Beaumont Carol: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9068] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise with a heavy heart because like others I know that the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill is just the start of the National Government’s agenda in relation to accident compensation. It has tried and is continuing to try to deliberately undermine confidence in the accident compensation scheme and to manufacture a crisis and then to flow that on to the sorts of changes that the ACT speaker John Boscawen has just referred to which was the previous privatisation of the scheme. Labour opposes the entire bill with the exception of the provisions to extend full funding for historical claims. 
Before I speak about some of the specifics of the bill and some of the submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I will make a couple of contextual comments. I note that there has been a scaremongering campaign and there has been of course an inflated levies consultation campaign. Then there has been the cancellation of the Falls Prevention Strategy for the elderly—that is a good one—and the 20-kilometre travel and petrol reimbursement threshold on carers. How about the cuts in car and home modification budgets? How about denying half of the claims for surgery after injury and denying sexual abuse victims and survivors counselling in at least 70 percent of cases? I also found it very interesting to read a report recently released to Labour under the Official Information Act. It talks about the accident compensation scheme having moved too far towards a customer focus and says that there is a need to tighten the gateway by reducing the level and costs of treatment provided especially rationalising the range and services available. 
That is the context in which this legislation is happening. As my colleague Darien Fenton asked where is the focus on injury prevention? I have sat and listened to the Minister for ACC in the House and in the select committee. Where is the focus on injury prevention? It is not in the bill. We in this House should agree that we need to focus on injury prevention. I note that there have been cuts in the number of health and safety representatives being trained—from 6000 to 2000 representatives. That is just crazy. Those are the people who in their own voluntary capacity make it their job to make sure that their workmates they themselves and the public are safe. It is just crazy. 
A lot has been made of the costs of accident compensation. PricewaterhouseCoopers reviewed the accident compensation scheme in 2008 and identified a number of major points including that it has afforded New Zealand’s society and economy four decades of added value and social economic value; that it compares with other worker compensation schemes and performs well in terms of return to work; and that as a proportion of wages levies are substantially lower than in comparable Australian worker compensation schemes. In Labour’s minority report members will see if they take the time the figures that show the comparison. New Zealand has lower claims management expenses than all Australian schemes and our dispute rate in comparison with others is very low; overall the scheme performs incredibly well. These are some of the facts that need to be put into the mix. 
I also acknowledge as others have the submitters to the select committee. I acknowledge the 133 individuals and submitters from interested groups and the 47 whom we heard in person for taking the time to share in many cases their own personal experiences. Many of them were actually first-time submitters. Some incredibly powerful and moving submissions were made. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the officials who worked with us on the select committee because we certainly asked for a lot of information we were challenging and questioning all the way through and they continued to provide us with that information. 
But I am sad to say that despite the submitters’ efforts—who were overwhelmingly opposed to what the Government is doing—they really did not get listened to. Only minor changes were made to the bill at select committee. None of the very real concerns that were raised have actually led to changes; members see that fact with this bill coming back to the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Arrogant. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Arrogant Government—indeed it is. 
I will follow up on the question of fairness. Labour values fairness very highly but inequity does not seem to worry this Government. It seems to me that it would be interesting to know how the Minister believes he can align two of the strategic priorities of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)—“Ensuring New Zealanders have confidence in ACC” and “Open and fair access for all New Zealanders”—with the advice given by Te Puni Kokiri that “the impacts of the proposed changes are likely to have a disproportionate effect on Maori. Maori are more likely to be employed in high risk jobs be from low income families and have higher rates of imprisonment.” or indeed with the fact that no gender analysis has been done of the proposed changes despite the fact that it is clear that there will be disproportionate impacts on women. The National Council of Women made that great point in its submission. It said that “women are more vulnerable to negative outcomes through a lack of social services and the stringent reductions set out in this Bill will reduce those services further. In addition many of the service providers—counsellors physiotherapists home care workers—are women who depend on ACC funding to deliver their services.” So there will be a disproportionate effect on Maori and a disproportionate effect on women. 
Furthermore there is a disproportionate effect on the elderly. The elderly will be particularly affected by the provisions for a 6 percent hearing loss requirement before people can get assistance. I will go into some detail about that provision. I was very impressed with the submissions in the area of hearing loss. It is fair to say that they were strong submissions made by a range of individuals and organisations who work in this area. Essentially the view of all of the submitters on hearing loss was that the figure is an arbitrary one and that it leads to a breach of faith that—and officials have confirmed this—will return the right to sue in New Zealand. How much debate has there been about that? That is a very very serious matter that we as parliamentarians should be worried about. We have had a scheme with a social contract. The right to sue was given up because the Woodhouse principles were met and we had cover. Where we have cover we cannot sue. It is clear that a number of workers will now no longer have cover because they fall below that 6 percent threshold. They can sue. Is that what we want in this country? 
The amount saved by that provision is estimated to be $3 million to $4 million a year. A voluntary industry accord in the hearing industry has saved at least $10 million in 18 months yet those players were not even consulted about the changes prior to their being put into this bill. Academic studies that we heard submissions about showed that there will very likely be a trend downward in successful workplace hearing loss claims because we are now getting better at protecting people. So older people—people who have already been in the workplace and who have suffered from working in primary industries such as meat farming and shearing—will be disproportionately hit. 
I could give members many examples but I am running out of time so I will just reinforce the fact that those older New Zealanders are like the man who came to us and talked about the fact that even mild hearing loss can affect one’s relationships with family friends and workmates. He asked us to think about what it would be like to not be able to hear the birds singing to hear one’s grandchildren talk or to hear clearly on the telephone. That is what this bill will do to older New Zealanders and I think it is an absolute disgrace. Submitters from the Human Rights Commission came to us and said they believe this provision to be discriminatory. They said that the threshold of “6% loss of hearing before being eligible for treatment amounts to intra-ground discrimination as it imposes different criteria for those claiming compensation for hearing damage as opposed to other forms of injury.” It is discriminatory. Does that matter to the Government? Not at all. Despite very powerful submissions it is not listening. I am sure its members can hear but they are certainly not listening. 
We could get on to vocational independence but I am sure I will be told soon that I have little time to speak so perhaps that will be for next week. In conclusion I say that this is just a start. Along with clear operational culture changes we are seeing a process of reducing cover increasing costs and moving to a privatised insurance model. Thank you.