Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7700. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I speak to Part 2—as I believe we are required to Mr Chairperson by your instruction to the Committee of the whole House—unlike the member who just resumed her seat Pansy Wong. She might have been talking about something entirely different. 
Part 2 has just three clauses which cover the transitional provisions. There are two amendments to clauses 14 and 15 proposed by the current Opposition spokesperson on ACC Pansy Wong on her Supplementary Order Paper. If one were to go back to the primary purpose of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill one would understand the transitional provisions. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that people in the paid workforce have their risk assessment based on their exposure to risk rather than on the company structure or business arrangements they happen to be set into. To ensure that the merger of the accounts that is required to achieve that fairness—so that two people doing exactly the same job have their levy assessed on the basis of their exposure to risk rather than on their company structure—is a smooth amalgamation we have the transition periods outlined in clauses 14 15 and 16. So unless one believes that people should be assessed for risk on the basis of their company structure—which is what I presume Pansy Wong might be trying to say although it was not really clear—then I think people should support these three clauses unamended. 
I just want to refer briefly to the comment that Pansy Wong made in her final contribution in her last speech which was in reference to Paul Hutchison’s amendments. Frankly if information is available under the Official Information Act then I would recommend to the current and former—recently dumped—Opposition spokespersons on ACC that they should use its provisions. When I held that spokesmanship in Opposition I used Official Information Act provisions a lot and they were very worthwhile. I do not think I will give them as much pleasure as Murray McCully gave me but I would recommend they use the provisions of the Official Information Act. That information is available. 
My final point is in response to Pansy Wong’s Supplementary Order Paper containing the two proposed amendments to these clauses. Firstly she should recognise that the volatility of levies is something the entire House should be anxious about. Business people—whatever their company structure—like to have some certainty. That is why I think the information about the levy setting is important and it was a valuable contribution to the debate. But if we have no smoothing policy at all then we will get back to the good old bad days when people had no idea from one year to another what their levy was likely to be. That is a totally unsatisfactory situation. 
Mention has been made of the Accredited Employers Programme. I challenge the National Party to front up before the end of this debate in the Committee stage to what its actual policy is on the Accredited Employers Programme. In my view it is a good programme. We put it into the 2000 legislation because we believed it was a good programme. It gives opportunities for employers and unions to work together in genuine partnership as outlined in the legislation to reduce injury incidents within the workplace and to work together to improve safety in the workplace. Paul Hutchison said it was the best thing since sliced bread. I do not think it is as good as that actually but I think it is very good despite the concerns I have. 
David Bennett—I think he is a list member from the Waikato—said the Accredited Employers Programme was a sham. That is an outrage. If accredited employers do not know that that was what he said—although it is on the record now that David Bennett from Waikato said the Accredited Employers Programme was a sham—then I will make sure they understand that that is his view. 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member is misrepresenting what I said. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would like the member to have a look at Speakers’ ruling 36/5. When it comes to misrepresentation you do not raise points of order now. You raise them at the end of the speech. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: So with those concluding comments I thank the members for their contribution over the next little while on these three single clauses. I urge members to vote against Pansy Wong’s Supplementary Order Paper.