Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. Can I first express my solidarity with my comrade and also colleague Kiritapu Allan. The first day I arrived in this House as an elected MP on the Monday after the election I could see the media gathered outside and I literally felt like turning away and going back home because I was just so scared. Kiri was the one who welcomed me and I will never forget the hug that she gave me and the few words that she said to me that really eased the pressure and also the stress. So I know that she is a woman of steel spirit and I have no doubt she will come back stronger and healthier to us.In regard to this bill the proposed amendment to the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to require ACC to inform the employer and the employee of the decisions in respect of aggravation or re-injury of a work-related injury and provide for a review by the employer of the decision creates significant issues. This bill seeks unreasonably to overturn a fair process that exists now by extending employer review rights with no compelling basis. The rationale for this is that although the employers are not liable to pay entitlements to claimants decisions on entitlements may affect an employer's claim history and the experience rating for ACC levy purposes and so they should be able to challenge it. This is absurd to say the least because the levies are adjusted based on the performance of the employer and the ability to reduce a work levy by preventing injuries at work and helping injured employees recover and get back to work sooner is an incentivising process to create a more productive work environment.So the work levy employers pay protects and insures their most value asset which is their employees. It also goes towards helping prevent these accidents from happening over and over and in the first place as well. There is no real incentive to support this bill other than unfairly tipping the ACC process towards employers and infringing on claimant rights. We know that the no-fault of the scheme protects employers from the risk of litigation. We know the employers are already notified of and can review covered decisions on a work-related injury. This bill also seeks to reduce the effectiveness of ACC's review system by allowing the employers to apply for a review of a decision and significantly increasing the number of ACC decisions which employers can review.The other problem with this bill is the policy intent as my friend Marja Lubeck explained perfectly. There is no consideration for the clear definition for aggravation or re-injury" of a work-related injury in this bill which is funny because by doing that it actually overlooks the main aspect of this bill. So that lack of clarity creates confusion and conflicts. So this bill seems to make entitlement decisions contestable by employers which is another issue. The Act excludes employers already from lodging a review against the entitlement decisions because entitlement decisions are needs based and employers do not have the same interests in a cover. So to me this goes to the heart of the rights of workers. On that note I oppose the continuation of this bill in the House. Thank you."