Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker an absolute delight to be able to take a perhaps quite lengthy call on this bill since it contains a lot of technical detail that Mr Penk just ran us through so I would like to respond to that with quite a bit of detail myself. This is in fact my second call today which is truly strange because I haven't had much opportunity to take calls this term. As you can see in this Chamber there is a variety of new talent on board which—rightfully—have taken most of the slots and pushed us more experienced hands perhaps to the second tier. But I have enjoyed everything I've had to say and I've learnt a lot from this new intake with their many talents and their many skills so thank you for sharing all of your knowledge every day for me to enjoy. Anyway I digress. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party in opposition to the Accident Compensation (Notice of Decisions) Amendment Bill so my apologies to Chris Penk for having to squash his hopes that he would find support at this side of the Chamber—he does look devastated. So perhaps pass that on to the sponsor of the bill with a note that I don't believe that this is a bill that comes from a bad place knowing the person who just spoke on this bill who I have the pleasure actually to encounter quite a bit in the Kaipara ki Mahurangi electorate where we both have established quite a collaborative relationship although that may not be known to your colleagues. You may want to keep that quiet because maybe collaboration is not really the right thing to do! But hey I do enjoy the way that we both go around the electorate. But back to the bill.With regards to this bill it is not clear on what it tries to achieve and that's the first point first of all. What it claims is that employers should have a review right for what is called an aggravation or re-injury" of a work-related injury. But this particular term doesn't actually feature in either the member's bill nor in the actual Accident Compensation Act and that is a real problem because—just to rephrase that—the policy intent is unclear. As an example there is no definition for "aggravation or re-injury" of a work-related injury in this bill or in the primary Act. That's the first point. Then we get to the second point: because the policy intent is unclear the member's bill will create confusion and conflict with the Act and it may in fact—when you talk about unintended consequences—make some unwanted changes. And here's where it gets a little bit detailed perhaps. I know the previous speaker made it sound quite simple running us through clauses 1 to 7 but the devil is in the detail and therefore I will provide that detail.What the confusion is about is that as a first point it will give the employer a review right that they already have. So if there is a new injury and not a re-injury then that review right is already there. If there is a re-injury it will effectively create a new review right over decisions on entitlements like treatment and that is very important because it is something that is explicitly barred by the Accident Compensation Act. It will create confusion as to which is the correct empowering provision for employers to be able to challenge work-related cover decisions. It will create potential privacy issues for claimants and this may actually be one of the more significant issues with this bill other than creating confusion and conflicting with the original Act because of course privacy issues when it comes to health are hugely important. Decisions on entitlements are made considering a claimant's need for rehabilitation and compensation based on evidence and expert assessment. What this bill would do is it would basically have any current or former employer entitled to ongoing clinical and health information and that is a real concern. Employers would need to see a claimant's clinical information information about their health to challenge an entitlement decision and that causes significant privacy issues.Come to my No. 5 it will also drastically increase the number of reviewable decisions and knowing the system as it is now—already quite over-burdened—that is not a good thing because it will compromise the effectiveness of the system. We also need to look at existing settings that are already balancing claimant and employer interest for work-related claims in a fair proportionate way. There really is no compelling argument to extend the rights for employers to have an extension of the right to review because there is already a balance there. The no-faults nature of the scheme protects employers from the risk of litigation and they don't need to meet claims costs incurred by the scheme so this is about the balance there. Experience rating or no-claim discount programmes result in levy-lowering or discount for the employer rather than a liability for claims cost and this limits the impact that any employer would encounter from any such claim. The experience rating or no-claims discount programmes are also only affected by work-related injury that occurred over a three-year period prior to that levy invoice. That means that costs that occur four or more years after your original injury will actually not affect the employers' individual levy. I know there was a point made about employers' levies but the fact needs to be made that that won't actually affect those levies.So then just to recap in my last three minutes this bill would—as we've heard—seek to rebalance the interests of employers and claimants for work-related claims. That would suggest that somehow the balance is off kilter but from what I've seen and the points that I've just run everyone through that argument doesn't actually hold up under pressure. If you look at the details of where the balancing is already taking place then that is not an argument for new legislation. The existing settings already balance claimant and employer interests for work-related claims and the current settings ensure that employer interests are reflected in a fair way. The very nature of this scheme actually already protects employers from the risk of litigation because it is operating on a no-fault basis and the employer doesn't need to meet claim costs incurred by the scheme. There is a lot about this bill that really just isn't clear. I think I've outlined several points that perhaps the next speaker may want to touch on in detail to turn that argument around but it should be noted that for a bill that refers to circumstances where an employee has an aggravation or a re-injury of a work-related personal injury there is not a definition to specify that either in this particular member's bill or in the primary Act the Accident Compensation Act.So then with my time running out I will just basically reiterate the significant issues with the bill which are the lack of clarity—which I have provided five bullet points on—the privacy concerns the impact on operational issues and ultimately there being no compelling basis to extend employer review rights because the balance is already there. Now also to make the point that this actually an area already subject to an incredible amount of litigation and I'm sure with the amount of lawyers here in the House there may be some support for that. Cover decisions are challenged regularly and I saw that when I was in the union dealing with these decisions. So all the bill will do is create more litigation without any compelling basis to extend employer review rights. Therefore unfortunately I will not be able to support this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker."