Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20274] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was hoping that when the Minister for ACC rose to take a call she would talk a little bit about Supplementary Order Paper 365 which is in her name and in particular about the proposed clauses 28A “Application and source of funds” and 29A “Application and source of funds”. Clause 28A refers to obligations that the Residual Claims Account has and clause 29A refers to obligations that the Self-Employed Work Account has. It is late at night I have had a hard day and on top of that I am just a simple sailor but I have tried to work out where the dickens 1 July 1999 comes from. There must be a reason for the inclusion of that date. I guarantee to the Minister that the Government members do not know. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: They do. They asked me. 
PETER BROWN 
: Will the Minister take a call and explain these two clauses? I say that with a degree of jest but I am also serious. I have read these clauses over and over again and I have tried to work out why 1 July 1999 is included. Why not the year 2000? Why July? August is a nice month too—or September. Perhaps she could explain it. 
Darren Hughes 
: September will be very tough for that man. 
PETER BROWN 
: I invite the member to read these clauses—paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 201(4) in clause 29A in particular because they seem to counteract one another. Perhaps the Minister could explain it. This Supplementary Order Paper has not gone to a select committee there is no intention of it going to a select committee and I believe that nobody fully understands it. If she will not do it it is no good my asking her colleagues because they do not have a clue what this Supplementary Order Paper is about. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why do you think they contradict each other? 
PETER BROWN 
: To my mind they seem to do that. I will read paragraph (b): “the claimant was self-employed when performing that task or in that environment (regardless of whether the claimant was self-employed at the date on which the personal injury is regarded as having been suffered).” There must be simpler language to use to explain what I think that means. It sounds pretty damn complex to me. I guarantee that the average guy out in Kiwiland will say: “What the dickens is that telling me?”. It is not going to the select committee and nobody in the Chamber has spoken about it so I ask the Minister—who is an expert when it comes to accident compensation matters and understands the legislation inside out and back to front—to please take the time to give the Committee an explanation. 
In terms of the Greens’ amendments New Zealand First is particularly pleased with their amendment to clause 13. They want to omit from section 32(2) paragraph (c)—“personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision:”. If we are really to address medical misadventure it seems to me that if a person goes to a hospital and is told that he or she cannot be treated because the hospital does not have the money to do so and the person then gets worse he or she is entitled to be compensated. My colleague Barbara Stewart raised that in the first instance and the Greens took it up and came up with their amendment which deletes that paragraph from the bill. 
Judy Turner 
: All illness is under ACC. 
PETER BROWN 
: No no no. This is the case where a person who is ill and in need of treatment goes to a doctor and is told that there is not enough money for the doctor to treat him or her right then. The amendment deletes a paragraph in the bill to ensure that that person will be covered by medical misadventure. It is a legitimate concern. I know that ACT will not agree with it because it will cost a bit of money. But it is a fair issue that needs tidying up. 
Judy Turner 
: Does an illness become an injury? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am taking on the whole Committee here; it is like question time in reverse! It is medical misadventure in so far as it is embraced in the main legislation under medical misadventure provisions. The Government in its wisdom—[ 
Interruption 
] The Government got it wrong? We are saying that the Government did get it wrong— 
Steve Chadwick 
: They have gone—medical misadventure. 
PETER BROWN 
: But there is a provision in the bill that states those people will not be entitled to compensation and that should be addressed.