Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7434] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It saddens me that it is necessary to take a call on this bill in the House. This bill is an absolute sham. It is based on a campaign of scaremongering that the accident compensation scheme is financially unsustainable. That is what we heard Pansy Wong say. She said effectively that it was broken but we know that that is absolutely not true. This is about promoting the idea that accident compensation is in crisis and it is about talking up National’s true agenda which is not a surprise—it is a return to privatisation. It is nothing new; what did we see in the 1990s? Is this new? This is an absolute rehash of the 1990s but worse. Again what did we see? In the 1990s we were told that accident compensation was unaffordable and that is when we saw the axing of lump-sum payments under a National Government. 
Hon John Carter 
: Really? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes really Mr Carter. You have a short memory if you cannot remember it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not use “you”. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am sorry Mr Speaker although I am sure that you can remember it too. It was the National Government that scaremongered and tried to convince the public that the scheme was unaffordable. 
Hon John Carter 
: What happened? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: What happened is that many many people in New Zealand—many victims of horrendous accidents—received no lump-sum payment whatsoever under the National Government. I put it to this House that this legislation is the first of many changes and probably the axing of those payments is what is next on the agenda. But I think the Government thinks that perhaps it is just a little bit unpalatable at the moment so it will bring in this measure— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s your position on the bill? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: My position on the bill is that we oppose it. We know that our accident compensation scheme is the envy of the world. I heard Pansy Wong refer to the introduction of the accident compensation system in 1974. 
Hon John Carter 
: It’s not a welfare system; it’s an insurance system. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is a social insurance system; there is a difference. Let us talk about that. Let us talk about the difference between social insurance or social compensation where there is no-fault 24-hour coverage and where the principle is to provide the support etc. that is necessary as opposed to National’s agenda which is the shipping of accident compensation out to the insurance industry. I heard the leader of the National Party our Prime Minister say there is no difference. 
I say to members opposite that they have said that the scheme is broken and that it is running at a loss. Yet in the last financial year it had a $1 billion operating surplus—$1 billion—and a return on investment that was performing very well comparatively. I am sure that the National leader John Key who was in that industry will accept that the Accident Compensation Corporation has performed very well given the recession and given the challenges. I see the Minister nodding but still the scaremongering goes on that the scheme is broken and that despite the $1 billion surplus we have to cut costs. 
The costings have been done for all long-term liabilities—they go out 40 years. We can make all the worst assumptions—and be really conservative amongst the scaremongering agenda—such as low return on investments high inflation and the most expensive cost-management scenario of all the cases. I note that the Government has changed its mind in terms of full funding but this is not bad from a Government that has no commitment whatsoever to putting money aside for the Superannuation Fund. The Government is having a rush of blood and it is scaremongering about the dangers of accident compensation and the funding deluge there yet it is not making any commitment whatsoever to funding superannuation into the future. Where is the logic in that? I hope that someone from the National Party will explain the logic in that. It is an absolute indictment. 
As I said before our accident compensation scheme is the most comprehensive compensation system anywhere in the world. It is more effective than Australia’s system. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it financially sound? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is financially sound. Labour members are asking whether we have to look at going into the future and keeping the scheme financially viable. Of course we do. We will do it through consultation; we will do it through working with people; and most important of all we will do it through investing in schemes that prevent accidents. But what are we seeing under this Government? We are seeing those schemes being axed. The very things that prevent accidents and that encourage the good behaviour that does not lead to accidents are being axed by this Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If they worked why are accidents still going up? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is the Minister’s argument: if something does not seem to have worked then let us axe it. For the Minister for ACC to sit there and claim that preventive schemes that educate— 
Hon John Carter 
: No he never said that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The Minister did say that. The best investment we can make in the accident compensation system is in accident prevention. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Even if it doesn’t work? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It does work. Again the Minister is scaremongering by saying that it does not work. 
I also want to talk about the cuts and they are cuts. Let us not misinform people by pretending that these cuts are here to help victims. In terms of the sensitive claims— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Do you support self-inflicted claims? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Never mind trying to change the subject! Every time members on this side of the House talk about sensitive claims—[ 
Interruption 
] Let us talk about the cuts in counselling compensation for victims and survivors of sexual assault. Let us talk about a Government that argues that it will implement guidelines no matter how many professionals are opposed to them no matter how many people meet or ask to meet the Minister about them and no matter how many people sign petitions. This Government says that guidelines are in the victims’ interests. That is simply just not true. I put it to this House that that is the biggest most offensive insult of all. At least with other groups such as motorcyclists etc. although there is a degree of untruth in it the Government is saying that it wants to cut costs. The most offensive thing to victims of sexual assault is that this Government is saying: “We are here to help you. That is why we are going to move the goalposts so it is even harder to access the counselling that you need and deserve. That is how we are going to help you.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s your law. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That might be our law but I have just seen a press release that states the Minister is going to review the sensitive claims unit. Mind you it will take 6 months but the Minister will review that unit. I urge the Minister to delay the implementation of the guidelines until the review is complete. There is evidence from every professional spoken to from every victim of sexual assault and survivor of sexual assault who has the courage to speak out about this— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The Minister should listen to them and say: “Right we have said we got it wrong. We will carry out the review. But until that time happens we will not implement these Draconian changes that will only serve to re-victimise victims.” That is what I urge the Minister to do. I can see that he is considering that very carefully. I thank him for doing that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I am not going to interfere with clinicians. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The Minister says he is not going to interfere. That is really rich coming from him. I urge him to talk to the professionals. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s your qualification to make clinical decisions in this area? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am not pretending to make them. I listen to the professionals. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why won’t you come to the briefing with the clinicians? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am coming to Mr Smith’s briefing actually and I do listen to the professionals. At the risk of sounding a little big-headed I coming from a nursing background probably have at least some understanding. But my claim to any knowledge about this comes from listening to counsellors psychotherapists victims and survivors of sexual assaults in New Zealand who have said to us: “Please don’t try to re-victimise the victims.”