Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16948] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I speak on Part 2 and the schedules of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I must say it was of great concern to hear the member for Hamilton West err and stray from Part 2. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I know the member is a relatively new member but he should know he is not allowed to refer to a matter on which you have ruled. He is doing that now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. You are correct. I wonder whether we can now continue. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Indeed it is great to be brought to order by the former member for Hamilton West but nevertheless— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: There’s something in the water in Hamilton. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It goes all the way down to Lower Hutt these days. Nevertheless I would like to speak on clause 43 of schedule 1 of the principal Act “Weekly earnings if employment ended before commencement of incapacity”. Once again this is covered in Part 2. The problem here is that this proposed change will allow an employee to cease employment without having reported an accident and without any symptoms of injury and to then present a medical certificate from a medical practitioner 28 days later showing an incapacity. This is quite absurd. This indeed widens the current loophole whereby a disgruntled employee can lay a claim for ongoing weekly compensation entitlements 28 days after the employment relationship has ceased. It also provides again a perverse incentive for a former employee who cannot find other employment to make a claim to sustain his or her ongoing income. So once again we see a perverse incentive that is being encouraged by the Labour Government in this very untidy legislation. 
The other point I would like to make is that these schedules do allow further slow process conditions and diseases to be added I understand by Order in Council. Once again the end of this is pretty well infinite. It could go on and on forever. The Labour Government once again in its expansive determination to be there first like the lemming over the cliff has decided to make these schedules reasonably easy to alter. That of course is a particular worry given the fact that this legislation brings in the reversal of proof from the employee or the person who had the accident having to show or demonstrate that he or she has indeed had the injury to the employer having to disprove that that person did not suffer an injury. As many of the legal fraternity know this becomes almost impossible when there is not the ability to invade someone’s privacy to ask for instance a person who has suffered a hearing injury whether it occurred because that person worked in a noisy atmosphere or because the employee had the propensity to go home turn on the stereo and play his or her favourite music at very loud decibels for very long times. It is absolutely impossible to prove yet this reversal of proof is exactly what the Labour Government is trying to do with this legislation. There is also the ability in the schedules to add on further slow process conditions and diseases. 
I would also like to talk about clause 51 of schedule 1 in the principal Act “Abatement of compensation”. By removing the abatement of earnings from partial hours the incentive to obtain a fully fit medical certificate is removed. Once again we have a perverse incentive—the sort of incentive or perverse situation that the Labour Government consistently wants to encourage and is the reason that this Labour Government has failed and is managing New Zealand so badly. The abatement of compensation means that any employee returning to work on partial hours will receive his or her 100 percent pre-injury earnings rate after working fewer than 8 hours per week so there is an incentive for claimants to influence their medical practitioners to certify them fit to work for 8 hours or fewer per week. 
We have heard story after story over the last few months of doctor-bullying by accident compensation claimants. This is the very classic example in clause 51. Should a claimant be required to work more than this then that person will not earn any additional income until he or she becomes fully fit and returns to normal duties. So the 80 percent and minimum weekly compensation rates have been long-established mechanisms to ensure injured workers have an income stream protected and maintained. Abated compensation for partial hours provides a stepped incentive to increasing working hours and the removal of abated compensation will be a retrograde step in positive rehabilitation. 
So we have three instances within Part 2 and the schedule where perverse incentives are being encouraged by the legislation and where dire consequences will occur both to the affordability of the scheme and indeed to the individuals involved with it—that is the weekly earnings of an employee’s employment ended before commencement of incapacity the abatement of compensation and of course the ability to add more long-term work-related injuries to the schedule without a legislation change. This continues to be the reason why the National Party is deeply concerned about this legislation and is opposing it.