Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16946] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Part 2 is very important because it sets out the time frame of when it actually applies—it denies retrospective claims. One of the key things that people saw when they came to the select committee was that the claims made were about injury that had been suffered in the past—the mental injury that people had suffered in their workplace. Those cases such as the ones of the tanker driver and the train driver brought a lot of concern to the people in the committee. But when we look at Part 2 we see that it says it applies only from the commencement date of this part of the legislation effectively. It covers people from now on only—it does not cover people who engaged in work and had suffered mental injury and trauma in the past. That is a huge problem for this legislation because if we are going to be so fair and almighty in the sense of covering all kinds of injury then how can we distinguish between injury that somebody has encountered in the past and something that will happen in the future? If we are to provide that cover we should provide it for all people at all times. We should not make a distinction between those people who are affected now or will be in the future and leave out all those poor people who came before the select committee and who were the examples that made this legislation a reality. Those people will not be covered. The people who came before the select committee will be left high and dry by Labour. Labour will not deliver for the people whom this legislation talks about and who have been used as examples. This is just another instance of Labour Party electioneering; that is all it is. 
Labour wants to go into an election campaign saying that it has dealt with this issue and it has something on the table. Well it is not retrospective—it does not cover the examples of people who have sustained mental injury who came before the select committee—and that is a major problem for all those submitters. They came and provided the heartfelt stories that the select committee had to listen to and engage with to see the problem yet they will not be covered. They have been let down by the Government. They have been sold one story and then delivered another. They have been told that they will be part of a solution to this problem yet there has been no solution that will have any impact on their daily lives. Labour has gone out there and said it is dealing with this issue but then has not actually provided any solution for these people. 
Part 2 is very important. Part 2 means that there is no retrospectivity to this legislation. The cases that came before the select committee will not be considered in the sense that there would be cover for retrospective mental injury. That is a shame especially when we consider that the legislation had the potential to provide for that. If Labour had stuck to its guns and if there had been—as the Green Party indicated at the first and second readings that there should be—an inclusion of retrospectivity then the policy analysis of this legislation would be fundamentally stronger. By not creating that retrospective nature we are leaving a lot of the people who came and presented their cases before the select committee out of the loop. It is a real shame on the Labour Party and on this Government that it is considering legislation only for electioneering purposes and not for the benefit of the people who raised their concerns before the select committee.