Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16998] 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill continues to progress this Government’s commitment to a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme by making changes to cover for work-related injuries; to eligibility for and entitlement to weekly compensation; and to entitlement to and processes for vocational rehabilitation. 
The bill introduces cover for a mental injury caused by exposure to a sudden traumatic event in the course of employment. This is a major development for the scheme and brings New Zealand’s cover into line with the cover offered to workers in many other countries. The bill is not intended to provide cover for work-related mental injuries caused by a gradual process such as mental stress caused by work overload or the temporary distress that constitutes a normal response to trauma. 
The bill introduces changes to the provisions for work-related gradual process disease and infection to provide more clarity around whether cover is available and how it is determined and to remove some existing barriers to cover. It does this through amending the test of work-causation set out in the existing Act. The bill also introduces changes that allow greater flexibility to amend the list of occupational diseases provided in schedule 2. The bill updates the weekly compensation framework in order to improve access to weekly compensation particularly for seasonal and casual workers. It provides fairer and more straightforward weekly compensation for seasonal and casual employees through improving access to weekly compensation for people who are injured while temporarily between jobs. It allows earlier access to minimum weekly compensation for certain claimants and increases the rate of weekly compensation paid to potential earners. 
The bill also enhances the existing legislative provisions for vocational rehabilitation in order to provide better outcomes for claimants. The changes include removal of the existing age-limits for eligibility for vocational rehabilitation. The bill also addresses a number of other policy issues and improvements aimed at making the scheme clearer and more responsive to the needs of claimants. 
The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) builds on the framework provided by the existing legislation to provide a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme for reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. It enhances the scheme’s responsiveness to the needs of claimants. I commend this bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 We have seen the headline in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today: “More price hikes in the pipeline for drivers” due to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) levy increase through the petrol tax as well as motor vehicle registration fees. We can be assured that with the passage of this bill with the support of New Zealand First there will be continuing price hikes for employers and for the self-employed in terms of their ACC premium through the work accounts. 
Last night we had the revelation from the Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street that she and the ACC actually have no idea of the cost of some of the new coverage that is introduced by this legislation. For example the estimated cost for mental injury caused by witnessing a traumatic event ranges between $7.6 million and $76 million. That is a wild guess—I would not even use the word “estimate”. According to the Minister it does not matter to her that they do not know how much roughly the changes will cost so long as New Zealand can lead the world. We are quite fed up with the Labour Government wanting to lead the world and leaving New Zealanders behind to cope with the increased living costs—those arising from the emissions trading bill the regional petrol tax and now the ACC premium—so that the Government can stand up and say it is leading the world. Last night we heard the expression “leading like a pack of lemmings jumping off a cliff”. That expression kept resurfacing and it is very appropriate. 
Let me go into a bit of the detail of this legislation. I will cover the three major changes or new areas of coverage introduced by this legislation. The interesting thing is that the first two—mental injury caused by witnessing a traumatic event and the changes in the onus of proof with regard to injuries caused by gradual process—are all changes that would apply to those we call workers but it would not apply to non-workers or non-earners. The reason the Labour Government so boldly introduced those changes is that they have to be funded by employers and the self-employed. When it comes to non-earners the Government suddenly says providing cover would be too expensive and is not affordable. Indeed officials have produced reports stating that it is too expensive to extend the coverage to non-earners so it cannot be done. It is interesting that the Labour Government is blatantly making the statement that an earner’s life his or her well-being is worth more than that of a non-earner. If women who are not in the workforce suffer the same traumatic experience then they will not be covered. There is a problem of equity. If new coverage is to be funded by employers and the self-employed then the changes will be introduced but when it comes to non-earners and the cover is to be paid for from general taxation then it will not be funded. That is the equity issue. 
There is also another problem. I am not sure whether this is true but someone has told me—this has still to be checked out; I learnt this only yesterday—that in respect of volunteers the Volunteers Employment Protection Act means that when volunteers attend their voluntary work they are assumed to be in the normal workforce. The Minister may think that volunteers who attend the same traumatic event as for example a firefighter would be treated as if they are in the normal workforce which means they would be covered. We were told that volunteers will not be covered. Of course that is also a contradiction given that the Minister said that the cost of providing cover is not a concern because such events will not happen very often. After 9 long years Labour has suddenly felt the need to rush this legislation through. On the one hand it is confessing that it does not know the cost of providing cover and on the other hand it is saying we should not worry about the cost and this provision is being introduced because such events will not happen very often. I am afraid that with law and order being an issue and crime getting out of control they may happen quite often. 
