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:16936] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 When we look at Part 1 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) we see some of the fundamental parts of this legislation that have created a number of problems that previous speakers have identified. The legislation itself as portrayed tries to fill a gap that was left in the system through changes that have occurred over many years. However although the identification of a gap may be relevant the solution proposed in this bill certainly does not provide the comprehensive solution that would be sought if somebody really wanted to cover that gap. 
For example Part 1 talks about the amendments and one of the key components of them in clause 9 concerns the term “work-related personal injury”. The distinction between work-related and non - work-related injury is fundamental to some of the problems that National has with this legislation. Why is it good enough for work-related injury to be covered when non - work-related injury is not? What is the point of difference that the Labour Government sees between people who have encountered a situation that causes an injury and are covered because they are in a work environment and those who are not covered because they are not in a work environment? What gives the Labour Government the ability to determine whether a non - work-related injury should not be covered? What is the fundamental basis that gives it that right? There is none. 
What does Labour care about volunteers—people who go into workplaces and see something go wrong that causes that fundamental injury? Those people are not covered simply because they are not seen as being part of that work environment. I was wondering whether union officials who go into a worksite would be covered. That would be interesting to know would it not? The vast majority of Labour Party supporters might not actually be covered by this legislation. We can imagine the situation that would occur if union officials went into a site experienced some mental injury and were not covered. I sure we would see an amendment from the Labour Government under that circumstance very quickly. I am sure the Minister would like to take a call to explain why her own people will not be covered by this legislation—why the very people who pay for her to sit in that seat will not be covered by this legislation. 
It is a shame that Labour in trying to deal with this issue has made a number of distinctions between the work-related and non - work-related capacity of the person who suffers the injury. It is a distinction that will haunt Labour just like the distinction between those who have suffered the injury in the past and those who suffer the injury in the future. This legislation is based a lot on the personal accounts of people who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and spoke about having encountered mental injury in the past but they will not actually get the benefit of this legislation. This legislation is not retrospective. All the people who brought those heartfelt stories which the members of the committee listened to will not gain anything from this legislation. If Labour was genuine about wanting to have mental injury covered the legislation would have covered not only those who are currently experiencing such injury or those who will experience it in the future but also those genuine cases that came before us—the retrospective cases. That is another distinction that the Government of the day has overlooked when it was doing this legislation. It has looked at what it thought was appropriate to cover; it has not covered what on a policy basis—if it was going to follow through on its policy—it should have totally covered. 
The reason Labour has not provided retrospective cover is that it knows that would be costly. It will cost a lot of money to implement this legislation and it is an unknown cost. It is one of those Labour Party election party promises that we do not actually know the cost of and that Labour does not worry about the cost of because it is an unknown cost in the future. A very small proportion of the cost can be identified and Labour can get away with that. But the real costs that come through will be much higher than that. My colleagues have identified that one of the key concerns with regard to this legislation is that those costs could balloon out to become quite extravagant costs which will be borne by employers with no recompense from the Government.