Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16935] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). Part 1 covers much of the meat of this bill. It includes clause 5 “Cover for personal injury suffered in New Zealand (except mental injury caused by certain criminal acts)”; clause 6 relating to cover for work-related mental injury; clause 7 relating to cover for personal injury suffered outside New Zealand; clause 8 “Personal injury”; clause 9 “Work-related personal injury”; and clause 10 “Personal injury caused by work-related gradual process disease or infection”. 
I can only agree with my excellent colleague Pansy Wong who said that this bill is riddled with inconsistencies and inequities and has a very very loose evidence base on the part of the Government. I was very alarmed when I first read some years ago the report of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Work-related Gradual Process Disease or Infection. Right at the beginning of the report on page 3 is the statement: “The advisory panel recognises that further research is required to fully calculate the cost implications of the advisory panel’s recommendations.” Sadly that statement has just so much come home to roost in reality. 
I am afraid to say this legislation is very typical of this Labour Government which is always prepared to take on some great cause at the drop of a hat but never really looks at the practicalities and realities— 
Pansy Wong 
: So long as somebody else pays. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: —as my colleague Pansy Wong says—as long as someone else pays. It is of huge concern when we look for instance at the cost-benefit analysis of mental injury caused by work-related traumatic event and we see the huge variation. The cost range is estimated to be between $7.6 million and $72.2 million per annum. 
The Labour Government proclaimed 9 years ago that it would lift New Zealand into the top half of the OECD. And what has happened? Very sadly for New Zealand we have fallen down two slots. This is hugely significant for our ability as a country to be able to afford good health good social security and good education services. If indeed the Labour Government had raised New Zealand to the top half of the OECD then we might have been able to afford a much more generous accident compensation system than we have at present. But when we see wild—absolutely wild—estimations from $7.6 million to $72.2 million as in the costs and benefits of this scheme we have to fully realise just how loose this Labour Government has become in its dying days. 
It is not just in this part of the legislation; one could go on to the costs and benefits the Government has estimated for weekly compensation. It has suggested that the indicative full-funded cost per year of the package is between $63 million and $138.6 million. Once again that is a huge variation and can members guess who pays? No one pays other than one group which happens to be those in the work account. The employers and the self-employed have the whole burden of this scheme that the Labour Government has so inappropriately foisted on us.