Turner Judy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20341] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). Removing the necessity for an accident victim to find fault with a doctor in order to obtain cover for his or her treatment and rehabilitation is a good sensible development. I remind the House that this amendment bill is related to accident compensation—that is to say preventing treating and compensating health concerns that are the result of an unintended or unexpected event. 
It seemed to me during the Committee stage that some members were keen to see the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) become responsible for all health issues even those that were better described as illnesses rather than injuries. We had the deterioration of a condition potentially redefined as an injury. Some very open-ended amendments were put forward suggesting for instance that resource allocation issues could have seen even parents who took too long to decide whether to take their ill child to a doctor as having then given the child an injury rather than an illness status. In relation to the amendment proposed by Ms Kedgley I certainly believe her intention was noble. However when one reads what she proposed one finds it was so open-ended as to what it meant to withhold resources of some kind that it could have applied to absolutely anybody and not just to the Government a district health board or a hospital. Anybody could be perceived as withholding resourcing—and that could include a parent of a child—and Sue Kedgley’s amendment would have then changed the definition of what the child was suffering from an illness to an injury and that just becomes a nonsense. 
The key to this amendment bill is the new definition of “treatment injury” which replaces the previous medical error and medical mishap provisions and the culture of naming and blaming that has created a lengthy process for claimants to date. Allowing professional competency issues to be pursued as a measure separate from the approval of funding for treatment and rehabilitation is just sensible. The support for this bill by most parties is indicative of the improvements that will be delivered. The only issues that seemed to bring about controversy were those relating to the inclusion of groups of acupuncturists additional to those currently registered with the ACC. There were some concerns as to whether the $8.6 million or $9 million that the Department of Labour told us this legislation would cost was accurate and whether what was proposed by this legislation was affordable. There were some concerns as to whether conditions that worsen solely due to resourcing issues should be reclassified from an illness to an injury. Despite those issues most parties can support the intention and direction of the legislation. 
I mention Pansy Wong from National who sought to rectify the concerns of traditional Chinese acupuncturists. Although United Future did not support her amendment we did agree with her concerns. However we did not agree with the legal mechanism that she was suggesting. I have since given the issue some ongoing consideration in terms of the Minister’s assurances that acupuncturists are on the verge of reaching an agreement that will see them become registered under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. If those assurances are not realised then I feel the Minister of Health under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act—not under this accident compensation bill which has quite a different intention—should be able to identify a profession such as acupuncturists that has worked extremely hard to become registered under the legislation but has often been held up by the uncooperative possibly even vexatious actions of smaller groups that want to claim the status of acupuncturists. I think the Minister of Health could step in to that situation having identified that that group was being held back unnecessarily and disallow the vexatious groups so that the group could move forward. Quite honestly if the Minister is wrong and acupuncturists are not able to sort that matter out in a very short time I would encourage her—the Minister of Health not the Minister for ACC as Pansy Wong was suggesting in her amendment—to step in under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act act as an advocate and make some decisions on behalf of a group that has gone through the kinds of trials and tribulations that acupuncturists certainly have. 
Mention was also made of seasonal workers. This legislation allows one’s previous 52 weeks of income even if it has been from different employers to be taken into consideration when calculating the financial support that may be needed. That is particularly good news for newly self-employed people. They are often working in a new business where the income is not exciting although they are working their way through that situation and expect the business to become extremely profitable. If they have an accident in the middle of the start-up process under the old system they would have been entitled to very very low coverage from the ACC. This legislation counters that. We received some assurances from the Minister that she would get her staff—and I think the report back on the inquiry was due at the end of March this year—to double-check that there were no ongoing concerns or inequity in terms of the ability of seasonal workers to claim proper compensation and support after an injury. It will be interesting to see what that report states. 
United Future is pleased to join most of the other parties in the House in supporting the third reading of this legislation.