Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16942] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I hope that I will raise a new point. I did not intend to take a call in the Committee stage of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) because I thought it was going ahead very straightforwardly and progressing quite well. But I take exception to what Colin King has just said. I do not know one accident victim who would describe the accident compensation scheme as gold-plated. I have never heard an accident victim describe this scheme as gold-plated. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I’ve never heard it described as that either. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have heard it described in many ways but I have never heard it described as gold-plated. I know that member over there has quite a compassionate heart and I would invite him to look at this bill from the point of view of an accident victim. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Order! 
PETER BROWN 
: Let them go Madam Chairperson. I do not mind. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I would like to hear the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have pricked their consciences Madam Chairperson so you have to understand that they feel a bit uneasy. The member has a compassionate heart but I invite him to look at this bill from the point of view of an accident victim. I say to National members because I think they are a cold-hearted bunch of squids—[ 
Interruption 
]—I retract that comment in regard to Paul Hutchinson and David Bennett because they have made some interesting contributions. We need to improve accident compensation and to view it from the victim’s point of view. 
I am encouraged by the two National speakers before Colin King. Paul Hutchinson and David Bennett echoed the point—and it is quite correct—that if a person witnesses a traumatic event at work and suffers mental injury that person is covered by accident compensation. But if a person sees the same event outside the workplace that person is not covered. The reason for that—and both my National Party colleagues understand this—is that the taxpayer pays for the people who are not at work. I take it from that and the member can tell me if I am wrong that National will produce a Supplementary Order Paper which New Zealand First would support to cover the non-working person who sees a traumatic event. I ask those members to put their money where their mouth is. They have said the bill is unfair in relation to a person who experiences a traumatic event and who suffers a mental injury at a time when that person is not working—that person should be covered. I take it from that that National will cover people in those circumstances. 
Will National put that provision as a high priority? Its leader says that tax cuts are National’s highest priority so according to those guys the money is there. I ask National to produce a Supplementary Order Paper that will cover people who are not in the workforce and who see a traumatic event. I ask Mr Bennett not to bob up. He should sit down and apply his intelligence to a piece of paper and we will get— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. It is quite unusual for the member from New Zealand First Peter Brown to make those arguments because if one reads the commentary and the position of New Zealand First— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: What is the point of order? 
David Bennett 
: I would like to table the commentary which shows that New Zealand First actually raised serious concerns about the bill and how it would impose additional costs on employers— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member will sit down. It is unacceptable to raise a point of order to deposit material in the middle of a person’s speech. That should be done at the end. If the member wishes to try again at the end of the speech he may. 
PETER BROWN 
: There is nothing in our minority view that we will retract. The Minister for ACC is well aware that we believe this bill should go further to address the concerns of people in the workforce who are over the age of 65. More and more people are working longer in their lives and we think that this bill is an opportunity to go further. But that does not mean we want to stop the people like the train driver who came before the before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from being covered. 
Simon Power 
: No. 
PETER BROWN 
: Simon Power says “No.”; he agrees with me. 
Simon Power 
: I do agree with you. 
PETER BROWN 
: Support the bill then I say to Mr Power. 
Simon Power 
: I don’t agree with you that much. 
PETER BROWN 
: I ask Mr Power to show a bit of compassion a bit of understanding! [ 
Interruption 
] Bob Clarkson agrees with me. He would agree with anything. He is going so he will agree with us. 
This is a serious issue that I do not want to make light of. The train driver came before us and told us about the extenuating circumstances he was involved in when he ran over and killed someone and the first instruction he was given was to go along the lines and to look at what had happened to the individual. I think the whole of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was moved perhaps not to tears but emotionally by his statements. Let us think for just 1 minute about what that guy went through. He got out of his train and he had to go along the lines to see what damage he had done. That damage which was through no fault of his—and I want to make that quite clear—was horrific.