Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17002] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this third reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I must say that the previous speech was a somewhat self-righteous contribution by the Hon Darren Hughes. He forgets who introduced accident compensation back in 1974. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No I didn’t forget. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well the member might have forgotten that in a commentary on  
Rebuilding ACC Beyond 2000 
 people such as Sir William Birch were very much endorsed in their views by none other than the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse. 
I think it is important to go back for just a moment to 18 October 1972 and the occasion of the third reading of the initial bill when the Rt Hon Sir J R Marshall said: “I am proud to have been associated with it and proud that the National Government has taken the lead in introducing legislation which leads the world in this field. No other country has ventured into this area to the same extent as the National Government in New Zealand has done to provide coverage for people who are earners and who suffer accidents at any time of the day or night without recourse to the question of negligence.” 
What we are concerned about in regard to this legislation that Labour has brought in is the fact that unfortunately it blurs the margins between injuries and accidents and other medical conditions. The bill is extremely poorly thought-out and it is extremely poorly costed which has been evidenced by the fact that when I spoke on this bill in its first reading we learnt that the difference in the costs estimated by the Labour Government at that stage of events went from $7.2 million to $72.2 million—a 1000 percent rise. And 9 months later after the select committee process—which unfortunately I was unable to be present at—the Labour Government still comes up with totally inappropriate and loose costings. It is no wonder this Labour Government is on its way out. It is no wonder this Labour Government has taken New Zealand two slots down the OECD ladder in the last 9 years to the point where we cannot afford decent health we cannot afford decent education and we cannot afford a good social welfare system—let alone the sort of accident compensation scheme that we deserve. 
I would like to go through some of the aspects of this legislation about which the Labour Government has been only too ready to lead New Zealanders over the cliff like lemmings. The first aspect relates of course to work-related gradual process disease and infection. If I look at the report of the ministerial advisory panel I see on the very first page that the advisory panel recognises that further research is required to fully calculate the cost implications of its recommendations. Surely any responsible Government should have made sure that it is more accurate than a span of 1000 percent. The Labour Government of 2008 has totally totally failed to do that. 
The ministerial advisory panel also suggested that the barrier for cover for claimants was inappropriate and the panel noted that the burden of proof rested with the claimant and could be hard to meet. But this Government has totally reversed the burden of proof so that it now rests totally on the employer. It is very interesting to see what large companies such as New Zealand Steel—a very good New Zealand employer that employs over 1200 people in my electorate—have to say about the costs. That company is absolutely appalled as to how those costs have been worked out. 
But I want to just go on in the last few moments to talk about self-inflicted personal injuries and suicide and what New Zealand Steel had to say about that. It said that the proposed change will provide entitlements and incentives for individuals who wilfully self-inflict injuries actions that New Zealand society considers abhorrent. It actually provides incentives for individuals to self-harm. The very fact that this Labour Government seriously considers adding this clause is an indictment on it an indictment on its sense of fairness and an indictment on the very fact that it lacks a practical common-sense approach to problems facing society. That is why there cannot be a bipartisan agreement on this legislation today as there was back in 1974. I have looked through the  
Hansard 
 of 1972 to see whether there was any mention of self-inflicted harm and indeed there was not. It is a sad day when this Labour Government brings in such incredibly irresponsible legislation.