Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20269] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). The National Party is supporting this bill because of the gross unfairness and problems that occur with medical mishap and error. The situation was a little bit like a lottery in that the “rare and severe” provisions relate to injuries that occur on less than 1 percent of occasions according to literature around the world. It varied quite a lot and resulted in individuals having to prove that there was a problem. That is obviously inconsistent with the no-fault system that parties in New Zealand generally have accepted as being appropriate. 
But clearly what we in the National Party are worried about is the absolute dearth of concern by the Labour Government about costs. There was not even an impact statement and when the Government did finally come out with it it was just a stab. When one looks at clauses 10 and 13 one sees much evidence of why that abandonment by the Labour Government of the reality of the costs is absolutely relevant. 
Firstly let us look at section 32(7) inserted by clause 13 which states: “If a person (person A) suffers an infection that is a personal injury caused by treatment injury cover for that personal injury extends to—(a) person A’s spouse if person A has passed the infection on directly to the spouse: (b) person A’s child if person A has passed the infection on directly to the child: (c) any other third party if person A has passed the infection on directly to that third party:”. It looks almost like an infinite chain of events. Say a methicillin-resistant infection were passed on around the community; the cost of sorting that out could be immense and certainly does not tie in in any way with the cost estimations by the Department of Labour which has calculated that under the bill costs will increase by $8.69 million annually and that there will be a one-off transitional cost of $12 million. Once again it is a case of the Labour Government just not facing reality when it comes to true pricing. 
We go on to new section 33(1) inserted by clause 13 which states: “For the purposes of determining whether a treatment injury has occurred or when that injury occurred treatment includes—… (d) a failure to provide treatment or to provide treatment in a timely manner:”. I think it was Barbara Stewart who pointed out that we saw this morning in the  
New Zealand Herald  
a damning indictment of this Labour Government headed “Just how sick do you have to be to get a hospital bed?”. We heard Labour talk throughout the 1990s of blitzing the waiting lists of transparency and accountability. Yet what did it do in 2003? It took 25000 people off the waiting list. What did it do on 1 April this year? 
Darren Hughes 
: 40 percent more funding. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It took 2000 people off the waiting list at the Counties Manukau District Health Board and sent them back to the care of their general practitioner to live a life of uncertainty in pain. I heard Darren Hughes say “40 percent more funding.” That is the problem. The Government puts all this extra money in but with no result. There is no increase in outcomes whatsoever. In fact it is even worse than that. That is the very nub of the problem. The Department of Labour and the Government have estimated the cost of this bill at $8.69 million annually and that just is not realistic. I would like the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe to give us a true reality check of what is realistic.