The other issue I want to point out is that this legislation is not very fair to employers. Representatives from Massey University came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said they had tried very hard to be good employers and had introduced good work practices to avoid injuries due to the height of laboratory bench tops or using a keyboard all the time yet no matter how much good work practice the employer introduces into the workplace when there is an injury the employer will assume the liability for it. At present there is a need to prove that the injury was more likely to have occurred at work than after work. My good colleague Colin King raised a very good point. He is a champion shearer but he is too modest to admit it and he is also a rugby player. Last night he gave us some personal examples of the difficulty of holding the employer totally liable for back pain for example. He asked how we could know how much of it was attributable to shearing work and how much was because the individual also engaged in rugby activities. It was very very unfair to make that change in the onus of proof even though a provision has been put in to say that where there is doubt the ACC can investigate. We all know that the Privacy Act and all sorts of legislation will make it difficult for employers or even for the ACC to inspect any individual’s home environment in order to decide whether it has contributed more than the work environment has to those gradual injuries. 
The last matter that I want to raise is one that I think is really outrageous. For a long time the legislation has had a provision that if an individual intentionally inflicts self-harm then he or she would not be entitled to accident compensation. Labour with the support of New Zealand First has repealed that provision. That means that an individual who intentionally inflicts self-injuries or who attempts to commit suicide will now be entitled to compensation as well as to treatment. We would feel appalled about anyone in New Zealand going out there to encourage or entice people to commit suicide. But we in this House are now passing legislation that is against the objectives of the accident compensation scheme. One of the scheme’s principal purposes is to minimise injury. We are now sitting here and debating the passing of legislation that says it is OK for people to inflict injuries on themselves and in fact the corporation will pay them compensation. What a nonsense that is. In 2005 there were an estimated 5000 reported cases of attempted suicide and the Minister and the officials did not even bother to estimate the costs relating to that. But what is the message we are sending out here to people—that it is OK to inflict self-injury? Is that why the corporation is spending $5 million on a campaign—to say that is OK? It is appalling it is an outrage and National will vote against this bill. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is an extraordinary admission that one’s plan for the future is as pessimistic as that of that member Pansy Wong; that one can be an Opposition spokesperson and longstanding member of Parliament—as that member is—whose main criticism of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) is that one does not want New Zealand to be a world leader in the area of injury prevention and compensation for working people. That shows a remarkable lack of optimism for our country and security and a lack of confidence in our people. I am staggered at the contribution that member has made because if there is one area where New Zealand has an extraordinarily proud record it is accident compensation. I say to Mrs Wong that we can be very proud of this scheme and that her speech and lack of policy detail and vision in this area are extraordinary. To criticise something around the edges then say she will not vote for the whole thing is absolutely unbelievable.  
Labour is very proud to support this legislation in Parliament this afternoon because in Government we have continually expanded extended and maintained the protections for our accident compensation scheme. That has been an important principle underlining our policy whenever we have brought bills like this to Parliament. The Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street has outlined the two key areas that the scheme will now cover: workers who suffer a sudden traumatic event and casual and temporary workers in our economy. The passing of this bill alone could benefit up to 400000 people. I find it unbelievable that any party could vote against a bill that could potentially extend the hand of support from our society to 400000 temporary workers. That is why this bill is so important and why our plan for the future is so important as well. 
The National Party’s record on accident compensation is woeful. We are more than happy to debate that with National members on the campaign trail because National’s policy will always mean less cover not more for the most vulnerable workers. That is the stark reality of National’s privatised model and the fact that National members will not talk about it in the debate shows how embarrassed they are about it. It is not aimed at helping the many; it is aimed at delivering to the few. That is why that party will not talk about it. But we know from National’s record in Government that the people it puts in charge of accident compensation are the likes of Jenny Shipley and Murray McCully. Those two names are an open-and-shut case as to National’s commitment to accident compensation. 
We know from the work that has been published—I know that the Minister recently launched a book by Hazel Armstrong and Rob Laurs that covers this area—how important this scheme that Sir Owen Woodhouse brought to our country has been. I say to Mrs Wong and the other members of her party that when we debate in Parliament the importance of the scheme we ought to debate how to improve the scheme—how to make it better and take it— 
Pansy Wong 
: We’re so scared. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member says she is scared but this is not about intimidating politicians. She is so limited in her vision that she thinks this is a political issue. This is about working people in our country and about making sure that if some terrible event happens to them—it could happen an hour from now and none of us would know about it—then our community gives them protection. If the member is too narrow-minded to support a bill that does that because she is interested in the politics rather than the principle and the policy then she can go out on the campaign trail and debate it. We want to do that; we want to make accident compensation an election issue. By passing this bill we can report to the people we believe in and represent that 400000 of them will get extra cover that they did not have before we became the Government. For that reason alone the bill is worth our support. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this third reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I must say that the previous speech was a somewhat self-righteous contribution by the Hon Darren Hughes. He forgets who introduced accident compensation back in 1974. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No I didn’t forget. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well the member might have forgotten that in a commentary on  
Rebuilding ACC Beyond 2000 
 people such as Sir William Birch were very much endorsed in their views by none other than the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse. 
I think it is important to go back for just a moment to 18 October 1972 and the occasion of the third reading of the initial bill when the Rt Hon Sir J R Marshall said: “I am proud to have been associated with it and proud that the National Government has taken the lead in introducing legislation which leads the world in this field. No other country has ventured into this area to the same extent as the National Government in New Zealand has done to provide coverage for people who are earners and who suffer accidents at any time of the day or night without recourse to the question of negligence.” 
What we are concerned about in regard to this legislation that Labour has brought in is the fact that unfortunately it blurs the margins between injuries and accidents and other medical conditions. The bill is extremely poorly thought-out and it is extremely poorly costed which has been evidenced by the fact that when I spoke on this bill in its first reading we learnt that the difference in the costs estimated by the Labour Government at that stage of events went from $7.2 million to $72.2 million—a 1000 percent rise. And 9 months later after the select committee process—which unfortunately I was unable to be present at—the Labour Government still comes up with totally inappropriate and loose costings. It is no wonder this Labour Government is on its way out. It is no wonder this Labour Government has taken New Zealand two slots down the OECD ladder in the last 9 years to the point where we cannot afford decent health we cannot afford decent education and we cannot afford a good social welfare system—let alone the sort of accident compensation scheme that we deserve. 
I would like to go through some of the aspects of this legislation about which the Labour Government has been only too ready to lead New Zealanders over the cliff like lemmings. The first aspect relates of course to work-related gradual process disease and infection. If I look at the report of the ministerial advisory panel I see on the very first page that the advisory panel recognises that further research is required to fully calculate the cost implications of its recommendations. Surely any responsible Government should have made sure that it is more accurate than a span of 1000 percent. The Labour Government of 2008 has totally totally failed to do that. 
The ministerial advisory panel also suggested that the barrier for cover for claimants was inappropriate and the panel noted that the burden of proof rested with the claimant and could be hard to meet. But this Government has totally reversed the burden of proof so that it now rests totally on the employer. It is very interesting to see what large companies such as New Zealand Steel—a very good New Zealand employer that employs over 1200 people in my electorate—have to say about the costs. That company is absolutely appalled as to how those costs have been worked out. 
But I want to just go on in the last few moments to talk about self-inflicted personal injuries and suicide and what New Zealand Steel had to say about that. It said that the proposed change will provide entitlements and incentives for individuals who wilfully self-inflict injuries actions that New Zealand society considers abhorrent. It actually provides incentives for individuals to self-harm. The very fact that this Labour Government seriously considers adding this clause is an indictment on it an indictment on its sense of fairness and an indictment on the very fact that it lacks a practical common-sense approach to problems facing society. That is why there cannot be a bipartisan agreement on this legislation today as there was back in 1974. I have looked through the  
Hansard 
 of 1972 to see whether there was any mention of self-inflicted harm and indeed there was not. It is a sad day when this Labour Government brings in such incredibly irresponsible legislation. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Just on that point—about self-inflicted harm—I agree with the member that it is a sad day. But the bill actually reflects what is happening in society and there is little anybody can do about it. New Zealand First members checked into the issue and we felt as concerned about it as the member obviously does but the bill reflects what is actually happening and it is better to have legislation that covers it. 
Let me just say that the accident compensation scheme legislation that the National Government brought in in 1974 was good but by crikey subsequent National Governments decimated it—cut it to shreds. In 1974 it was good legislation but then that Bill Birch and a few others got on to it and they tore it to shreds. 
