Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7787] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me make the New Zealand First position clear from the onset. When we last debated the issue of accident compensation we came down in favour of privatisation. We voted against the bill that did that in 1998 or early 1999 as I recall because we did not think it gave enough lead-in time before the election but we thought the merits of privatisation outweighed a monopoly-type situation. We have not had a debate on it since. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Good man! 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the member for telling me that but I want to make it clear that we believe that a private scheme or one that allows a degree of competitiveness provides for efficiency innovation and cost-effectiveness whilst if there is a monopoly there is monopoly-type thinking. 
But I want to be fair to the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] I have to say to that member over there that he is so imbalanced that he will fall off his pedestal. But we take a balanced approach; we voted against the 2000 bill to nationalise or reform—whatever it was—the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and we made a few stipulations at the time. On behalf of New Zealand First I personally spoke to two Ministers the Hon Ruth Dyson— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Two Ministers? 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes there were two of them at one time. It was overpowering—just me against two Ministers and both of them women. So members can see that I was at a huge disadvantage. But I spoke to them and outlined our concerns. Over the years—we have to be fair—they have addressed many of those concerns. They have not got them all yet but the last one was to incorporate medical misadventure into the accident compensation regime. Up until a few months ago—I think it was a few months ago; let us say it was a year ago—a person subject to medical misadventure had to prove his or her case. We said that was totally wrong from the word go. The Government has accepted that and has incorporated it under the accident compensation banner. They now want to change the term from medical misadventure account to treatment injury account. We do not like that; it does not reflect what it is all about. But nobody has come and said anything about it at all—the public have not the National Party Opposition just accepts it— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Didn’t know until tonight! 
PETER BROWN 
: They did not know it—the member sits on the committee! So we are not going to pull the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill down for that but I am registering tonight that we are not happy with it. 
We are happy that the employers’ account and the self-employed work account are being combined into one account. After my managerial role as a stevedore I started my own little business. I was self-employed. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Really? 
PETER BROWN 
: I was self-employed yes. Then I took on people. I took on a partner— 
Simon Power 
: Sure? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am absolutely positive I say to Mr Power. I had quite an enterprising little company and I was doing quite well. But I paid the same levy—as I recall—as I did when I was self-employed. It did not occur to me that there should be a difference. I was doing exactly the same job and I should pay the same levy. That is what this legislation is all about. I heard National Party members saying the self-employed should be paying more. In actual fact that is not true. It is the higher risk occupation where more should be paid and where the organisation or the individual is not prepared to address the risk potential more should be paid. This bill brings them all together and therefore the levy is paid on the risk. 
Now we have the situation of whether the levy structure is correct. I listened to Pansy Wong in the select committee and she made an impact on me. I thought she had a point. [ 
Interruption 
] I listened to her—and she will verify this—and I asked her to get me some details. She gave me some very loose details. Then I asked her whether she would give me further details that she was going to present to the House. If I could convince the Minister and the Government of this would National support it? She said oh no National opposed it anyway. So I thought it was going a little bit beyond— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: She would have said that if it’s good legislation we would have supported it. 
PETER BROWN 
: No I do not think she was saying that at all. I then heard we should be paying the money back to the employers because there is too much money in the account. I listened to Gordon Copeland last night. He was outraged. He was actually tearing his hair out with anger and frustration because the money should be paid back to the employers because there is too much in the account. 
Simon Power 
: Gordon Copeland being self-righteous? No! 
PETER BROWN 
: I can tell members that he was sitting behind me and with the hot air coming off him I nearly floated off. But I am sure that when Judy Turner gets the opportunity she will explain exactly about this. Let me tell members that when they look into the practicalities of paying the money back to the employers they will see that it is downright impossible. Some employers last through the whole period some start up and some fall over. It is impossible to calculate who should get what. The rebate could be cut or the rebate that the Minister is saying will occur in the fullness of time could be increased. 
But let me say to the House with some sincerity that today I had a letter from a guy who started out his life as a fitter some years ago—[ 
Interruption 
]—I ask the member to listen to this because this is important. He started out and he worked on a number of projects that involved asbestos. Now he has asbestitis— 
Hon Member 
: Asbestosis. 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the member for correcting me. That is what he has. He has been diagnosed he has been told it is a dreadful disease and he has been told it is terminal. He has gone to ACC and asked for a payout of a lump-sum compensation so that he can live the rest of his life in comfort. They have given him a pittance of an independence allowance and have told him that if he had put the claim in a few months after he did he would have got a lump-sum compensation. I tell members that his letter makes one’s heart bleed. It makes one cry. 
I ask the Government to look at these sorts of things. If there is money in the employers’ account that has to go anywhere the Government should think of extending the claim time. It should think of the people that this legislation is all about. We are insuring here under a monopoly organisation virtually all the workers of New Zealand. Some of those workers—mature people—are finding that they have been subjected to some sort of affliction that they did not know they had. It is emerging in their older age and they are now finding that they are entitled to peanuts when really we should be saying that there is money in the account—as National has been saying all afternoon and I think to some degree Labour has recognised that—and that instead of paying it back and giving greater rebates we should be extending the claims back a year or two or three so that these people can spend their lives in some sort of dignity. 
That is the New Zealand First message to this Parliament and that is the message we are asking members to support. We will support this bill and we will pressurise this Government to address the real issues. Thank you Madam Speaker.