Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6009] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened to Wayne Mapp with some interest because normally he comes out with some commonsense-type statements around bills of the nature of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill but I could not hear terribly many words about this bill. I say that with some sincerity because this bill is an attempt to have the level of the premium in line with the level of risk; that is what it is all about. 
I think the honourable member should talk to some self-employed people. The Hon Mark Gosche asked why a self-employed plumber should be treated differently from a plumber who works under a company structure. I thought Wayne Mapp might answer that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It all depends on the risk. 
PETER BROWN 
: It does not all depend on the risk. That plumber could change his structure overnight and pay a different premium. I have spoken to a number of self-employed people. They will tell members that the levies are all over the place they go up and down far too frequently and the level of compensation is most unclear and most unfair. 
I was very interested in what the Hon Mark Gosche had to say. He recognised that there was growth in the accident rate as Dr Hutchison had outlined earlier but he implied—I will not go so far as to say he stated—that it was far less than the growth in employment. If employment numbers go up it is only logical that to some degree accident rates will go up. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee. We do not confuse the current regime with the previous regime under the privatised workplace insurance scheme that National brought in. We actually supported it and would have liked it to have a longer trial because in the 6 months it was in existence—and that was all it was in existence for—it seemed to be working pretty well. We would have liked it to have at least a 2-year trial and a thorough evaluation at the end of it. But that is not what we have. We have the Accident Compensation Corporation scheme now. It has been modified it has been amended and it has been improved. In fairness to the Government we have to recognise that the scheme has been improved on what it was when it came in in 2001 or 2000. Was it 2000? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: 2000. 
PETER BROWN 
: It was 2000. The Government has improved it gradually bit by bit. New Zealand First considers that this bill makes another improvement so we will support it. It is no good harping back on the privatised scheme. When National members get their shot at the Government benches they will have the opportunity to do what they want but now we have the obligation to make this legislation as fair and as reasonable as possible for the people it affects—not for us but for the people it affects. This legislation is a move in the right direction. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee but we have one reservation. We do not think it is wise or fair to change the name medical misadventure account to treatment injury account. We will be interested in the public’s view on that. It might be just a small change but a claim for medical misadventure puts shivers down the spines of doctors—and there are two doctors over there. “Treatment injury account” sounds nice and woolly-woolly and fuzzy-fuzzy and we are not terribly happy about that. We are keen to hear what the public has to say on it. 
Nevertheless New Zealand First will take an objective view. We are keen to see the bill go to a select committee and we will work through it diligently and conscientiously to ensure that we get the best legislation not for ourselves but for the public of New Zealand particularly the self-employed. Thank you.