New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation but we think it should have gone further. For example we would like to extend the coverage and we would like to blur the line between accidents and sickness and that can be done. Years ago— 
David Bennett 
: Is that out of self-interest Peter? 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Bennett should shut his mouth for a minute and he might learn something. Years ago I was covered by accident compensation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members are making so much noise over there that they cannot even understand their own thinking. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is about time members paid attention to the speaker. 
PETER BROWN 
: Some years ago I was covered through workplace insurance—and most New Zealanders see the Accident Compensation Corporation as an insurance company. My health was also covered by the company. I cannot for the life of me see why gradually those two entities cannot be combined together. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How are you going to fund it Mr Brown? 
PETER BROWN 
: We can fund it in the same way—pay for it. Think a little bit and pay for it! The National Party has raised two issues and they both revolve round funding. If that woman over there would stop shouting like a fishwife she might learn also. 
The National Party wants more coverage and New Zealand First has some support for that. National wants cover for people who witness a traumatic event who are not workers—in other words people covered by the non-earners account; in other words people covered by the taxpayer—and it wants retrospectivity. 
David Bennett last night made a big play of retrospective legislation only to be torn to shreds because he had no substance to his argument by Russell Fairbrother. I have never seen an MP in this House verbally torn to shreds to such an extent because he did not know a thing. He was so bad so ashamed that he got under the desk. All one could see was the cue ball! 
Both aspects require extra funding so where does it come from? Well the National Party tells us that there are umpteen dollars in the Crown account—so much that it will give very significant tax cuts if and when it becomes the Government. So National is saying—and I assume it has done its homework—that there is plenty of money to dish out to taxpayers. Well what about giving a little bit to accident victims by extending the coverage? 
Katrina Shanks 
: How much Mr Brown; how much do you need? 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not need it; National is saying it wants to extend the coverage. Let me give the other option. Accident compensation is meant to be fully funded by the year 2014. That is not set in concrete. Moving the date out another 10 years would allow some funding that currently goes into accident compensation to be spent in another area. I have checked that out. It is quite reasonable and quite straightforward. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How much? 
PETER BROWN 
: That member does not have a clue what she is talking about. National had a very good idea and it implemented that very good idea. It saddens me somewhat because at one time I was a member of the National Party that National members are now behaving like hollow men with an empty drum making an empty noise. That member behind me David Bennett makes as much empty noise as anybody I have ever known. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He is their star! 
PETER BROWN 
: He is their star! We need to do more for accident victims in this country. In our view this bill is a start and it is a good start but there is more to come. I hope the National Party takes that on board because from the way National members are talking I think they will rescind this legislation if they get on the Treasury benches. The public should be aware that National will rescind this legislation if it gets on the Treasury benches and that would be a sad day for New Zealanders. 
I have the utmost sympathy for people who are involved in very serious accidents. I have spoken to many of them. I have seen serious accidents during my time on the waterfront and in shipping; we do have them from time to time. I can tell members that accident victims lead a life of hell and it is about time that this country did more for them. The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) goes some way towards doing that but it does not go far enough and I know that the Minister for ACC has taken note of New Zealand First’s views. However New Zealand First supports this bill because it does that much more for accident victims. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I want to apologise to Dr Paul Hutchison the speaker before the previous one. He was due to speak for another 4 minutes but because of an equipment malfunction that time was taken off him. I say to Dr Hutchison that he has 4 minutes remaining. I know that the member was just warming up and he is most welcome to take the remainder of his call now if he wishes to seek leave to do so. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to speak for another 4 minutes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 That is very generous of you Mr Deputy Speaker and very generous of the House because the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) is important legislation that needs to be properly aired. 
One of the things I wanted to speak about was the fact that it was Sir Owen Woodhouse who acknowledged in a piece he wrote entitled  
Rebuilding ACC Beyond 2000 
 that the “basic principles which support the accident scheme have been under the closest scrutiny for about 30 years both here and overseas.” His piece continues: “Except for the occasional ideologue they have been regularly approved during that long period. In Government circles for example they were expressly endorsed by Sir William Birch on 11th November 1991 and as recently as 2nd May 1995 by the Honourable Bruce Cliffe.” 
The concern that National has had today involves the excesses that Labour has gone to in terms of this legislation. If the amendments that Labour proposed to put in had been well thought-out equitable and not inconsistent then maybe we could have achieved a bipartisan approach to them. 
