Coleman Jonathan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Coleman Jonathan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7795] 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 Labour supporters listening to the radio at home are going to be chilled to the marrow by that speech because that was the voice of the Labour Party rejuvenation programme. That dissembling illogical ramble is what Labour is bringing into Parliament and presumably we cannot go much lower than that standard of oratory. 
One of the arguments that we have heard from these Labour members throughout is that insurance premium will be dictated by business structure. Mark Gosche spoke constantly about the example of the rugby league player. He was saying that just because a rugby league player is self-employed rather than having a business structure that player will not be tackled any differently from anybody else. They are saying that people in the same occupation have the same level of business risk. They do not seem to get the point. 
Let us put the issue just a bit more simply. If the members over there cannot understand the idea that people doing the same occupation can have different levels of risk let us put it in terms they may understand such as political risk—who might be here after the next election—and put a risk premium on that. 
Mrs Yates the former member for Hamilton East lost her seat so one could say that she is unlikely to be here at the next election. So that is probably a medium-low risk. Then there is Minister Dyson. She probably will be here because she will have a reasonable list place but then she could explode at any moment. So that is a high level political risk. Then of course there is Mr Peter Brown the deputy leader of New Zealand First over there. He is a relatively safe pair of hands but the reality is there is not a hell of a lot of excitement there either and the final reality is that his party will not be here at the next election. 
So there are three members with three very different sets of circumstances. But under Labour thinking the same risk premium would be put on each one on the chance of them being here after the next election. Now that is a simple example and Labour members should be able to get that. The three members are all doing the same job but there is definitely a different level of risk for all three with regard to their being here after the next election. That is really what this legislation comes down to. 
The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill will pool two pre-existing accounts into one so that the risk is spread across all. But in actuarial terms that is complete madness because under the terms of risk rating there will always be different levels of risk for different individuals doing the same job. The reality is that that needs to be reflected in the premium. What we have here is a Labour Government bill that is driven purely by philosophy and purely by ideology. Labour hates competition. Darien Fenton is a hardbitten unionist and does not like competition. She is going to get up in a few minutes and tell members that. 
Darien Fenton 
: It’s a social contract! 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: There she said it. Socialism—that is what she wants. She wants socialism in accident compensation and that is what one will get here. 
But the reality is if members look back through history when accident compensation was put up for competition under the last National Government—as it will be again under the next one—insurance premiums went down and the levels of medium and serious risk declined. It was good for the people; it was good for business. But that party over there is anti-business and anti-employers. I have never heard these members none of whom have ever been self-employed—although one claimed to be before—be so concerned about the rights of the self-employed. 
This bill is a total rort. Labour will combine these two accounts. They will literally be stealing $500 million from the employers’ account and spreading it across the account as a whole. But the real devious part is that Labour will be keeping those premiums low until just about the time of the next election so the issue will be off the political map—it will not be causing any problem. After the next election the levies will go up. Does that cause any surprise about this Government? It is not surprising at all. This Government has done so many dishonest and frankly unethical things to the people of New Zealand—this is just the latest in a long line. 
This Government decided that it would curtail the usual levy period for 2007-08; there was not going to be an adequate period of consultation. The pure reason for that was that the Government thought it could get away with it. It was not going to cause enough electoral damage; the Government would be able to sneak that through and it would not tarnish them. 
There are people listening at home who know all about this Government. They know that this bill is a rort. They know it is bad for New Zealand business. Do members know what the real irony is? Yesterday the National Party announced an historic piece of legislation that will enable businesses to give more to charities. They will get a tax break and it will actually benefit the very people that this craven unethical morally bankrupt party purports to represent. The reality is that the underclass will be better off. We oppose this bill—bottom line.