Flavell Te Ururoa: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9176] 
I congratulate obviously the Labour Opposition but also the Green Party who have consistently opposed this bill on the basis that it is simply unfair. It simply takes away rights from New Zealanders and that is not the principle of what accident compensation is all about—it is the absolute opposite. So I congratulate the Green Party but I challenge Maori Party members on this and tell them it is not too late to change their mind. It is inappropriate to support many of the clauses. I urge them to change their mind and to take a call— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: We voted against it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is excellent but the Maori Party supported sending the bill to the select committee and if it had opposed it at that stage perhaps the bill would not be back before the Committee. 
The Minister has claimed that the accident compensation scheme is broke. I have talked about that claim before but it is very important. How many times have we heard the Minister Nick Smith say “ACC is broke.”? Well it is not broke. It has $11 billion in reserves so how can it be broke? In fact it is quite the opposite. If we look at independent advice we see that PricewaterhouseCoopers from Australia found that the administration costs of the scheme are lower than for any other scheme. That confirmed previous assessments and that is a very very pertinent point. The accident compensation scheme has been criticised by the National Government but has been assessed independently as the most cost-effective in terms of administration. 
That is simply because of the simplicity of the scheme. It is simply a no-fault structure. It covers injuries at work or elsewhere with a broad pool of levies coming in. I urge the Government to reconsider its position; accident compensation levies do not need to rise. The only reason the Opposition can perceive that levies would rise is that there is— 
Darien Fenton 
: An agenda. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —an agenda. What could that agenda be under a National Government? 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Two guesses. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I do not think we need two guesses. I think we need only one guess and that is privatisation. That is ultimately what will be at the end of this process. As I have said before we saw absolute slashes to conditions in the accident compensation scheme under the former National Government. We saw the slashing of lump-sum payments. This bill is very much the same scenario. 
I want to talk about hearing loss. I know that a number of my colleagues have spoken about it. In terms of hearing loss the bill imposes a bar where people will get work-related— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It is all right to be a little bit injured. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly; as Ruth Dyson says it is all right to be a little bit injured and never mind what a medical professional says. We already have a bar in terms of age with regard to eligibility for hearing aids. I know that Labour members will attest that there were some very compelling submissions about hearing loss at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I ask whether I am correct on that and Darien Fenton is nodding. If people have work-related hearing impairment through no fault of their own and even though their quality of life is diminished with just a little bit of hearing loss then this lousy Government is saying that funding accident compensation coverage for those people is unacceptable. It is saying that those people who have anything less than 6 percent hearing loss should foot the bill themselves. The principle is no-fault coverage for a work-related injury but this Government is saying that if it is just a little bit of hearing loss or what the Government perceives as being a little bit of hearing loss regardless of what medical professionals and the Deaf Association say then the Government does not have to fund accident compensation coverage for it. This Government says that it will make those injured people pay even though the hearing loss has occurred through no fault of their own. 
What will this do and what alternative do people in that situation have? Either they foot the bill or they think that it simply is not fair and will look at whether they can sue their employer in many cases. What is the principle behind accident compensation? If we go back to basic principles it is a no-fault system. This change is absolutely silly. The amount that will be saved will be minimal but this measure will also cause considerable stress anxiety and financial stress for people who have suffered a work-related injury. We are absolutely opposed to this change as we are opposed to many of the other clauses. 
One such clause is clause 53 which amends the work-related gradual process provisions. We know that this change will affect older people but we are also hearing from many people at the moment—and I think that many of my colleagues will confirm this—who have been told that their claim is a gradual process injury. They are not getting any support from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) so they have to go through this long process of going to a review and having to challenge ACC’s decision. Many people go to a review which without support from ACC obviously causes considerable financial strain. People also have to wait long periods of time for their review and to be able to see justice served. After going through that process many of those people may also see the original decision upheld. 
But the other thing that concerns me is the number of people who do not go through that process. People see that the stress and anxiety of all of this process is too hard and they just drop their claim. They just box on not getting the financial support that they are probably entitled to. The cost-cutting agenda of ACC is nothing short of ruthless. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Labour is currently the Minister in the chair because the next thing I want to talk about is holiday pay. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: She won’t know about that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Oh yes people should use up their holiday pay. This Minister of Labour is not familiar with many many issues to do with labour. I think that even she would accept that; I think I see her nodding. The situation is that holiday pay is not double-dipping. Holiday pay is a right that has been accrued by work. People have worked and they have accrued that right to holiday pay. I have news for the Minister and the Government: when people are injured they are not on holiday. It is not a holiday. If the Government went out and spoke to injured people it would see that.