Goudie Sandra: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20266] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on a point made by my very excellent colleague Katherine Rich in regard to costs. National has some concerns around the cost implications of this bill and Business New Zealand in its submission pointed out the omission from the explanatory note of any statement of likely cost increases arising from compliance in regard to increased administration and levy costs and any other expenses that may become payable. 
When we look “at any other expenses that may become payable” we need to look at section 32 “Treatment injury” inserted by clause 13. That provision has been alluded to by other speakers. Section 33 “Treatment” states: “(1) For the purposes of determining whether a treatment injury has occurred or when that injury occurred treatment includes—”. I will skip paragraphs (a) to (f). Paragraph (g) states: “the failure of any equipment device or tool used as part of the treatment process including the failure of any implant or prosthesis …”. Some people make a conscious decision to change their physical appearance and when they make that conscious decision they are fully aware of the risks associated with it. They may decide they want a breast implant so they are fully aware of the risks associated with having a breast implant. Paragraph (g) further states: “(except where the failure of the implant or prosthesis is caused by an intervening act or by fair wear and tear)”. In the terms of a breast one would ask the question what is fair wear and tear? 
Darren Hughes 
: You would know! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: That might be more in the member’s expertise. Paragraph (g) continues after it talks about an intervening act or by fair wear and tear: “whether at the time of giving treatment or subsequently:” People need to give some thought to that. 
So a person actually makes a decision to have a breast implant to change the physical appearance. But of course it could be a male wanting an implant to enhance his pecs. One would ask what would be fair wear and tear and whether he should be compensated for failure of those pecs to perform. So people who have consciously decided to have implants being aware of the liabilities and risks involved will be provided with accident compensation cover for failure of those implants to perform. Why would we do that? Think of the costs associated! 
Business New Zealand quite rightly pointed out that the work on understanding the full cost implications of what is being promoted in the bill has not necessarily been done. Why would we give accident compensation cover to people who have consciously made decisions to change their appearance then expect the Government to compensate them for the failure of any body enhancements that have been sought? Tattooing is another example. There can be downsides to that. There are risks associated with that. 
Katherine Rich 
: Botox. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes Botox. There is a full range— 
Katherine Rich 
: Sex change operations. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes that is another one. Are we to start covering people who have made conscious decisions for any failure in association with those decisions? Those costs would be significant I expect particularly in the case of a breast implant failure. I understand that some of those failures have lifelong adverse effects and that they incur a substantial cost. 
If we refer back to subsection (1) we see that the term “treatment” includes the giving of treatment and a diagnosis of a person’s medical condition. Just failure to properly diagnose a condition means that that person may be liable for some accident compensation cover. How far does that go? It includes a decision on the treatment to be provided. If there is an error in that will that be able to be claimed for as well?