Dyson Ruth: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9286] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 The member who just resumed his seat David Bennett talked about ensuring that accident compensation will be there for injured New Zealanders. That is a good aspiration and I am pleased that the member spoke about that. What the member did not add to his great vision for the security of accident compensation in the future was “except if people have a work-induced hearing loss of less than 6 percent” because that is now a “gone-burger”. 
If workers are injured before they have used up all their holidays their holiday pay is a “gone-burger”. This bill takes away support for seasonal workers who make the foolish mistake of getting injured early in the season instead of later in the season. The same is true for part-time workers and those in middle or high income jobs who are injured and want the dignity of returning to a job where they can earn about the same as they used to. Their support is gone under this legislation. If one is a family member of someone who is so inconsiderate that he or she takes their own life then support for that family has gone as well. 
This Parliament in the third reading of this bill doctored by Dr Nick Smith will now make a moral judgment that the family of a person who dies in a plane crash a train crash or on the road or from any other injury is more worthy of support than the family member of someone who takes his or her own life. It will make a moral judgment about the value to that family of a person’s life. The person is still dead. The family still has to pay for the funeral. The family will not have that income coming into their home. The person is dead. 
The fact that the person took his or her own life actually makes it harder for the family. Most members in this House will know a family where one member has taken his or her own life. Most of us will have had that sort of experience. The family is often overwhelmed with grief as well as guilt because on a daily basis they think that something they may have done differently could have altered the decision of that person to take his or her own life. But let us not worry about that says David Bennett. Let us punish them again by not giving them any support for the funeral and not giving them any support for the lost income. So the wonderful words— 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Have you calculated the $9 million for physiotherapy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: What was that noise from the grave? Oh sorry it was Sir Roger Douglas—the ghost of a lot of things past is still giving the same speeches. 
It is very interesting to hear all the scaremongering that goes on about how much money the accident compensation scheme has lost how much money it needs and how the rate of claimants’ costs has exploded. But Nick Smith never once mentioned the substantial change in the funding need the substantial levy reductions that would be caused by one alteration—that is extending the date for full funding. 
One alteration was actually all that was needed. David Parker had a member’s bill before the House. The Government could have adopted David Parker’s member’s bill and we would not have needed to slash the entitlement of people who have hearing loss people who have saved up their holidays people who are seasonal workers and people who are family members of someone who has taken his or her own life. None of that would have been necessary. 
The Minister has been caught out so many times with his half-truths about the accident compensation scheme being broke bankrupt and unsustainable that nobody believes it any more. He was also caught out when he said that motorcycle injury numbers have ballooned. Apparently just about everyone in New Zealand who rode a motorcycle was falling off and breaking something. Apparently they were all damaging themselves. 
At the end of my speech I will seek leave to table those figures but I tell the House that despite the increase in the number of motorcycles between 1973 and 2009—an increase of half again—the number of injuries between those dates went from 551 in 1973 to 86 in 2009 per 10000 on-road motorcycles. Those are the numbers: 551 in 1973 and 86 in 2009. The Minister looks as though he is trying to swallow his tongue; he has gone suddenly quiet. The number of fatalities went from 17 in 1973 to just under 4½. How can those numbers justify what Dr Smith told motorbike riders around the country? 
Those are the facts—as opposed to what Dr Smith was telling people—in the same way that the select committee report on the bill gives us facts about the comparative costs with the accident compensation equivalent in Australia. The figures have been adjusted to look at the differences in the schemes—what the cover is. So these are apples with apples comparisons. The South Australian cost per $100 in Australian earnings is $3.14 in New South Wales it is $1.94 and in Western Australia it is $1.51. The Australian average—an apples with apples comparison—as reported back by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee including the National members— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What year? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The year 2006-07. The Minister should have read the report. The Australian average is $1.72 and what is the New Zealand rate? It is 94c. PricewaterhouseCoopers a reasonably well-regarded organisation said that the New Zealand scheme was more efficient than any other scheme in the world. So the system is not broke. 
So what do we have in this legislation to consider? We have a bill that means people will now be paying more in their levies—employers and individuals—and they will get less because this bill is about cuts. We now have a new threshold that people have to reach for hearing loss in their workplace before they will get any accident compensation cover and support. A hearing loss of 6 percent is a big hearing loss actually. It does not mean that someone can hear 94 percent of things. It is a significant loss as the select committee heard and described to the House. But if someone has a hearing loss of 6 percent or less that is bad luck. So it is now all right for employers to injure their workers just a little bit as long as it is not more than 6 percent. This is an arbitrary figure and it is crazy. 
The vocational independence work capacity test has been absolutely gutted. There is no consideration of the person’s pre-injury earning capacity no consideration that the person needs to be able to work 35 hours a week rather than 30 and no consideration of the fact that he or she should have a real job to go to. The person who has been injured should have the dignity of a real job entitlement. 
Seasonal workers need to plan for their injury to occur during the later part of the season because if they get injured at the beginning then their non-work time prior to their starting the job is counted—no earnings less money. That is just a disgrace. It is bad luck for people who get injured and have holidays owing to them. If they have not taken some holidays and were looking forward to taking them in 3 or 4 months time it is bad luck for them. They will have to use up their holiday pay before they are entitled to accident compensation. 
So this bill is full of cuts despite the fact that all of us are facing accident compensation levy hikes this year. This is absolutely about paying more and getting less. The reason I am so angry about this legislation is twofold. First of all it is not necessary. The Minister has misrepresented the facts of the situation in order to justify major changes to entitlements. But the stronger reason for me is that this is about real people. It is about real people who have been injured. 
During the Committee stage I talked about one of my constituents whose family I have worked with a lot and I know that they will be devastated by this. The constituent I mentioned earlier in the debate was Jason Gibson who was a 29-year-old spray painter. He loved his job he loved his wife he loved his parents and he loved his little daughter. He went to his parents’ home one day and said he had hay fever - like symptoms and had had a nosebleed the day before. His father recommended that he have a blood test because as a painter he might have lead poisoning. Six days later Jason died from leukaemia caused by inhaling the solvents at his work. Injury prevention high-quality rehabilitation and compensation should be the focus not cuts.