Katene Rahui: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9283] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The purpose of the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill is stated as seeking to improve flexibility in the accident compensation scheme. Flexibility is a wonderful thing. The definition of “flexibility” is “to increase movement with a bit of stretching”. Although physical flexibility may well be part of an effective accident compensation rehabilitation scheme the only stretching this bill appears to indulge in is stretching the truth. For in improving flexibility the bill is actually reducing entitlements and Crown costs which will in turn decrease access to accident compensation cover and lower the compensation for vulnerable populations. 
We in the Maori Party always say that our past informs our present. Two years ago in 2008 the Maori Party supported the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) which improved access and entitlements to compensation for some disenfranchised groups. These groups were itemised as seasonal casual workers those in non-standard work those mentally injured by trauma those between work and young people who are injured. The responsibility to support all of these groups of vulnerable citizens is repealed today in the third reading of this bill. 
Although the context provided for the bill is to make accident compensation affordable and fair the changes will disproportionately impact on vulnerable workers and low-income families as the bill decreases access to cover and decreases the level of compensation to these claimants. We are on the record as supporting the right of all of these groups to receive entitlement to compensation and cover. We are hardly likely to turn round and renege on that support a couple of years on. But I think we cannot go any further into this debate without looking even further back into history at the very foundations of the scheme. Submitters from the Human Rights Commission went to the select committee and reminded Parliament of the origins of accident compensation as “a form of social insurance”. They discussed the original scheme as being “a trade-off between the right to sue for compensatory damages and comprehensive no-fault cover in the event of an accident.” 
As other speakers have noted the accident compensation scheme was established following a 1967 royal commission into workers’ compensation in New Zealand. The royal commission was established to address the inadequacy of workers’ compensation benefits as well as other anomalies around coverage. The report produced by the commission known as the Woodhouse report recommended replacing tort liability for personal injury with a new universal 24-hour no-fault approach to compensation and services to the injured. The Woodhouse principles remain important today: community responsibility comprehensive entitlement complete rehabilitation fair and real compensation and administrative efficiency. Some 40 years after the accident compensation scheme was introduced it is impressive that a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers on a review of it concluded that “the current ACC scheme is consistent with the Woodhouse Principles”. But the report went even further. It suggested that the scheme adds considerable value to New Zealand society and the economy and performs comparatively well internationally. In fact in the last 10 years the investment team of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has been one of the top performers and has outperformed even the Cullen fund at far less the cost of fund managers. 
I remind the House of our policy position on accident compensation. The Maori Party supports the right of employees to be treated fairly and with dignity and their right to a safe and healthy workplace. Our interest is in holding employers accountable for preventable workplace-related deaths and injury. Indeed one of the members’ bills we have developed is a corporate manslaughter bill. This bill is based on similar innovative legislation in the United Kingdom the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which has been described as a landmark in law. In the UK companies and organisations can now be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of the duty of care. 
Why would we put up such a bill? Quite frankly there has been a widespread acknowledgment in recent years that New Zealand has a serious problem to deal with. New Zealand sits in the 23rd position in the league table of fatal accident rates with much higher rates than the best countries. In fact in a 2005 survey of the annual reports of 100 large companies for the Department of Labour the following deficiencies were noted despite 13 years since the enactment of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. Only 30 percent of companies reported having arrangements for consulting employees on health and safety and only 15 percent of the companies mentioned setting targets in health and safety. So there are big issues around the very concept of injury prevention that need to be addressed. 
Of course a major one for the Maori Party is the fact that access for Maori has been consistently lower than for other groups. The data available demonstrates that Maori receive treatment at a lower level than non-Maori and where services are accessed they are accessed later and programmes are exited earlier. Even though ACC undertook initiatives to improve access through information programmes and better engagement with Maori communities these programmes have not demonstrated sufficient success to close the delivery gap. 
We have raised previously the fact that Maori are disproportionately involved in very dangerous occupations such as forestry roadworks construction etc. Our biggest fear about the possibility of privatisation is that private insurance companies would make the insurance premium higher than the current accident compensation levies especially for dangerous jobs because of the high possibility of getting hurt. The insurance premium would more than likely be too high for Maori to be motivated to take out that insurance. Then there is the problem of going to court as insurance companies continually try to go to court to try to resist making insurance payouts. The changes will then place the onus on the taxpayer to go out and find an insurance policy that will meet their particular needs—a change that I think would not be at all beneficial for the Maori community. In short transforming the levy into a premium will simply not give us as the advertisements say the peace of mind. 
Finally the Maori Party came to this bill conscious of a large range of concerns that had come in from our constituents. We were approached about opposition to increased levies especially from motorcyclists to sexual abuse compensation rules and to a threshold of 6 percent hearing loss before people are entitled to assistance with hearing aids. There were also concerns over privatisation and reduced coverage. Although many changes might seem to be minor the cumulative effect will undermine the concept of accident compensation as it is currently understood. Over and above all these changes we know that injury is the leading cause of death for Maori for the first three decades of life. Maori are over-represented in injury statistics across all age groups and in employment and sports. Most of these injuries are preventable. As Dr John Broughton reported in his 1999 report  
Injury to Maori: Does it really have to be like this? 
: “Although the frond will eventually die it need not wither or die so soon or before its time.” There are far too many issues associated with a full and comprehensive injury prevention scheme to approve the changes put forward in this bill. We must oppose this third reading.