Ardern Jacinda: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9218] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the amendment to insert new Part 3 in the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I would like to add my voice to the challenge that was issued by the Hon Pete Hodgson to Government members to share with us their views on what I think is a very sensible amendment. I want to broaden the debate a little by giving additional reasons why a review of the impact of this legislation and of the policy changes we have seen in accident compensation is so necessary. We have already had a discussion around in particular the Government’s proposals regarding gradual process disease. I want to touch on that again because recently in the Justice and Electoral Committee we have been hearing evidence on and debating with policy officials about the impact of changes to the Limitation Act. I think this comes right to the heart of this debate. We will be making changes in this legislation but we cannot anticipate the impact and effect of them on other legislation. 
Let me explain what I mean by that. Based on this primary legislation we have other dependent legislation. The Limitation Bill proposes that we set a limitation of 15 years on the time within which anyone can take a case. We have raised in this Chamber the issue of what happens if someone is suffering from a gradual process disorder or from the effects of continual exposure in the workplace to chemicals repetitive actions in their job or repetitive strain injuries. The impact of some of those conditions is not known for quite some time yet we are legislating in this House to set limitations on when claims pertaining to those injuries can be made. When we have questioned Ministers and officials as to the impact of that in the workplace the response has been that we have accident compensation. Well I ask whether we do and whether we will have it. I do not think we will know the answer to that question immediately; it will take us time to know that. 
Our first instinct is to say we should firm up the provisions and not to make significant changes to accident compensation that will impact on those people. Our second back-up option if the changes are going to happen is to say we should put in place the ability to review those decisions. That is perfectly sensible because at the moment we do not know what their effects will be. It is not just their impact on accident compensation but also the impacts in terms of other legislation. We have had assurances that may be false. 
I always come to this issue with a particular case in mind. In the area where I do constituency work from time to time where cases have come to us as list MPs individuals have been the subject of diseases as a consequence of exposure to chemicals in a hospital environment dating back to the 1960s. In that particular case the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) acknowledged those conditions; it was almost forced to because of a court case in which a hospital was ordered to pay compensation to ACC for the continuing care of these individuals. ACC has continued to support those individuals until recently. Whether there have been legislative changes policy changes or directives from Ministers and head offices we are seeing a difference in terms of what happens in our areas. One such difference I have seen is that an individual after receiving years of support from ACC was suddenly told that the person does not have a workplace injury caused by continual exposure to chemicals but has a degenerative disease. Is it up to ACC caseworkers to tell an individual that he or she now has something like Alzheimer’s disease? Is that their job? I seriously question whether that is their role yet that is what we are seeing come through our doors. The psychological impact of that on individuals cannot be measured yet that is what we confront on a daily basis. 
If that is not the intention of some of the changes we are seeing whether they be policy or legislative changes then let us have a review. What is the harm in doing that? I pose that challenge to the members on the opposite side of the Chamber. Another reason for a review is I think that realistically the impact of these changes is not on the elderly demographic. The biggest impact of these changes will be on the demographic that probably is not well represented by claimants at present. The impact will be on my generation and on the generations that will follow it not on the generation of those in this Chamber who have had continuous no-fault accident compensation coverage for a number of years. Those young people are unlikely to know about the true impact of the accident compensation scheme until these changes have been in force for at least a year. So why do we not give them the chance to see that impact as well? I pose that challenge to the Ministers opposite. I would have thought that having a review would appeal to the Government.