Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16641] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). We have heard a somewhat high-minded tirade of moralising from the previous speaker Mr Gosche. One must ask why it has taken 8½ long years before this moralising morass that is left of the Labour Government has finally brought in this unfortunate amendment to the legislation. Those members get very heated up and very moralistic but it has taken them until the zenith hours of the dying Labour Government before finally getting around to bringing in this legislation. 
The reasons that National is not supporting this bill are manifold. It has not been well thought out. It is undoubtedly inequitable. Different groups of people are treated in different ways and there is no doubt that there are clearly disadvantages for the employer as compared to the general taxpayer. There is no doubt also that this legislation blurs the margins between injuries caused by accidents and other medical conditions and it is extremely poorly costed. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I did speak in the first reading debate on this bill last November. I was appalled to read just how wide the costings were in various aspects of the bill. In fact it was estimated originally that the total claims for witnesses who are exposed to a sudden traumatic event during the course of employment could cost between $7.6 million and $72.2 million—ten times as much. There is a variation of up to ten times as much in terms of what the reality of the costing of this bill might be and that is just indicative of how little a hold on reality this dying Labour Government has. That is the problem. It is all very well to have a high-minded moralising Mr Gosche come into this House but then we see that the reality is a variation of up to 10 times the cost. 
It is all very well for Mr Gosche to go on but 9 years ago the Labour Government said it would raise New Zealand into the top half of the OECD. Instead what has happened? We have gone down—sadly—two slots in the OECD rankings during the tenure of this Labour Government and it is more and more difficult to afford the high-quality health education and social welfare services that most New Zealanders would like to enjoy. There is no doubt that this again is an example of one of the realities of why under Labour it is not possible for that to happen. 
As well as that together with the changes to the cover for work-related gradual process disease or infection and changes to weekly compensation the estimated cost varies between $58 million and $123.7 million. Once again the reality check that should be put on the Labour Government is sadly and absolutely lacking. No wonder the Labour Government has failed New Zealand! No wonder the Labour Government has brought New Zealand down two notches into the lowest quartile of the OECD rankings for per capita income! That is the sort of thing we should be focusing on—indeed that is what a new National Government will be focusing on. The purpose of this bill is said to be the maintenance of a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme but there is no doubt that with those sorts of costings sustainability of the scheme is all but impossible. 
I think it was Mr Gosche who talked about the origins of our accident compensation scheme in New Zealand which actually occurred under a National Government in the 1970s. He was quite right when he said that New Zealanders had to give up something when the scheme was brought in and that was their right to sue. No political party that I know of would like to bring that back but it is important to realise that that inability to sue does come at significant cost. 
I can think of a young Queenstown businessman the father of three children who had an unfortunate accident. He was paralysed and now he is in a wheelchair. He had put most of his money into his business so he was not bringing in much of an income which means that for the rest of his life he is destined to get 80 percent of the fairly low wage he received at that time and he has three young children to look after. The point clearly is that the loss of the right to sue is very significant and it is very important that New Zealand is able to sustain a high growth rate—something we have certainly not seen under this Labour Government. 
I was fascinated to read the submission from New Zealand Steel on this bill. I was particularly interested to read that company’s submission because it is well known for being a very good employer. It has 1200 local employees and about 5000 employees around New Zealand. Among those local employees in four parts of New Zealand including Port Waikato—an area I am very proud to represent—the average wage is $90000. New Zealand Steel is well known for its great efforts to make the workplace safe and to ensure fairness in its dealings with its workforce. 
Why does New Zealand Steel say about clauses 5 to 9 which deal with the cover for work-related mental injury? It says: “We oppose these clauses as they significantly increase the scope of cover offered by the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. Furthermore the proposals offer an increased level of cover but only to one group of levy payers—those funded by employers. This creates further inconsistencies in the recognition of a condition suffered by an individual. If an individual suffers a mental injury from witnessing a traumatic event whilst in the course of their employment they will be covered. However if another individual witnesses the same event but are not in paid employment or not at work at the time they will not be covered.” 
There is no doubt that this is the sort of inconsistency that the Labour Government is only too ready to perpetrate. Firstly we have seen its wildly varying costings. Secondly we have seen its total lack of reality—the absolutely unreal grip it has. Thirdly of course there is inconsistency and inequity throughout this bill. I refer now to clause 10. What did what New Zealand Steel said about that? It said: “The proposed changes remove all onus of proof from an individual claimant in terms of justifying whether a claim is work-related or not.” It said: “Given that gradual processes claims are not covered for non-work exposures there are significant incentives for both individual claimants and their medical practitioners to have gradual processes claims accepted as being work-related”. They say: “It is virtually impossible to investigate a person’s non-work environment without encroaching on an individual’s right to privacy.” 
There is no doubt that when there is a clear base of evidence behind work-related disease it is clearly justified. But this is a blurring of the margins. And when we have the example of a good employer such as New Zealand Steel pointing out the practical problems of this totally impractical bill that Labour is bringing into the House we are forced to oppose it.