Robertson Grant: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Robertson Grant: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9194] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I thank the Chair for giving me the call on this occasion; I know it was a tough choice with such an admirable team here ready to take the fight to the National Government on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. 
I will speak about the transitional provisions in Part 2 particularly those relating to compensation for earnings and holiday pay. However I want to make reference to an interjection we heard from Sir Roger Douglas when Annette King was saying that the bill is going through with ACT’s support. We need to take ourselves back in this debate and remember that the ACT Party supports this bill on the condition that the scheme moves towards privatisation. Sir Roger can correct me if he likes but that is the ACT Party’s reason for supporting this bill—that the scheme move towards privatisation. Sir Roger just said the bill does not go far enough yet but clearly that is the reason why ACT supports this bill. Clearly National’s direction must be towards privatisation because that is why the ACT Party is supporting the bill. The Maori Party is not supporting this bill. Its members have said today in the Chamber that they are not supporting this bill and I am sure that is because they believe that National is going towards privatisation. The ACT Party is leading National here saying that it will go with National as long as it goes in the direction of privatisation. That agenda is what lies behind this bill. 
Hon Annette King 
: Peter Dunne will go where he can. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well we do not know what Peter Dunne will do but I am sure there will be a ministerial job at the end of it whatever it is. 
In Part 2 we see the essence of the unfairness of this bill particularly in respect of compensation for earnings. I refer back to the original principles of the Woodhouse commission which established the accident compensation scheme and in particular to the principle of real compensation. I will read out what the commission said. It observed that modern households have several financial commitments that “do not disappear conveniently if one of the hazards of modern life suddenly produces physical misfortune.” We can understand that. Financial commitments do not go away. We all know that. We all know about the fixed costs that we have in our lives and need to meet. In particular people who are on lower incomes and people who undertake seasonal work have to work very very hard to manage their budgets to know they will be able to handle things if something comes along. 
When New Zealanders accepted the Woodhouse report and when the accident compensation scheme was put in place they entered into a social contract that said: “We’re not going to sue we’re not going to do anything that’s litigious because we accept that the scheme will look after us 24-hour no-fault.” The commission went on to say that a social compensation system “should rest upon a realistic assessment of actual loss both physical and economic followed by a shifting of that loss”—and these are the important words—“on a suitably generous basis.” The figure of 80 percent for earnings-related compensation was designed to offer real compensation and to take into account those words but to leave a proportion of the loss with the injured person in order to encourage personal initiative. We can understand that. We have supported that system over a long period of time. Well under this bill that system is completely and utterly undermined. The transitional provisions that we see here will undermine that principle for a number of workers. 
We are returning to the position before the 2008 amendment when weekly compensation for non-permanent employees would be averaged out to reflect the fact that had they not been injured they would have expected periods of earnings and non-earnings over a 12-month period. So for people in casual employment or in employment where they are not certain of their futures their compensation will be divided over a full 12-month period. That is unfair and unjust. National members opposite need to stand up and say why they are putting forward a bill that increases unfairness. Most of us in the House have come here because we want New Zealand to be a fair place yet we have before us legislation that manifestly increases unfairness. 
In the Council of Trade Union’s submission to the committee it cited an interesting example of people who will be treated unfairly as a result of the clauses we are debating here. I will read out the example it gave. A woman who has been financially dependent on her husband for most of the year undertakes some seasonal work and is severely injured on the fourth week of the job. Her earnings of $450 per week for the 4 weeks of her job is divided by 52 weeks. At 80 percent that means that her weekly compensation will be $27. How is that fair? How is it fair that somebody in that situation will have his or her earnings divided over the course of a whole year? 
The process whereby an employee is categorised as non-permanent is also completely arbitrary under these new changes. It essentially requires the Accident Compensation Corporation to make a guess as to how long the employee might have continued working over the 12-month period. This provision is another unfairness another way in which the principle of real compensation brought forward by Owen Woodhouse as part of the social contract is being undermined by this bill. 
I want to look at the key principle of community responsibility. Society accepts that we have a responsibility for those who have been hurt through no fault of their own. Annette King talked about people who have suffered hearing loss not because of something they themselves have done but because of doing jobs that many people in this Chamber would not want to do like jobs in heavy industry. Michael Woodhouse who has lectured us today about the accident compensation scheme would not want to do those jobs but I am sure he knows many people in Dunedin who do those jobs many of whom I am sure he has worked alongside in the past. They have done those kinds of jobs and as a community— 
Hon Member 
: Not alongside. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Not alongside. Perhaps he knew some of them. He probably refereed them when they were playing rugby. But that community responsibility is undermined if we say to those people: “We don’t think you are worth it. We think you’re worth $27 a week. That’s what we think you’re worth.” 
Hon Annette King 
: And no hearing aid. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right; as Annette King says no hearing aid. So that principle of the Woodhouse commission is totally undermined. 
I want to raise the issue of holiday pay which is dealt with in clause 58. Treasury has pointed out that the provision saves only $1 million but it is incredibly unfair to those who have already earned holiday pay but have been unlucky enough not to have actually used it. Let us look at two workers with different circumstances at the time they have an accident: one worker is up to date and has not accrued any holiday pay and the other worker is owed 4 weeks’ holiday pay. Under clause 58 both workers are treated completely differently and that is manifestly unfair. Labour members have asked members opposite over and over again to tell us why they support something that is so manifestly unfair. The bill requires holiday pay including holiday pay accrued before an injury to be counted and abated against weekly compensation. That will result in manifest unfairness right across New Zealand. 
Every constituency member in this House will have had people come to them to talk about the unfairness of the accident compensation scheme. Someone came to me on Friday with exactly that problem. He was unable to work out what the bill would mean for him was dealing with difficulties at the moment and was scared about the future and that of his family. For a bill to come before the House that puts people in that position is shameful for National members. They should be prepared to take a call on the clauses that put into practice the unfairness around compensation for hours lost and around holiday pay. Yet we have failed to see that from any member. I would like to see the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister for ACC take at least one call this morning to defend the bill. We know how much she loves talking in the Chamber but we have not heard her today. 
This bill is unfair and unjust and Labour will continue to oppose it and ask National for answers.