Moroney Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Moroney Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13963] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to be able to rise and speak in the first reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I congratulate my colleague Maryan Street. As a new Minister it must be very exciting for her to bring forward such an important bill that will make a real difference to people’s lives.  
Negativity has been displayed by members opposite today. However this legislation is something positive that will actually affect some of the most vulnerable people in our society—those who have been injured at work and those who are in seasonal and precarious employment. This bill will do a lot to make things right for this particular group of people in our society. It is about the Labour-led Government’s commitment to a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme. It is the envy of the international community. I hope the National Party take that into consideration instead of condemning this very important step forward for our well-valued accident compensation scheme.  
The last speaker Anne Tolley spoke about a situation local to her and I wish to bring to the House’s attention a situation in my local area—in Hamilton East—that will be resolved by this bill. I am disappointed because I had hoped that the member of Parliament for Hamilton East who is on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that will hear this bill would be present in the House this afternoon to take a call. It seems that he will not be taking a call and that is disappointing because a man in Hamilton East Mr Bruce Gardiner has communicated frequently with members of Parliament over his particular situation and it will be addressed by this bill. His pleas have been heard—yes by this Labour-led Government. Unfortunately his member of Parliament David Bennett will be voting against this bill—a bill that will actually address the issues of one of his constituents. I am sure Mr Gardiner wants his story to be known because he has had a lot of publicity about what happened to him.  
This bill will make some significant changes to the cover provided by accident compensation for work-related injuries. It will extend this cover to include mental injuries caused by a single traumatic event and it will make changes to the cover provisions for work-related gradual process disease or infection. The cover that includes mental injuries caused by a single traumatic event will be of particular importance to Mr Bruce Gardiner of Hamilton East. 
His story is that one day in the course of his duties as a milk tanker driver for Fonterra he was driving along a country road—well within the speed limit and well within the law—doing the job that he had done many times before he noticed a person crouching in a sprint position on the side of the road. He did not have time to react before the person ran out in front of his milk tanker. Unfortunately Mr Gardiner could do nothing to avoid that accident and that death from occurring. That person had probably got to a point in his life where he had decided to end it. Mr Bruce Gardiner through his work actually became an unwitting player in that scenario and the trauma and mental injury that that caused him was not covered by accident compensation. 
Mr Gardiner has been a very strong advocate for the law being changed in this regard. As I said he is from Hamilton East. It has been a big call for Mr Gardiner to talk about the personal stress that this moment in his life caused him. His suffering meant that he was unable to continue in his duties as a milk tanker driver for Fonterra and he continues to suffer to this very day because of that very traumatic event.  
I will be very pleased to campaign as Labour’s candidate in Hamilton East at the next election and to be able to inform Mr Gardiner his family his friends and his entire community that the Labour-led Government has heard his pleas. It is the Labour-led Government that cares about these issues and this bill—having its first reading today—will address those issues in the future. 
The bill provides cover for clinically significant mental injuries rather than for temporary distress that constitutes a normal reaction to trauma. The bill does not introduce cover for mental injury caused by non-physical stress. It introduces changes to the cover provisions for work-related gradual process disease or infection to ensure that people harmed by their work receive greater access to cover and more clarity about whether cover is available and how it is determined. 
The bill also provides fairer and more straightforward weekly compensation for seasonal and casual employees by improving access to weekly compensation for people who are injured while temporarily between jobs. Many New Zealanders will be very pleased to hear that Parliament is considering this issue because a great many New Zealanders are involved in temporary work. 
The bill also provides the Accident Compensation Corporation with the discretion to extend the current 3-year limit on vocational rehabilitation where appropriate.  
I have listened very carefully to the debate because this issue will be a litmus-test issue for New Zealanders come the next election. I have listened very carefully in the hope that the National Party speakers on this bill will throw some light on what their policy is in regard to this issue. Unfortunately it was very difficult to work out. Apart from hearing their negativity and their opposition to our world-class accident compensation system it was very difficult to work out where National may go on this. However although they may not have let that slip in the course of this debate they certainly have made public statements that give us some clues about where National would go on the issue of accident compensation.  
John Key said: “I want to confirm today that National’s policy is to re-establish a competitive market to provide accident insurance.” Back to the good old market model the failed model of the 1990s! The National Party has not learnt a thing. Gerry Brownlee says that during the last all too brief period of private sector involvement in accident compensation premiums fell dramatically and accident statistics fell as employers experienced the direct financial benefit of keeping workplaces safe. 
Well what we know is that privatisation of accident compensation did not mean a better service and it did not work for employers or employees. Since Labour renationalised accident compensation the average self-employed levy has come down by 6 percent the earners rate has reduced by 7 percent and the average employer’s levy has dropped by—and wait for this figure—a massive 43 percent. That has happened under our world-class system of accident compensation which is the envy of the international community. Labour stands firm and very proud on its record in this area. It is an area that is close to my heart. Before my election to Parliament I trained health and safety reps in the workplace and I know of many many other stories of trauma apart from Mr Bruce Gardiner’s. I know what that trauma means for people’s lives—not only for the people injured but for the people around them for their workmates and yes for the profits and productivity of their workplace as well.  
In closing I say that although there are many wonderful challenges in my new role as the junior Government whip one of the downsides is that I am no longer a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which will consider this bill. However I give my best wishes to that select committee. I know that it will be well led and that the submissions on this bill will be well received. I wish the committee luck in its deliberations.