Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16643] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened intently to the member who has just resumed his seat because I know that when he was the National spokesperson on accident compensation he shared the concerns about accident victims that New Zealand First had. He had a good deal more compassion then than he displayed in that contribution. He spoke about the “reality”. Well the reality is that there are accident victims in our society they are hurting and they are not being looked after well enough. This bill goes some way towards addressing those issues. I have to say to the honourable member who has just resumed his seat that it is much better and of a much clearer cleaner conscience for us if we put a value on looking after accident victims as against putting a dollar value on paying for their circumstances. The member started his contribution by giving the clear impression that the dollar was much more important than the people it was paid out to. 
Ron Mark 
: Typical National. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have to say that in the way that that party is going it is becoming typical National. 
David Bennett 
: Oh get over it Peter. 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member David Bennett raised his voice there; I heard the melodious tones. But I say to that member that I guarantee he supports private insurers. I guarantee it. I have noted his attitude in this House and at the select committee and he would like workplace compensation and compensation paid for and funded by private insurers. I tell the member that this bill is about coverage and entitlements and the private insurers would go along with this. 
David Bennett 
: Think about it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member sits there harping on but private insurers have told me they will give better coverage than accident compensation. They would embrace all of this willingly. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s exactly right— 
PETER BROWN 
: The member Wayne Mapp acknowledges that but he takes exception because the Accident Compensation Corporation has the monopoly. Well we say loud and clear to Mr Mapp that we have an accident compensation system in this country to cover accident victims and we want it to be as good for the accident victims as we possibly can make it. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to that member who is yelling and screaming that he would not be able to put two two two words together to make sense out of this bill. 
David Bennett 
: Toot toot toot! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member sits there making a joke but I am sure he was on the select committee when a train driver came before the committee to outline his concerns about an accident and its effects on him. 
David Bennett 
: Why don’t you make it retrospective then? 
PETER BROWN 
: Would the member support that? We will put a Supplementary Order Paper up if the National Party tells us it will support it. There is silence. We will put up a Supplementary Order Paper if the member will say he will support it. We will make it retrospective. Even Labour is thinking about it. I ask him to give us an answer about whether he would support a Supplementary Order Paper from us to make it retrospective. Will he support it? I think the answer is no. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will your mates support it? 
PETER BROWN 
: I got more of an indication from them than from National members who are asking me to make it retrospective. I think anybody in this Parliament would have been moved had he or she sat in the select committee when that train driver made a submission. It brought water to my eyes. That is the only way I can describe it. I felt the moisture not only coming out of my eyes but running down my cheeks. I am not a man who easily succumbs to that sort of thing. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Oh yes you are. You’re a softie. 
PETER BROWN 
: I see my old accident compensation colleague there Paul Hutchison interjecting. I guarantee he would have been taken aback by this man’s submission. He spoke genuinely and he outlined the circumstances. It was actually a very sad event that he witnessed. In fact it was more than one event that he witnessed. It is only right and proper that a system like accident compensation covers individuals like him. [ 
Interruption 
] We are doing our best to do that I say to Mr Bennett. 
The other point I would like to make is that this bill goes some way towards giving coverage—if that is the right word—to people who are aged over 65 and who are currently in the workforce. Currently 12 percent or thereabouts of New Zealanders are over 65 and many of them work. That percentage will increase as time goes on. We are an ageing population and I think that figure is forecast to reach 25 percent by the year 2050. More and more of those New Zealanders will be required or need to work not only for their own advancement but more important to provide the essential services that New Zealanders require. This bill does not go far enough in addressing the concerns of those folk. 
Age Concern has put in a brilliant submission and I am disappointed that my Labour Party colleagues could not take it on board to give it a little more thought and consideration. I know that it touched them but they stuck with the basic clauses in the bill. 
This is an issue that sooner or later we parliamentarians will have to face. We have an ageing population and we need more and more of those people to work to continue working and to do essential tasks and we need to give them better accident compensation cover. I can recall a nurse coming to see me. She was well into her 70s although one would not have thought it to look at her. She was a night nurse and had had an accident caused by lifting patients in the middle of the night. The accident put her off work. She was covered by accident compensation and was told she needed to be operated on. I think the accident affected her knee. She did not make the recovery from the operation in the short term that she was expected to and was left high and dry on superannuation. As we well know people who are over 65 in that situation get either one or the other. If they get accident compensation they do not get superannuation. It is one or the other. It does not apply to anybody else in society but if one is over 65—I think there is a year’s running in—then it is one or the other. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No one can actually get superannuation other than people over 65. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is exactly right but other people can get an income from other sources and it does not get stopped. The point I am making is that these people paid their taxes to get superannuation and they paid their premiums to cover them against accidents and their employers paid their premiums to get accident compensation yet in our wisdom we stop one or the other. We give people over 65 the choice. We tell them they can have this or they can have that. That is not fair. People pay tax levies and what have you to get entitlements and that is not fair. I think Wayne Mapp is suddenly beginning to agree with me. I made a technical mistake but he is recognising that the principle I am outlining now is correct. I just say to Mr Mapp that he has no hope in respect of his colleague David Bennett at the back. He needs to take him aside and give him some good solid political education. There is no hope for the guy. He is an accident victim in his own self. 
New Zealand First is quite pleased with this bill—not totally pleased but we will be supporting it all the way.