Boscawen John: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Boscawen John: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9066] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 One of the great advantages of joining the debate later in the piece is the chance to hear the contributions of all the members who spoke earlier. I intend to use most of my speaking time to address the issues raised initially by the Hon Maryan Street. The speakers who succeeded her all raised various issues that I feel I need to comment on to varying degrees. Jackie Blue made the comment that the ACT Party had agreed to support this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill all the way to the third reading. That comment was picked up by Darien Fenton. That is not the case. The ACT Party agreed to support this bill stage by stage and we will be voting for it at the second stage but we are approaching it on a stage-by-stage basis. 
Rahui Katene said that the Maori Party approached bills on a bill-by-bill basis on the basis of supporting them if there was any good coming out of them. I congratulate the Maori Party. I think it is a very good approach to take an open view on issues. Rahui Katene went on to say that the Maori Party was concerned about the impact of this bill on vulnerable people. I believe that the long-term consequences of passing this bill and addressing the issues that affect vulnerable people will be in the best interests of those vulnerable people and of low-income people and she identified Maori in particular. 
Kevin Hague said that the ACT Party salivates like Pavlovian dogs at the thought of privatisation. That is not correct but there is one thing that the ACT Party holds higher than anything and that is competition—competition and choice. It is interesting to note that this morning at the Commerce Committee we heard from Kordia. Kordia is the State-owned enterprise that took over the ownership of Television New Zealand’s masts and antennas. Kordia is looking at the feasibility of building a trans-Tasman telephone cable that would compete with the Southern Cross cable owned by Telecom. Just the very mention of Kordia considering the opening of a second cable was enough for Telecom to offer significantly cheaper prices to some of its wholesale customers. Kordia is a Government-owned organisation and I say to Mr Hague that the most important thing is competition and choice. 
I mention that because we have had competition and choice in accident compensation before. We had it in 1998 and 1999. In the 12 months prior to the 1999 election campaign the work account was open to competition. Some six companies offered accident compensation cover to employers including the only Government-owned accident compensation company At Work Insurance and the effect of that competition and choice was to drive down premiums by 30 percent. That was the effect. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Loss leading. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: People who have tried to discredit that say that it was a loss-leader—exactly. The member is just perpetuating the dishonesty and mistruths. The insurance companies that offered competition and policies in 1998 and 1999 were able to do that at a 30 percent reduction on premiums and they competed very very successfully. It is one of the many tragedies of the previous Labour Government that it came into power promising to abolish that competition and choice and to reinstitute a State monopoly. 
Let me go on to the contribution from Lynne Pillay. She made the point that there was a protest on the forecourt of Parliament on Tuesday— 
David Garrett 
: Twenty-five of them. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I say to Mr Garrett that it was not 25 people; I think it was 200. I am not so sure that Lynne Pillay was there because unless I did not hear her properly I think she said there were 2000. I was there and there were 200 people at best. I cannot speak for National. Lynne Pillay criticised National for not having representatives at the protest. I cannot speak for National but I was there and I was very very interested to hear what those protestors had to say. 
It is interesting also to note that Lynne Pillay talked about it being a numbers game. She said that the Government had the numbers and that it did not matter what the submitters said; the Government had the numbers and it was able to push the bill through the select committee. I think that is a bit rich coming from Lynne Pillay because she knows a lot about numbers games. I first met Lynne Pillay when she was the chairwoman of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I appeared as a submitter to that select committee when I submitted against the Electoral Finance Bill. I went on to organise seven protest marches around New Zealand the largest of which was in Auckland on 1 December 2008 when 5000 people marched down Queen Street. Lynne Pillay talked about numbers; that bill was pushed through with the benefit of numbers. 
I come now to the Labour member Maryan Street. I have a great deal of respect for Maryan Street. I think that she is a very courteous lady and I have enjoyed the few interactions I have had with her over the last 15 months. Maryan Street talked about half-truths. She talked about the Minister never telling the full truth. I will comment on that but before I do I also acknowledge that I thought that she made a very very valid point. 
Before I go on to talk about that just in relation to talking about half-truths I point out that last week we had a debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. Labour members stood up and speaker after speaker talked about price increases in milk bread and power. A 2.5 percent increase in GST will increase the price of electricity by 2.5 percent. If we had had Labour’s emissions trading scheme we would have had a 10 percent increase. So if anyone wants to give an example of half-truths then it has to be a speaker from Labour. 
Let me come now to the main point of what I want to say. Maryan Street made the point that injured people are now able to be saved whereas some years ago they would have died. I believe that that really comes to the crux of the accident compensation issue. She went on to say that the Accident Compensation Corporation does whatever it takes to support people after they have been injured. She said that there have been significant advances in the medical profession over the last 30-odd years since the accident compensation scheme first came into effect. She acknowledged that if the same number of people who died after an accident that occurred 20 25 or 30 years ago were to have that accident now more of those people would be likely to live. That could come about through advances in the medical field or it could come about through advances in transport—the strengthening of cars. 
It is a fact that whereas someone seriously injured in a car accident or in a workplace accident now may be paralysed or become a tetraplegic if that accident had happened 20 or 25 years ago that person may have died. That person now lives because of advances in technology and that person lives at quite a significant cost to the community. The cost of rehabilitating and maintaining that person and providing support for a tetraplegic around the clock—24-hour nursing care in shifts—can be up to $1 million a year. The cost of an injury to a person who is young and who then goes on to live for the next 30 or 40 years of his or her natural life runs into some tens of millions of dollars. That is what we have to face. When the corporation does an analysis of its future liabilities it looks at the number of people in that situation. As every year goes by more and more people sadly fall into that category. In the 1970s and 1980s people who were involved in serious accidents invariably did not live. 
What the corporation has to face up to what taxpayers have to face up to and what the Government has to face up to is that we have massive tail liabilities. The liability of the corporation has been calculated at some $24 billion and the assets of the corporation are only about $14 billion. It is because of the advances in medical technology that Maryan Street talked about that we need to address this issue. Thank you.