Brown Peter: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Brown Peter: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3367] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That member who has just resumed his seat spoke about ordinary New Zealanders and the advantages they are getting because of this brilliant Labour Government—that is in his eyes. Let me talk about that brilliant Labour Government when it comes to accident compensation victims. John Tamihere can smile but he should listen to a few of them talk about the way that he and the Government treat them. It is an absolute disgrace. Accident compensation was not mentioned at all in the Prime Minister’s speech. On 18 March there will be a march and Mr Tamihere and anybody else who doubts my word can go out there and talk to some of those victims first hand and can learn how they are offloaded on to society and made to feel like second-class citizens. That is a real issue for New Zealanders. Those people have suffered at the hands of an accident and they are bluffed and bullied around like nobody’s business.  
I will be tabling a letter at the end of my speech from the chief executive of the Accident Compensation Corporation. I understand that when he was first appointed as chief executive he was asked a series of questions and I quote this for  
Hansard 
: “I am aware there has been some comment in the media about the procedure and its impact on ACC clients. I wish to assure you that ACC is committed to the following: 1. Only people who have completed a vocational rehabilitation programme and have a clear capacity to work will be referred for assessment. 2. Claimants who have been severely disadvantaged by injury will not be referred for assessment. 3. Highly skilled claimants will not be assessed as having a capacity to work in low-skilled positions.” That was a quote from a letter signed by the chief executive when he first got the appointment.  
I will discuss those three points. Are claimants ever referred for assessment if they have not completed a vocational rehabilitation programme or equivalent? The response in recent times from the Accident Compensation Corporation is yes. There is a long-winded explanation but the answer is yes. Are claimants ever referred for assessment if they do not have a clear capacity for work? The answer is that various assessments occur periodically in order to determine whether there is a clear capacity to work to be work-ready or to return to independence. The answer to that is yes. Are claimants ever referred for assessment if they have been severely disadvantaged by injury? The answer is yes. If a claimant has for example lost a limb his or her ability to work is assessed in order to determine vocational rehabilitation needs which could include training needs or a work-site assessment. Are highly skilled claimants ever assessed as having a capacity to work in low-skill positions? The Accident Compensation Corporation’s answer is that the corporation operates to objectives that include returning claimants to the same or a similar job as a priority and if that is not possible other options are explored. That answer turns the chief executive’s statement into an absolute pack of lies.  
This Government has said it cares for working people. I can tell you that that is rubbish when it comes to accidents. If the Government is concerned about that we should be having an inquiry into the way that the Accident Compensation Corporation operates. We are pushing for that and we will not settle for second best. We will not be like the National Party making out that it wants an inquiry and then behind the scenes stopping that at every turn. We will be pursuing the objective of having an inquiry into the Accident Compensation Corporation with the utmost vigour because I cannot think of anything worse than being a long-term accident victim in this country at this point in time. Those victims deserve to be treated like the decent reasonable people that they are.  
I want to turn to immigration. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Surprise surprise. 
PETER BROWN 
: Surprise surprise the member says. I am an immigrant and I am proud of it. I am also proud of being a New Zealander. I do not doubt that there are many other people in the same position but the point I am espousing is that if we open this country’s doors wide to an unlimited number of immigrants we will suffer. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: We haven’t done that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I would not want to see four million versions of me come in. One is enough; my colleagues will support that. [ 
Interruption 
] I come from Tauranga. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Liverpool—isn’t it Liverpool? 
PETER BROWN 
: I knew Mr Cosgrove was misguided and now I know how highly misguided he is. That is the pits is it not? I want to tell members what the mayor of Tauranga stated recently in a little handout that went around. She was talking about the issues of funding and running the city of Tauranga which is probably the best city in this country. She stated that most of those issues related to our massive and speedy growth and most boil down in the end to money. She went on to state later in the article: “Each and every one of you deserves the full facts about the city balance sheet. Frankly it is groaning under the strains placed upon it by growth. Rates revenue must grow to properly accommodate growth.” We are talking about the growth of the population and about migration into Tauranga—not migration from overseas but migration from other parts of New Zealand. Those migrants are putting strains on the Tauranga system.  
This is what the chief executive states: “Tauranga is the most desirable place to live in New Zealand.” Who could argue with that? Nobody with could argue that. “Growth is huge here.” he states and he goes on to state that while the number of ratepayers might increase that will never equal the actual dollar cost associated with the services and facilities those extra people and businesses need. He goes on to qualify those services and facilities including roads parks and footpaths. The point I am making is that a responsible city is stating that it cannot keep pace with people coming in from elsewhere. I do not want to stop that. The Government—and Damien O’Connor is a member of it—is trying to convince us that we should open the doors to Auckland and we will all be better off. I say to the House that that is a ridiculous philosophy. If members support that ideology they are selling this country short.  
If members doubt me they go back to where I came from the UK and look at how it is straining at the seams all over the place as a result of having an open-door immigration policy. Not only can the infrastructure not cope with the number of people but it is also producing friction in that country like nobody’s business. The situation is far worse than it was when I left there. 
Hon Members 
: Go back. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am actually going back there. I will have a good look— 
Rod Donald 
: And give them some advice. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will give them some advice but I am trying to give members some advice. Mr Donald should listen and he might learn something. I am ambitious but that might be too hard an ambition to achieve.  
Finally before my time is up in this call I want to touch on transport. I say the transport infrastructure in this country has been underfunded for years and now we are reaping the rewards of that underfunding. Those members over there want to chip in so they should tell us what they will do with Tranz Rail. Will they buy the rail track back? They should not keep us in suspense about that. It should be no great mystery. What will they do about Tranz Rail? They do not have a clue. Let me tell those members that if they do not do something we will be stymied on the roads in this country particularly in the place where I come from Tauranga.  
Rod Donald 
: Go and buy some shipping. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Donald is at least saying something intelligent here. We should buy the rail track back—he agrees with New Zealand First—and we should develop coastal shipping. That goes to show that if one is around here long enough even the Greens will say something sensible.  
In my closing moments I cannot emphasise enough that this Government must come to terms with our transport infrastructure. The Government has 3 years in which to do that. It can count on New Zealand First to support any positive innovation that does not put an extra burden or cost on the motorist or anyone else. We have to get this country moving physically and in every way. This country depends on exports and we need a transport infrastructure to service the export industries. I look forward to Government members getting off their backsides and doing something about that.