Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9220] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am really pleased to take a call on the amendment to insert new Part 3 in the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. If a Government member stands up in this Chamber and takes a closure motion again without following the principle of responding to the argument raised in the debate I say he or she can expect big-time criticism from this side of the Chamber. We have seen two Ministers— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am very reluctant to do this during a call by one of my own colleagues but it appears that the Government whips have gone on strike and are refusing to take points of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. The whips have the discretion to determine when they want to take calls and it is up to them. There will be no inference or guidance from either you or me as to when a Government whip wishes to take a closure motion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I had not actually got to the point of order. I was only indicating that I was being of assistance to the Government in this particular point of order. I thought that this was probably an opportune time to point out to my colleagues that when the Chairman has made a ruling on a closure motion even if it is a ruling that is supportive and the member is being supportive of the Chairman in his role it is not appropriate for a member to comment on that. I would say my colleague should take some care. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I do not need any further help on this. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a new point of order which is quite separate from the interesting observation and intervention of my colleague Mr Mallard. It relates to the Government whip. From time to time throughout the course of the debate it is necessary for whips on both sides of the Chamber to approach the presiding officer in the middle of the Chamber. I have noticed that the senior Government whip is making many many trips to consult with the Minister in the chair to talk to you and to ask questions of you and the Minister. That has to happen but it is just the frequency with which it appears to be happening that is causing some dismay. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are bringing the integrity of the Chair into question when you—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I am the sole judge and if the senior Government whip wishes to come and talk to me then I will accept that. If you wish to come and talk to me I will accept that. But I can assure you that there is no interference or anything untoward occurring when the senior Government whip comes to talk to the Minister in the chair or to me. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek an assurance and I do this in a way that does not reflect on you in any way because there is no suggestion—or I hope there is no suggestion—that the senior whip has been asking you for procedural advice because that would of course be— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. I have made my position very clear. I am the sole judge and that is how it stands. Lynne Pillay has the call. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chair I think my colleague Trevor Mallard— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I want to clarify something Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am giving you the call and I ask you to continue. You have 4½ minutes left. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Chair. I urge members of the Opposition to take a call on this bill— 
David Garrett 
: You’re in the Opposition. Have you forgotten? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —members of the Government I am sorry. I am just jumping ahead 2 years. 
In speaking to Part 3 I say it is very important that with our amendment that asks for a review we are not asking for just one review to be held after 1 year. We are asking for a review to be held every year thereafter. As the ACT member very clearly pointed out to me we are not in Government currently. But when you are in Opposition— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I know what the member is going to say because I had to bring this point of order yesterday. The member cannot bring the Chair into the debate. This is a one-clause debate. It is not a wide-ranging debate; this is on clause 60. It is a very very narrow clause and the member cannot bring the Chair into it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Let me address just the review. In terms of the review we are requesting a commitment to conduct a review within a year and every year thereafter. 
My colleague Sue Moroney talked about what could be the unintended consequences of this legislation. I put it to this Committee that it is not even the unintended consequences that we are worried about; it is the intended consequences. The intended consequences will cause real havoc. We have seen two Ministers sitting in the chair whose portfolios are directly affected by this legislation. As my colleague Sue Moroney said it will be very much to the detriment of women of women workers and also as I said before to the Minister of Labour it is an attack on the right of workers to take a holiday— 
Hon Member 
: What did she say? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
:—What did the Minister say? That is my point. That is the point I was trying to make. It was not about the closure motions but about the fact that members on the other side of the Chamber are not engaging in this debate. My view and the view of the Opposition is that if you feel very strongly— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: If the Government feels very strongly that this is the right thing to do then the Government should take a call. 
We are the first to accept that yesterday Nick Smith really showed the Government’s true agenda. I suspect that the other Government members have said they have actually let too much out of the bag about how callous their attitude is towards workers and injured people in New Zealand so they should all be quiet. But this amendment is something that the Government can respond to. It is about accountability. It is about accountability for changes that the Government is pushing through under urgency that will cause much heartache anxiety and stress in our communities right throughout New Zealand. I would urge Government members not only to consider very carefully this amendment—I think it is a very good amendment on the part of both David Parker and Ruth Dyson who has expanded on the amendment—but also to consider taking a call to explain their view of it or to give us a clue. They should give us a clue as to the Government’s attitude towards the amendment. If Government members do support the amendment they should take a call. 
My big concern is as has been outlined about hearing aids. When we see that people with 6 percent hearing loss will not get support from the accident compensation scheme we know that will be very much to their detriment. I want to draw attention to the National Foundation for the Deaf which has a very good magazine. What did it say? What is its cover story? “ACC delivers a cruel blow to older people.” It talks about the absolute unfairness of that change.