Penk ChrisACCIDENT COMPENSATION (NOTICE OF DECISIONS) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) on behalf of SIMON WATTS: I move That the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the a select committee to oh the Regulations Review Committee to hear the bill. [Assistant Speaker shakes her head] I'm getting a shake of the head—the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee to receive the bill. Kieran McAnulty: Any of the above.CHRIS PENK: Or any of the above. Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I stand to take a call the first call indeed on a piece of legislation that owes nothing to my own labours. This is a piece of legislation that was introduced into the ballot by my former colleague Paulo Garcia whom I would love to see again in this Chamber in due course and has more recently being transferred into the name of Simon Watts who I'm very pleased has recently joined us in this Chamber.The bill rectifies an anomaly in the accident compensation regime. It is not a large anomaly in the overall scheme of a framework that is a very helpful and useful part of our public life and indeed private life. A piece of legislation—the establishment of the scheme that's played an important part in the lives of many New Zealanders mostly for better occasionally for worse. There are many issues that we can discuss in relation to ACC and changes that perhaps might be usefully made to the regime but the changes within the scope of this bill are relatively modest but important nonetheless.The ACC scheme is of course—well purports to be comprehensive. I would argue that in fact it's not but let's for argument's sake say that it's designed to be a comprehensive no-fault personal injury scheme. As such I think that most people in this country would regard it as a useful mechanism for providing coverage for injuries that might take place to New Zealanders roughly speaking through no fault of anyone. Although again that's a contestable claim for the sake of shorthand please allow it for the purpose of this bill. It does provide a large amount of power to the State. That's no bad thing in itself so long as that power is exercised reasonably and in a manner that is justifiable including by way of the ability for those who are affected by such decisions to have them reviewed. When large powers are involved in relation to an individual—of course the person who is injured or the person which might be a natural person or a legal person running the workplace in which a person is injured—it's important that the principles of natural justice are observed. I would start by saying at a high level if I may that where a person is affected in terms of their rights and also their responsibilities it is important that they are able to have a say in the exercise of that power and the way that they are affected by that. This is roughly speaking known as the right to be heard. Of course decisions should be knowable in the first place and also reviewable at least to some extent. I think it's worth noting that one of the generally accepted advantages of the ACC scheme is that we bypass much that would otherwise be required by recourse to the courts. Avoiding expensive litigation is generally a good thing provided that there is not a gap in the ability of an individual or other person to obtain justice. I would be remiss if I were not to mention a number of constituent cases that have come to me in my capacity as a local member of Parliament—and no doubt every other member of Parliament whether electorate or list who in this Chamber now or in the past has received contact from constituents pointing out difficulties that they've had with the scheme.I think we should consider ways that treatment injury victims in particular can be catered for much better the way that disincentives do need to be provided where workplaces might otherwise act in a cavalier manner such that a person be injured. Also we should seriously consider ways that the system can be made much fairer in covering injury that's caused in a way that's difficult to prove as relating to a particular situation perhaps a repetitive strain as opposed to an accident or injury. But as I say that's because that's outside the scope of the bill. So I just want to acknowledge some of those themes do receive at least some recognition in the form of this bill. Partly that's because of the fact that at its heart it's understanding and acknowledging that a workplace is a place sadly that injuries can and do occur. Of course it's the moral and legal obligation of every employer or workplace to minimise that possibility and of course to do everything within the power of such a workplace to play a positive part in the rehabilitation where such injuries do occur. But it does behove the State to provide a mechanism and the ability—indeed the right—for a workplace to understand what is happening when a claim is made by a person about an aggravation or a re-injury of a work-related injury that might have happened previously.So just briefly the operative provisions of the bill simply say at clause 4 that employers must be notified of decisions to accept a claim as an aggravation or a re-injury of a work-related injury. Clause 5 includes employers as among the class of persons able to apply for a review of a decision to accept a claim again over an aggravation or injury of a work-related injury. Clause 6 states—and it should be an obvious and logical matter that flows from the other provisions—that employers should be able to be present and be heard at a review hearing again when an aggravation or re-injury of a work-related injury takes place. And similarly at clause 7 that they would have the ability to appeal such review decisions.It seems right that if we are to take away the ability of individuals and also workplaces to go to court to seek remedy and to surrender their rights they would otherwise have to have their matter discussed and their position known and to be heard it is only right that we allow at least some sort of reasonable participation in that process. And that's at the heart of what the bill intends to do. It's not a matter of establishing a them" and "us" dichotomy as between a worker and a workplace. If anything it should be a matter of understanding that a responsible workplace and a willing worker who abides by the reasonable rules of that workplace to keep himself or herself safe can all be involved in a way that this bill actually encourages not discourages. And so I hope that it receives support across the House. I say that on behalf of the member whose name the bill is now namely Simon Watts who I acknowledge and who unfortunately is not able to open the remarks. I don't wish to refer you to any possible absence from the Chamber. Nevertheless that's where we find ourselves and a previous member of Parliament for the National Party Paulo Garcia and whose name the bill was placed into the ballot and indeed withdrawn from that. I commend the bill to the House."