Woodhouse Michael: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9157] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I also want to talk about hearing loss. But before I do I will touch on an aspect that Mr Hague raised in his call on operational surpluses. I point out that a $1 billion positive cash-flow does not constitute an operational surplus. If International Financial Reporting Standards were fully applied to accident compensation the deficit that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) would have to report would be much higher. 
We have been talking at cross-purposes for the last several months on this issue so I will share the benefit of my many years of experience as a chartered accountant with members across the other side of the Chamber. It goes like this: deficits bad; big deficits worse. When we have a $2.4 billion deficit we are really starting to sweat. When we have a $4.8 billion deficit action has to be taken and that is what the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill is about. 
I want to talk about clause 6 because if there is any example of the duplicitous nature of the Labour Opposition it is in relation to hearing loss. The fact that members opposite shed crocodile tears for the so-called claimants who will be denied treatment really is quite rich. I want— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Speak for yourself. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —to speak for myself and my own experience. At about the age of 6 my hearing loss was picked up in public health screening tests. Many years of treatment followed including three surgeries: I had tonsil and adenoid surgery a radical mastoidectomy and eventually a muscle graft that closed the cavity in the ear. But I was left profoundly deaf in one ear. I was told by an ear nose and throat surgeon at that time that a hearing aid would not help me. I cannot recall the extent of the loss but I am sure it exceeded 5 to 6 percent. Many activities have probably aggravated my hearing loss over the years but under the current law if an ear nose and throat surgeon was able to attribute one bit of my hearing loss to industrial deafness I would be covered. All of the non-accidental causes would not matter. The vast majority of my deafness is non-accident - related but I would nevertheless be covered by the accident compensation scheme. 
But that is not the case and the Labour Opposition knows that. Under the law as it stands now the claimant is given cover but is denied entitlement to hearing aids. The previous Labour Government was prepared to tell claimants that yes they have cover but no they will not be given a hearing aid. How big is this problem? It is not an isolated example. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Reconcile that with what the Minister just said a moment ago about the costs. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Shh I say to the member; she will learn something. Officials told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that currently the proportion of hearing loss claimants who received cover but were refused hearing aids was 42 percent. So 42 percent of all claimants given cover are declined their hearing aid requests. My question to the officials was how much worse can it get. I asked what would happen if we were honest with claimants and set a 6 percent threshold. The answer was really interesting: not much. It was very hard for the officials to estimate but the best estimate was that it would go up by about 4 percent. So we have this choice: set an expectation on the part of 42 percent of claimants that the Government under the current legislation cannot meet or be honest with those claimants tell them what is appropriate and decline the claim. 
This debate is as much about what is not covered as it is about what is covered. The idea of a financial constraint is too much for the Labour Opposition to handle. But this scheme is not a back door through which 42000 elective surgery patients callously thrown off district health board waiting lists by the previous Government can somehow get their surgery; that is the role of Vote Health and we are seeing very very good gains in throughput at the moment. It is not about giving cover to people who are so depressed that they would attempt to take their own lives or about the fact that Sir Owen Woodhouse said they should not get cover. They deserve our compassion and the best care that mental health services and Vote Health can give us. It is certainly not about ACC being the default health provider in this country. It is not a crapshoot for hearing-impaired claimants whose hearing loss is primarily not due to industrial accidents. We owe those people more honesty and for that reason this hearing-impaired New Zealander strongly supports clause 6.