason alone the bill is worth our support.