Chadwick Steve: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20344] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I think this is a fantastic day for this Government. This is the third bill on accident compensation that has come before the House since Labour came into Government in 1999. This Government knew from years of dysfunctional management and law behind those who managed the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) what needed to happen to get accident compensation back to the Woodhouse principles. The very name of this bill—Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3)—suggests that we are now back on track to what was originally proposed by Woodhouse. I congratulate the Minister Ruth Dyson who has just walked in the door on her fantastic efforts. She understands accident compensation. She is always chomping at the bit and wanting to do something. She has got on and we have had our third bill before the House in 5 years. 
It has tidied up so many aspects of accident compensation that frustrated staff but above all really did impede the processes for patients trying to prove that while they were undergoing treatment—whether as an outpatient out in the community or in a hospital setting—they had sustained an injury. Patients had a very very difficult threshold to cross to prove that an injury was a result of treatment. They had to get doctors behind them and get lab reports X-ray reports and theatre reports to prove that they had actually sustained an injury. Gone now—thank goodness—is medical misadventure. Gone is medical error and medical mishap. Thank goodness they are gone. That threshold was so complex and so bureaucratic that few people got through it to receive fair and reasonable compensation for any injury they sustained. That is the great aspect of this bill. 
I will mention a concern proposed by National that now that we have this new “treatment injury” provision things will not be adequately reported. That is quite wrong—absolutely wrong. Medical practitioners and all practitioners are saying that at last they will be practising in an environment that is open inclusive and examines the issues and systems in which they work. This is a wonderful bill. It has resulted from great consultation with those very practitioners and managers in the health environment who were frustrated before when they tried to investigate complaints to decide whether there was a just case to go to ACC. They could not even get practitioners to turn up to talk about what had happened and what had gone wrong. Practitioners used to think that they had to bring legal counsel. They used to go to their indemnity insurers to ask whether they should admit any liability or fault. That was a sad environment. 
Now we have an environment that builds on valuing our practitioners in the health sector. It also brings the role of the Health and Disability Commissioner into the loop. That is a big thing because the commissioner used to stand alone and outside of ACC. Now ACC must report to the Health and Disability Commissioner and to the professional body that is related to the treatment injury provision. That is a very good environment for making sure complaints are properly processed and reported back so that systems are corrected to prevent any further error. 
This is a great day for the Minister and for the Government. I am sure the Minister is already wondering what the next thing is that she can tackle with accident compensation that will exhaust the Health Committee. I would like to thank those on the Health Committee who worked with us. We worked well on this bill and found it very simple—except for the issue of the acupuncturists—because of the consultation that went on beforehand. I thank my colleagues and the committee clerk for the way we worked on this bill. I look forward to the Minister’s next bill.