Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20284] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I want to concentrate for a moment on section 87 in schedule 2. I hope the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson will take a call and focus again on subsection (2) which states: “The Corporation must provide the vocational rehabilitation for the minimum period necessary to achieve its purpose but must not provide any vocational rehabilitation for longer than 3 years …”. I find it quite curious that here we have a Labour Government that has said that one of the major aims of the Act and of these bills is to focus on rehabilitation but it is actually putting in an exclusion to rehabilitate. 
Just the other day someone with a spinal injury from about 10 years ago came to my electorate office. He had had several fusions but had continued to live a life of pain. He came into the office unable to sit down. He tells me he is unable to sleep yet he is expected to turn up for repeated assessments to see whether he can carry out a job. Over that period of time his ability to be able to do different things has changed. Whereas 9 years ago he might have been able to work at a computer now he cannot even sit down for longer than a couple of minutes at a time. Yet the Accident Compensation Corporation expects him to train to be a computer worker. 
It seems extraordinary that the Minister is saying in section 87(2) that the corporation must not provide any vocational rehabilitation. Is it not cutting off any possibility of hope for individuals that as the course of their disease progresses or gets better they might not have a chance to rehabilitate? Surely this should be one of the main aims of this bill. I hope the Minister does clarify this— 
Jill Pettis 
: Where was this man in the 1990s? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is a pity that the member opposite continues to interject at such a pathetically low standard. This is a serious point because this Labour Government went about saying that rehabilitation would be a focal point in this legislation. Yet here we have the Labour Government saying that the corporation must not provide any vocational rehabilitation. It is important that the Minister take a call to explain that. As both my excellent colleagues Katherine Rich and Judith Collins have pointed out we are reminded in clause 52 of the very sad fact that this Labour Government removed choice of provision from accident compensation. 
Again we have a Labour Government that goes about saying that injury prevention is the focus of this bill just like rehabilitation. But what is the record of this Labour Government? Serious and medium accidents have actually gone up under this Labour Government despite its spending more. 
What happened when choice of provider came in? There was a tremendous commitment by industry to put in preventive programmes. That happened throughout every part of industry from forestry to domestic work and the rate of accidents decreased. Along with that came much faster efforts to rehabilitate which is the very thing that the Minister is suggesting will be removed—under certain circumstances I must admit. Certainly there was the tremendous result of people getting back to work faster. Also there was the added bonus of a dramatic change in the cost of premiums being lowered. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: HIH—a good cut at the apple; a very good company. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I can see the Minister there presiding over the monopolistic Accident Compensation Corporation which undoubtedly with time will become inefficient in the way that all monopolies do. This is exactly what this Minister wishes to happen and it is very very regrettable. Undoubtedly the facts were that the most dramatic changes—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows he cannot barrage like that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The most dramatic changes we have seen with injury prevention and rehabilitation occurred between 1998 and 1999 when choice was brought into the accident compensation arena. That was hugely positive for this country and it is very regrettable that the Minister appears to be gradually increasing the grip of monopoly. 
I understand that her other plan is eventually to equate all medical problems with injury so they are exactly the same. That is the hidden agenda. To extrapolate it even further she will have a great National Health Service a big monopoly just like in Britain—the third-largest employer in the world second only to the Chinese Red Army and the Indian Railways. That is the plan of Ruth Dyson yet we see here in schedule 2 a requirement that the corporation must not provide rehabilitation services.