Boscawen John: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9143] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 Ruth Dyson asked the Minister in the chair the Minister for ACC what he has against people who commit suicide. My response to that is to ask Ruth Dyson what she has against people whose loved ones die of cancer or of heart disease. The Minister said earlier this evening that there is no basis for that distinction. Someone who is struck down with cancer or with heart disease at a very very early age does not get the income that—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. During the course of Ruth Dyson’s contribution despite portions of her contribution being quite offensive members on the Government benches including Mr John Boscawen who clearly did not agree with her listened to her courteously. From the moment that John Boscawen has attempted to answer the very questions that Ruth Dyson challenged members of the Government to answer she and Maryan Street who is sitting next to her have shouted a barrage of remarks to the point where I could not hear a word of what Mr Boscawen was saying. I think that interjections need to be rare and reasonable. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not need any assistance with this. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He thinks it’s a big joke. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me! The Committee is entitled to robust debate and with due respect to the Minister one of the reasons he could not hear John Boscawen speak was that the member stopped and let the barrage of comments continue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I couldn’t hear him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: He did stop. I am keen for this debate to be robust but I will not have the debate interrupted unnecessarily. The point has been made and it has merit that the interjections should not be to the extent that they interrupt the flow of the debate. I say to members let us have a robust debate and let us speak loudly and forcefully. That is good; that is Parliament at its best. But let us make sure we can hear the debate. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I support your ruling Mr Chairperson. I just hope it extends to ensuring that the Minister does not use his live microphone to interject on speakers who are speaking. For example when the Hon Ruth Dyson was speaking Dr Smith chose to interject on her using the live microphone that is in front of him. The Minister shakes his head but it is clear that he did that. I heard it but I did not interrupt because I thought there was a free flow. But if he interrupts the debate himself as the Minister in charge of the bill to make that point then I think he has to exercise some self-discipline himself. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that points of order should be raised at the time. The member’s point of order has expired; the time has gone. I try to put my finger on the microphone. It is very difficult in the heat of debate for people to be completely restrained. I have had difficulty myself. On occasions I have been seriously challenged; it is difficult. Let us get on with the debate. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson and I thank Mr Smith for his point of order. The Chair is quite right; I had deliberately stopped speaking because I was not prepared to speak into that barrage of criticism. The Labour members seem to have their heads in the sand. The last time that I rose I raised the issue that claims paid by the Accident Compensation Corporation had increased by 57 percent over the last 4 years. Let me make it clear to the Opposition that the increase is from $2.2 billion a year to $3.6 billion a year. The Government has a choice: it either addresses that issue or continues to see claims go up by 12 percent per annum until the country is broke. This Government is far more responsible than to see that occur. 
I want to come to the issue of the rating of employers and the levies they pay. Ruth Dyson said in her earlier speech that I was not addressing Part 1. Part 1 clearly makes provision for employers to be rated on their claims history: on their ability to prevent accidents. We currently have a rating system whereby different classes of employment attract different rates. Naturally someone involved in a very passive job like sitting in a clerical job may be paying say $1 per $100 worth of earnings or it might be 50c per $100 of earnings whereas someone in a much riskier industry—it could be forestry where there are a lot of saws and falling timber; it is a far more dangerous occupation and a far more dangerous industry—pays a much higher rate than that. This bill makes provision to rate employers within a particular industry differently from one another based on their claims experience. It creates something very very important and that is incentive. It is very important to get the incentives right. 
Let us take someone in the sawmilling industry who employs people to go out with chainsaws and cut down timber in our forests. If such employers are able to instil in their employees better safety standards and better procedures so they can achieve a much lower rate of accidents for that particular industry why would we not reward those employers? Why would we not create an incentive so that employers are incentivised to do whatever they can to reduce the rates of accidents? From the employers’ point of view they have the advantage of being able to reduce the levies they pay for accident compensation but more important if it reduces accidents is that not what we should be trying to do? We should be trying to reduce accidents. 
We have had from the Opposition this afternoon a barrage of criticism in respect of reforms that are sorely needed. The Minister has made it very clear that the rate of injuries and the rate of accident prevention issues have worsened in the last 8 or 9 years. I come back again to the fact that in 1999 when the previous Labour Government was first elected premiums were some 30 percent lower than at present. Rather than allowing employees and employers to continue to have choice to continue to have competition to drive down those rates the Labour Government came in with a policy of abolishing that choice and New Zealand has seen the consequences of that. And yes entitlements are being reduced in this bill. They are being reduced because quite frankly the country simply cannot afford them. The country simply cannot afford them because although claims can increase by 12 percent per annum for 1 year or for 4 years we cannot do that indefinitely. This Government is introducing mechanisms to create the right incentives.