Curran Clare: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Curran Clare: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9168] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I will take a call on this bill to express my disgust and disappointment with the Government. I felt sick tonight sitting here in the Chamber listening to some of the comments from the other side especially from the ACT member David Garrett. Would it not be good to be standing here tonight talking about legislation that is actually going to make things better not worse for New Zealanders? I am proud of our accident compensation system. It is not broke; it has $11 billion in reserve. But we have had countless spurious attacks on its robustness and its credibility in the name ultimately of privatisation. New Zealanders will get less cover and pay more and it is unfair. Members have heard tonight countless times from members on this side of the Chamber how inhumane and lacking in compassion it is. We have heard lots of passion from the other side of the House but no compassion. It is unfair for the vast numbers of New Zealanders— 
David Garrett 
: Put it on the record: you’re compassionate about Graeme Burton. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague during her speech but the ACT member despite his closeness to the Minister of Justice should not have moved to the National front bench to interject on my colleague when he belongs a bit further back in the scheme of things. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a fair point. I think the member by shifting to his own seat with his drink has taken that on board. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I am talking tonight about the vast numbers of New Zealanders who will be disadvantaged by this legislation this cruel and inhumane legislation that lacks compassion. It is hostile to decent people who expect more from their Government. As members have heard countless times from this side of the Chamber this bill will make our accident compensation system worse not better. It will shift more of the costs of being injured on to the injured person and the State thus eroding the protection of New Zealanders who are injured at work despite the costs of accident compensation to employers already being substantially lower than those paid by Australian employers as members have just heard my colleague Chris Hipkins talk about. 
The case for cuts to entitlements is not made out and members on the Labour side of this Chamber believe that the recent increase in the liabilities of the scheme are being used by the Government as an excuse for unjustified cuts to the accident compensation scheme and ultimately for its privatisation. Most costs saved by the corporation will not go away; they will be passed on to the health system to the injured and their families and to other State agencies. 
I would like to reflect on something I heard my fellow Dunedin MP a list member for Dunedin Michael Woodhouse talking about authoritatively as an accountant. I have to say that I was very disappointed in hearing what he had to say tonight and I say to him that ultimately he will be accountable on that in Dunedin particularly. Countless New Zealanders have relied on accident compensation to re-enter the workforce; it is part of the fabric of our society. It works yet this Government is eroding and destroying it. Michael Woodhouse who is a new member as I am in this Parliament will be accountable on this and I wonder how many of the Dunedin constituents who might be listening to this debate tonight at 10 to 10 at night will be wondering what on earth is happening to this country: waterside workers railway workers labourers—people who do hard manual labour and who have accidents and who are the backbone of the New Zealand workforce. I wonder what they are thinking tonight when they are listening to this debate. 
I will address Part 1 and talk about the issue about being deemed ready to work at 30 hours a week rather than 35 hours a week. Labour members do not believe that that cut is justified. Most full-time workers work more than 35 hours a week and most need income based on those hours to meet their living costs. Deeming an injured person vocationally independent when he or she is physically able to work 30 hours a week—which could trigger an end to earnings-related compensation—rather than 35 hours a week is unfair and will cause hardship to more injured people. 
The current rules as the Labour minority report says are strict and deeming people to be ready to work does not mean that they can get a job. As the minority report by Labour refers to there has been a study by Hazel Armstrong published in the  
New Zealand Law Review 
 that showed that under the current rules only 32 percent of the long-term injured deemed work-ready were in full-time work. Twenty-one percent were in part-time work 22.5 percent were on a Work and Income New Zealand benefit 10 percent were not working but were not on a benefit and 9 percent remained on a weekly compensation payment. The author Hazel Armstrong said that those figures demonstrated her point that high exit rates are not the same as high return to work rates. That has implications for the State because many workers put through the process do not return to work but are simply shifted from weekly compensation to Work and Income benefits. So the change to make this rule even tougher will reduce employer levies which are already lower than overseas but will do so at the cost of both the injured person and the State. 
We have heard countless examples tonight that this bill will make things harder and will leave the vast majority of New Zealanders worse off not better. As I said at the beginning this bill is very disappointing. I have listened tonight to the debate from the other side of the Chamber with some disgust. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to.