King Colin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
King Colin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16941] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the issue of accident compensation. I want to bring to the debate some experience that I had as a shearer and as a shearing contractor. 
When I hear about the progressive injury situation I know that it is a can of worms indeed because it is a highly contentious situation. In my own life as a contractor I was subject to situations that I had absolutely no control over with regard to injuries that had happened outside the workplace—in this case a shearing-shed. People would come to me to talk about back injuries and tendon injuries. One of the real issues we had with claiming for accident compensation was being able to establish the actual time when those injuries had occurred. 
I am particularly concerned about the muddying of the waters around the issue of the employers’ account when a situation can be clearly sheeted back home to personal responsibility. I am talking about some of the incidents that occurred when I was a contractor when some very good young rugby players would come to me on Sunday evening to say they had a sore back. I would have been watching the game of rugby where they had been at the bottom of the ruck and out the back they would come. Those players would show great Kiwi ingenuity. They would throw themselves with ferocity at their opponents and then they would try to say that they had injured their back while they were on the third run of the second day at the Tiroa E incorporation’s shed at Benneydale. In that situation I was confronted with a compelling story and had to decide whether to sign it off and face the consequences. 
When it comes down to the accident compensation scheme as marvellous as it has been—and it has been a wonderful insulator for the worker and his or her family who are able to manage through those times when the worker is unable to earn an income—I believe that we have to be very careful when it comes to claims for a progressive injury because it is wide open to interpretation. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: National Party policy—careful! 
COLIN KING 
: Much like the member opposite it will not be with us for too much longer. With regard to this issue it is about the very realities that we confront as employers and employees in the workplace. I know that it is probably quite cruel to say in a blanket way that we have to remove this provision and be black and white about it but what scares me much more than that is that a progressive injury can be loaded against the employer and the employers’ account and the consequences of doing that tend to undermine the very principle behind the accident compensation scheme. 
After looking at my personal experience I think that the Labour Government has gone one bridge too far. It needs to be very respectful of the balance around personal responsibility and honesty with regard to this situation. Repetitive injury is difficult to prove and on balance this measure is something that I cannot support. Again we are looking at what is already a gold-plated model. It is incredibly generous and being able to bolt on or clip on some more variables will open up quite a minefield. 
I just thought that I needed to make that contribution. I know that my friends and colleagues around me have debated this issue quite extensively and they have had the benefit of going through the select committee process.