Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16938] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am really looking forward to the Minister for ACC Maryan Street taking many more calls. She just told us not to worry that the Labour Government has wasted so much parliamentary time on passing legislation to deal with this new cover for mental injury caused by witnessing a traumatic event because there will not be many claims. That was the reason she gave—there will not be many claims so we do not need to worry. 
If the Labour Government is so compassionate that it wants to cover this injury why has it taken so long to do it? It has taken 9 long years to introduce this cover. It takes Labour members 9 years to do something even when they feel passionate about it. It really is tough. I think it is to do with election year. The Minister told us that essentially the legislation would not cover many people but sad to say she was not prepared to make it retrospective to cover the four submitters the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from. I am not sure why we are debating this new cover if it will not happen very often. I have bad news for the Minister: I think it might happen quite often because under the Labour Government law and order is out of control. The opportunities for people to witness a traumatic event during work hours might actually be on the rise. I think the only consolation is that there will be a change of Government so that law and order do not get out of hand. 
I want to expand on another provision in the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) which changes the cover relating to gradual or progressive injury incurred during work hours. There is a change in this legislation whereby the onus of proof is put back on the employer. If the employer cannot prove that an injury was incurred outside of work hours then under this legislation it becomes a claim against the work account. That is different from the previous provision. One of the submitters was Massey University. People from the university came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said that as a good employer they have done everything they can. The area that most concerned them was that a lot of their staff use keyboards during work hours. They have done a lot in terms of improving the work environment including regarding laboratory bench heights. They have taken a lot of preventive measures to make the workplace safe. If an employee uses a keyboard after work if an injury is caused by an outside-of-work situation how can it be justifiable that Massey University even though it has been a good employer is penalised under this legislation? 
The Massey University submitters suggested quite a sensible way forward. It will be difficult they agree to prove whether an injury happened during work or after work. So they suggested that a percentage be worked out as to how much time a person spends at work and at home. That would make a claim a lot easier. Under this new provision it would be assumed that the injury was incurred in the workplace and if there is a dispute then the Accident Compensation Corporation can investigate. But can members imagine how difficult it would be for an employer to enter an employee’s home to look at his or her home environment and say whether a particular injury was more likely to be attributable to an outside-of-work situation? 
Once again this is typical of the Labour Government. As my good colleague Dr Paul Hutchison said it just charges on leading the world. Labour members do not actually know where they are leading; they simply lead like lemmings jumping off a cliff. As long as they are first they do not care whether it will cost employers and they do not care whether it will lead New Zealand down in the OECD tables. They just want to lead but without a target and without knowing where the pathway is or how much it will cost. That is why one submitter after another came to the select committee and asked how employers will be able to be good employers.