Hodgson Pete: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9242] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I have a couple of questions for the Minister for ACC. I will give them at the outset and then spend a little time trying to convince him that it is not a bad idea to answer them. The first question is: why change the name? We have been saying to the Minister that we think he has changed the name for this reason that we think he has changed the name for that reason and that we think he should have left the name alone for the other reason. We have been at that for a while and we have had no response. 
The second question is: when was the name changed? The last time a National Government took the axe to the accident compensation system was in the 1990s when the Rt Hon William Birch had a go. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Nick Smith was there too. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Nick Smith was there I was there and a few others in the Committee were there. The name change which put the word “insurance” in the title was made up front at the outset. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Always. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Maurice Williamson agrees with me. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He’s not old enough to remember is he? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Maurice Williamson is old enough to remember. It is clear that the Government had a policy shift afoot and wanted to reflect that policy shift in the title so it did. It was upfront which gave us months to say that it should not have done it as it is not an insurance scheme; it is a social contract. That debate continues to this day. 
But not this time. This time the Government is taking the axe to the accident compensation system in all its totality. It is changing the first couple of words of the title of the bill from “Injury Prevention” to “Accident Compensation”. I would like to know when the Minister decided to do that and I gently challenge the Minister with the proposition that he had decided all along that he would change the name. He has after all had to be across this portfolio very tightly because he was the person who said that the accident compensation scheme was broken. No one else agreed with him but he said it and he stuck with it. He ran that line hard and fast. He then decided to proceed with the legislative changes that are in front of us today. 
The Minister started this issue so he has been across the issue for about 15 months. I wonder whether it is within the bounds of credibility that within that time he did not at some stage have some conversation either with himself or someone else about the name change. I suspect he did yet the legislation as introduced into the House was the same and no change was made to the title by Government members of the select committee. I am not aware of submissions calling for a name change. There may have been some; it would be interesting to know if the Minister would like to tell us about them. I suspect that the Minister had the name change in his back pocket all along. I think the Minister decided that he would do a little quickie and make the name change on the floor of the Chamber towards the end of the legislative process. That is my challenge. I would not call it as strong as an accusation but I would like the Minister to get up and give us his side of the story. 
Those are my two questions: why did the Government believe that a name change was a good idea and when did the Government—or indeed the Minister—decide to change the name? I wonder whether the Minister would care to indicate whether he would like to respond to me. If he does not want to respond I am happy to continue with the debate and I thank the Chair for allowing me the opportunity to do so. However as soon at the Minister twitches a muscle I will happily sit down. I am just making that clear to the Minister and to the Chair. 
On the substantial issue of the name change I think an important point to make is that as with the health system prevention is where the cheap benefits come. Prevention is a cost-effective activity; compensation is not a cost-effective activity. I want to know from the Government why it has chosen something that is determinedly and systematically inefficient. This Government is preoccupied with economic growth and with catching up with Australia yet with this name change it has arguably chosen an approach that is known to be less efficient. If there is to be a downturn a downsizing or a reduction in attention to injury prevention or if more programmes of the ilk of the University of Otago Faculty of Medicine falls prevention programme are to be cut I want the Minister to explain to the Committee why he thinks that will be economically efficient. I tell members to notice how I am choosing my language. In essence this is a social portfolio but I ask the Minister why he thinks that would be more economically efficient.