Sharples Pita: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Sharples Pita: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17005] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Last night as the debate raged on about this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) I thought back to when I was the chief executive of the Race Relations Office and to the incidents that happened at my workplace. Someone collapsed in our office and we tried CPR. Green stuff started coming out of his mouth. It was pretty yucky and he died. I remember another time when a young man’s face was half shot away by a gang member in front of us. It is 30 years later and I remember every incident so very clearly so it gives me a real understanding of some of the issues that this bill is trying to address. 
The mental injury arising from a sudden traumatic event such as a death in the workplace is not something that one can address just as an agenda item at the weekly staff meeting and then hope it is the end of the matter. Mental injuries are not that easy. Fortunately the level of awareness around mental health issues has advanced dramatically over recent years. In fact in a recent infamous poll veteran rugby hero John Kirwan was ranked at the top end of the list; he was placed sixth for being open and honest about mental health issues. In a poll of 85 politicians were ranked at an all-time low stuck between slot 66 and 82—that is the dozen of us who even made the grade. Although the poll did not do much for our collective mental health I did think it was interesting that the public mood was so positive about the way in which Mr Kirwan has brought a taboo subject out into the light. So it is pleasing that today we have legislation in place to ensure that there will be cover for the appropriate treatment to facilitate rehabilitation for mental injury from such traumatic events. 
The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) currently compensates for mental trauma for victims of sexual abuse and physical injury and we are glad to support the extension to cover mental trauma resulting from workplace incidents. It is indeed progress as the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers found that we have legislation that appears to reflect an improved understanding of mental injury. Of course there is probably no more stark example of the need for an appropriate response to workplace trauma than the tragedy that occurred in my own electorate of Tamaki Makaurau in 2001—the horrible triple murders at the Mount Wellington - Panmure Returned Services Association—that were experienced by a survivor who has suffered years of serious injury and rehabilitation. I place on record here my acknowledgment of the significance of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in upholding the appeal for the right to sue the Department of Corrections which manages Parole Board orders. But for the purposes of this bill today I simply say that when we consider the types of workplace incidents in which trauma may be experienced there is no more powerful justification for the need of such support than when one considers the horrific violence witnessed in the RSA murders. 
There was however a very good point made in the course of the bill by Victim Support and the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) which has been spoken about today. Both of those groups highlighted the fact that treatment for mental injury from witnessing a trauma should be available to all people not just to employees. The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) gave a recent example of the horrific effects that would play out for years to come in relation to that 8-year-old boy—again in my electorate—who witnessed his mother being attacked in the Manukau City shopping centre car-park. The association submitted that it was blatantly unjust that although a young boy would not be eligible under this scheme because he is not a worker an employee of the supermarket who witnessed the event would be covered. The distinction between compensation in respect of whether mental harm occurs in the workplace or elsewhere is an arbitrary one and we sincerely hope that the Minister is able to give priority to ensuring that appropriate cover is in place to support all persons. 
The recent case before the Human Rights Review Tribunal gives us considerable confidence that this Minister is prepared to respond quickly. My colleague Tariana Turia is responsible for having brought to the House a ruling from the Human Rights Commission of 19 May 2008 which was described as a “landmark in human rights law in that it shows how any New Zealander can challenge legislation they believe to be discriminatory and impacts upon them adversely”. The decision made on that day concluded that provisions in the accident compensation law are inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination specifically on the grounds of age. And here we are just a month later with amendments that stipulate that age limits for weekly compensation cannot be used as a factor in deciding whether vocational rehabilitation would be cost-effective. So I congratulate Minister Street Tariana Turia and of course the plaintiff John Howard on a successful action across all fronts. 
I can only hope that it paves the way for another ground-breaking ruling to be made on another case now before the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I refer to the case taken by the Child Poverty Action Group in which it alleges the in-work tax credit discriminates against 220000 children on the basis of work status. This is an act of discrimination that leaves around 150000 children in severe or significant hardship because their families are denied at least $60 a week in family support. 
We support the changes to provisions for vocational rehabilitation and independence. The bill gives ACC the discretion to extend the 3-year limit on vocational rehabilitation recognising that for some claimants rehabilitation cannot be easily wrapped up within the defined time frame. We are pleased also to support the repeal of section 119 so that ACC can provide entitlements to claimants suffering wilfully inflicted injury. There is still much to do to address the gaps in the protection of young and older workers the disabled and those who have been affected by asbestos or chemical solvent exposure. But this bill makes significant steps to improve access to compensation for previously disenfranchised groups particularly those engaged in non-standard work those mentally injured by trauma those between work and those in seasonal and casual work. The Maori Party has always taken an active interest in both workers’ rights and the right to work and we are happy to support this bill at its third reading. Kia ora.