Collins Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20345] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 That was so boring. That was the most boring election speech from someone who is trying desperately to get into Cabinet because the Cabinet Ministers surrounding her are falling by the wayside. That would have to be the most grovelling speech I have heard. I noticed the way Steve Chadwick did not bother to thank the rest of us on the Health Committee. 
She went on to say that this is the third amendment bill on this issue in the 5 years of this Government and that is apparently a good thing. Third time lucky! 
Steve Chadwick 
: It was such a mess. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Government could not get it right the first time or the second time and now it is having a third go. And it has not got it right today unfortunately. 
What is really annoying is that today United Future has said that it really did quite like what Pansy Wong was saying. What a shame it did not put its money where its mouth is when it had the opportunity to support a united front of National New Zealand First the Greens and ACT! We were all working together. Mrs Turner from United Future knows that Pansy Wong’s amendment should have gone through but unfortunately she takes her orders from the Labour Party. Unfortunately that poor old party United Future has done itself no good by stopping the opportunity to resolve the acupuncture issue. 
Despite what Mrs Chadwick says we do not believe that things will all be fine and happy in the land of acupuncture. It has shown no signs of being fine and happy before and we do not necessarily believe that that will happen now. And if it is all fine and happy why not allow the other organisations to be in this bill? Why have in this bill only two organisations that acupuncturists can belong to? Acupuncturists do not have the ability to argue about it; they have to belong to those organisations. Yet those organisations are set up as private organisations and have no statutory authority except under this bill. That is ridiculous. Pansy Wong put up a very good amendment but the Government talked to Mrs Turner and she did as she was told so we could not have the amendment. 
Another area that I am concerned about apart from the loss of Pansy Wong’s very excellent amendment is the issue of “treatment” including “the provision of prophylaxis:”. I raised this issue last night. I thought the Minister for ACC might go away and think about it to make sure that we were not putting into law something that could have some quite unintended consequences. New section 33(1)(f) in clause 13 states that “treatment” includes “the provision of prophylaxis:”. 
Steve Chadwick 
: This is the third reading. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I notice that the member for Rotorua Mrs Chadwick keeps calling out that this is the third reading. Well the member should have dealt with some of the issues that were raised before and that I raised last night but she did not and consequently I am raising them now. 
We have in this country hepatitis C sufferers who are the victims of bad blood that they received in the late 1980s when Labour was in power and when Helen Clark was the Minister of Health and those people are not getting the settlements that they should. This bill would enable them if they were to get sick in that situation now to get payment from the Accident Compensation Corporation. That is a good thing and is one of the reasons National is supporting the bill. But unfortunately this bill states that prophylaxis can be a treatment. I have discussed this with Dr Paul Hutchison who is a medical doctor and understands this issue and he has confirmed for me that normally prophylaxis in this instance would mean antibiotics to stop infections and things like that. But the term also means condoms because of their use to stop the passing of infection—[ 
Interruption 
] It may well be I say to Mrs Chadwick but under the definition of “treatment” in new section 33 “treatment” can include just the provision of prophylaxis. It does not say that that is on the basis that it is in itself a treatment; it is saying that treatment equals prophylaxis not that only prophylactics that are used in the course of treatment would be covered. 
I think that is something we need to look at. The Minister shakes her head to say that she is right. I imagine we will have a fourth bill being brought in soon. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What could be the injury? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The injury could well be the passing on of hepatitis C of AIDS or of all sorts of other diseases. I think it is an issue that should have been sorted out. I know that we are in the third reading but the Minister did not deal with this issue last night and I am taking this last opportunity to put my concerns on record. This is something that should have been looked at. This House already knows that National members are very concerned about just how much work has been taken into account in terms of the costings of this measure but we are also not sure that it has been done properly. We have raised concerns about that. Obviously we do not want people suffering from bad treatments then going on to suffer for years and years with nobody listening like the poor old hepatitis C sufferers who are still waiting for their settlement despite the fact that Annette King when she was the Opposition spokesperson on health said that Labour would get it sorted out when it got into Government. 
Heather Roy 
: She said that a lot. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: She certainly did. Five years later those people are still waiting. Nobody believes for a moment that anyone tried to get those people to have hepatitis C. But the fact is they did get hepatitis C. Their livers have been damaged and their whole lives have been damaged and shortened even more than they were before. Yet we are still waiting for a resolution. It is just like with the Berrymans and it is just like with Agent Orange. When members opposite were in Opposition they ran around saying what they were going to do. As soon as they are in Government they are too busy doing their own thing for their own voters and they leave those poor people alone. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mrs Pettis that it happened in late 1989; National came into power only at the end of 1990. It happened because of the bad blood case when Helen Clark was the Minister of Health. I say to Mrs Pettis that she should know her facts because I have checked it out. Where is Helen Clark on this issue? She is running away and saying it was not her just as she is so sure of what she said to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 five times. 
This Minister is being told there is a concern here and it should be checked out but she has decided not to. She is saying that the Government will just go along with it because this bill is its third amendment bill in 5 years. The Government could not get it right once it could not get it right a second time and it certainly has not got it right a third time.