Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7685. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The purpose of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill was not obvious from the contribution of the member who spoke previously so I would like to outline it. 
The bill aims to do two things. The first is to amalgamate the two accounts that cover injuries incurred during a person’s work—the current self-employed work account and the employers’ account—and to rename the combined account the work account. It covers all injuries that occur at work. It may sound quite obvious that we have one account to cover all injuries that occur at work and certainly some people have asked me over the last few months why we have two separate accounts. The reason is very clear and it should be obvious to members who were in the House in the 1990s. That excludes the members who are currently interjecting; they may not know. In 1998 when the then National-led Government privatised accident compensation its funding mates the insurance industry of New Zealand did not want to take on liability and responsibility for the self-employed because there were too many of them to deal with in one go. So in order to have a compulsory privatisation of the employers’ account National had to separate the self-employed work account and the employers’ account. That is why they were separated. It was for no principled reason but solely for the purpose of privatisation. The insurance industry did not want to cover the self-employed because there are so many of them and it involves a lot of administration. 
But would a self-employed plumber who is doing his or her job every day on looking down the road and seeing a person who is employed as a plumber reflect to himself or herself that the two people may be paying the same levies because they are exposed to the same risk? In fact they may be doing literally the same job on the same site but have a different business structure. The answer is overwhelmingly yes. This is a very basic issue of fairness. If two people are doing exactly the same job and are exposed to exactly the same amount of risk why would they be insurance risked on the basis of their business structure rather than their literal exposure to risk? The answer is that they should not be and this bill fixes that. We are calling it a work account because that is what it is. It would be very cumbersome to call it the employers’ and the self-employed work injury account so we are calling it the work account. That is the first thing that this bill does. 
The second thing is that the bill replaces the old term “medical misadventure” with “treatment injury”. I want to acknowledge the concerns raised by New Zealand First during the consideration of this bill. We have moved away from a system that in the past under previous accident compensation legislation required people who were injured at the hands of a health provider—at the doctor’s at the chiropractor’s at the physiotherapist’s or in the surgery—either to show fault from the health provider or to demonstrate that their injury was both rare and severe. We changed that in the last amendment bill but we did not change the name of the account. The name of the account which is still the medical misadventure account does not reflect the actual practice which is to treat all injuries regardless of where they occur as injuries and to investigate their circumstances separately. 
The concerns that New Zealand First raised through Peter Brown were that we must not through this change of name in this amendment bill lose the focus of the quality assurance contribution to the health system that the old medical misadventure system provided and that the new treatment injury system is designed to ensure as well. So I give the whole Committee but particularly New Zealand First my commitment that the change in clause 12 will not in any way undermine the quality assurance contribution that we need to make through being able to investigate the causes of injury at the hands of a health provider. 
There are two amendments in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to this part and I would like to make a brief contribution in reference to them. Dr Hutchison is a very considerate and considering member despite the fact that he represents the National Party. I have given what I consider to be serious consideration to his amendments. I regret to advise upfront that although I will not be recommending support of them I do believe in the principle in them—he will persist in using the word “premiums” when the word is “levies”—and I have taken them very seriously. 
Dr Hutchison’s first amendment proposes to insert in clause 11 a new section 175A “Independent auditing of proposed premiums”. Independent auditing already occurs; it is available under the Official Information Act. It is my view that people should not have to go through that process and that to have the very information the member is seeking made public would be a very valuable contribution. But I am not convinced because the member did not discuss it with me—and that would have been a good and thoughtful move—that that needs to be provided for by an amendment to the legislation. A handwritten amendment with no consideration has still had good consideration from me. I give the member a commitment that that information will be available on the Accident Compensation Corporation website and that he will not require his legislative change in order for that to be done. It is a thoughtful contribution and I think it will help businesses—both the self-employed and people in different business structures—to assess how their levies were determined and to look at their business planning. I am very keen on that. 
In the same way in relation to the member’s other recommended amendment to clause 11 to insert new section 175B “Provision of forecast statement of financial performance” I say that that information is currently provided to me and I would like to consider some way in which we can better have a quality debate in the public arena so that people do understand the basis on which their levies have been set. They might not wake up in the morning and say: “Yippee! I am very pleased that I have to pay this contribution for potential injuries.” But they will have a very in-depth understanding of the analysis that has gone on behind the setting of their levy and hopefully an understanding also of the main driver of this legislation which is to lower their levies by lowering their injury rates. If they better understand the link between the injuries that are incurred and costs then perhaps we will have a little more commitment to injury prevention. 
On that basis I regret that I will be recommending to my colleagues that Dr Hutcheson’s amendments are not supported. But he can take credit for the consideration behind them and be assured that their intention will be implemented. 
David Bennett 
: Hollow words. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I deeply resent the implication in David Bennett’s interjection. I take offence at it and I ask that you ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister has taken offence at the member’s words. I ask the member to withdraw them. 
David Bennett 
: I withdraw and apologise.