Mackey Moana: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9125] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call in response to some of the comments of the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He said in his first call on the Committee stage of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill that he really wanted to have a proper debate about this legislation. I say to the Minister for ACC that if he is genuine about that then he should stop misrepresenting what Labour members have said and believe and he should stop misrepresenting the information that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was given. If he is genuine about having a proper debate about accident compensation then he needs to tone down his hyperbole and his rhetoric. I say to that Minister that if the only way he can make his arguments is by misrepresentation and exaggeration then he has to seriously question how strong his arguments are. That is all I have heard from that Minister and it is disappointing. It is very disappointing because this bill is immense in its impact on New Zealanders and on their families. 
I find it incredibly offensive when David Bennett and the Minister in the chair get to their feet and say that Labour likes criminals that it thinks that criminals should get a free ride and that it thinks that criminals should have all their accident compensation paid for. The Minister knows that that is not true. In fact he read out the part of Labour’s minority view attached to the bill in which we said we do not believe that Graeme Burton should have received that funding that there is a problem and that it is up to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to take action if it believes that that is appropriate. It is not up to the Minister and the Minister knows that. He accused Maryan Street of not stopping that happening when he knows full well that she did not have the power to do that when she was the Minister for ACC. Again I say to the Hon Nick Smith that if he has to misrepresent the law to that extent then that throws into doubt his credibility and his arguments. 
ACC has the power to disentitle people now—it does. And if there are reasons why the corporation is not doing that then the Minister should find out what those reasons are. As the corporation has said sometimes it does not know whether those people have been convicted. It does not know if they have been found guilty. It assumes they are innocent until proven guilty. If there is a problem with information sharing then the Minister should address that and Labour members have said they would support his action. But the Minister should not introduce— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s in the bill. No you’re opposing it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I tell the Minister we are opposing everything else in this Draconian legislation but I say there is no need to go that far. 
The Minister talks about Graeme Burton. I want to take the debate back down to the other end of the scale and ask the Minister about people who face large fines and reparation. Under the Minister’s legislation wealthy people who can pay those do not lose their entitlements. But they have done the same thing as poor people who cannot pay and who have had to go to prison. Wealthy people who can pay their way out of that are not disentitled but poor people who have had to go to prison because they do not have the money to just pay the fine or reparation are disentitled. I ask the Minister how that is fair. How is it fair that someone who can pay that is not disentitled and someone who cannot pay it is for exactly the same offence? Let us be clear: when we are talking about this we are not only talking about the Graeme Burtons of the world. Most people agree that it would have been an appropriate action to have him disentitled for that. 
But we are talking about someone who is driving home from work after working three shifts who is really really tired so should not be driving and who causes an accident that harms someone else and harms himself or herself in the process. That person would be disentitled and his or her family would be disentitled. But someone who does a stupid manoeuvre on the road and overtakes unsafely—[ 
Interruption 
]—they would be disentitled I say to the Minister. Under his law they would be. But people overtake unsafely they speed and they cause an accident. It is wrong it is bad and they should not do it but those are also the people we are talking about. We are not just— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s not true. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: You see this is what worries me—what I am saying is absolutely true but the Minister is just shaking his head and saying that it is not true. What concerns me about the approach of this Minister—and he knows what he is talking about—is that this is not someone who is not intelligent. This is an intelligent Minister who knows that what I am saying is right. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Really? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes; he is intelligent. But— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Makes a change for ACC. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Right. Well Mr Woodhouse has decided that what I am saying is not appropriate enough or relevant enough for him to take seriously. He has just said that David Parker and Maryan Street are not intelligent. I thank Mr Woodhouse for his contribution to the debate—stellar as usual! 
I am trying to say that this Minister knows that what I am saying is true. Under his legislation such people would be disentitled because their offence can result in a sentence of 2 years or more. They would be disentitled; their families would be disentitled. We will point out the section to the Minister where that clause is. So if a worker causes an accident and harms someone when driving home when really tired because that person works three jobs and should not be driving then he or she is disentitled.