In my last few minutes of speaking time I want to express the fact that good employers such as New Zealand Steel—employers that took a very practical aspect and view towards accident compensation—were horrified by some of the things in this legislation. In relation to cover for work-related mental injury New Zealand Steel stated: “the proposals offer an increased level of cover but only to one group of levy payers—those funded by employers. This creates further inconsistencies in the recognition of a condition suffered by an individual.” 
When New Zealand Steel goes on to talk about personal injury caused by work-related gradual process it states: “The proposed changes remove all onus of proof from an individual … the ACC scheme should not be a default for what the New Zealand public health system cannot cope with.” That indeed is a very important and appropriate point to make. The company says it is virtually impossible to investigate a person’s non-work environment without encroaching on an individual’s right to privacy. 
Finally New Zealand Steel made the point about self-inflicted personal injuries and suicides. We heard time and time again about the awful incident involving the train driver and the mental injuries that he received. But if there happened to be a young woman with a child at that rail crossing who witnessed that horrific scene that young woman would not be covered under this legislation. That is why National will not support this legislation. It is inequitable it is inconsistent and as well as that it has been hopelessly costed in terms of the realities of the funding. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Last night as the debate raged on about this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) I thought back to when I was the chief executive of the Race Relations Office and to the incidents that happened at my workplace. Someone collapsed in our office and we tried CPR. Green stuff started coming out of his mouth. It was pretty yucky and he died. I remember another time when a young man’s face was half shot away by a gang member in front of us. It is 30 years later and I remember every incident so very clearly so it gives me a real understanding of some of the issues that this bill is trying to address. 
The mental injury arising from a sudden traumatic event such as a death in the workplace is not something that one can address just as an agenda item at the weekly staff meeting and then hope it is the end of the matter. Mental injuries are not that easy. Fortunately the level of awareness around mental health issues has advanced dramatically over recent years. In fact in a recent infamous poll veteran rugby hero John Kirwan was ranked at the top end of the list; he was placed sixth for being open and honest about mental health issues. In a poll of 85 politicians were ranked at an all-time low stuck between slot 66 and 82—that is the dozen of us who even made the grade. Although the poll did not do much for our collective mental health I did think it was interesting that the public mood was so positive about the way in which Mr Kirwan has brought a taboo subject out into the light. So it is pleasing that today we have legislation in place to ensure that there will be cover for the appropriate treatment to facilitate rehabilitation for mental injury from such traumatic events. 
The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) currently compensates for mental trauma for victims of sexual abuse and physical injury and we are glad to support the extension to cover mental trauma resulting from workplace incidents. It is indeed progress as the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers found that we have legislation that appears to reflect an improved understanding of mental injury. Of course there is probably no more stark example of the need for an appropriate response to workplace trauma than the tragedy that occurred in my own electorate of Tamaki Makaurau in 2001—the horrible triple murders at the Mount Wellington - Panmure Returned Services Association—that were experienced by a survivor who has suffered years of serious injury and rehabilitation. I place on record here my acknowledgment of the significance of the recent decision by the Supreme Court in upholding the appeal for the right to sue the Department of Corrections which manages Parole Board orders. But for the purposes of this bill today I simply say that when we consider the types of workplace incidents in which trauma may be experienced there is no more powerful justification for the need of such support than when one considers the horrific violence witnessed in the RSA murders. 
There was however a very good point made in the course of the bill by Victim Support and the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) which has been spoken about today. Both of those groups highlighted the fact that treatment for mental injury from witnessing a trauma should be available to all people not just to employees. The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) gave a recent example of the horrific effects that would play out for years to come in relation to that 8-year-old boy—again in my electorate—who witnessed his mother being attacked in the Manukau City shopping centre car-park. The association submitted that it was blatantly unjust that although a young boy would not be eligible under this scheme because he is not a worker an employee of the supermarket who witnessed the event would be covered. The distinction between compensation in respect of whether mental harm occurs in the workplace or elsewhere is an arbitrary one and we sincerely hope that the Minister is able to give priority to ensuring that appropriate cover is in place to support all persons. 
The recent case before the Human Rights Review Tribunal gives us considerable confidence that this Minister is prepared to respond quickly. My colleague Tariana Turia is responsible for having brought to the House a ruling from the Human Rights Commission of 19 May 2008 which was described as a “landmark in human rights law in that it shows how any New Zealander can challenge legislation they believe to be discriminatory and impacts upon them adversely”. The decision made on that day concluded that provisions in the accident compensation law are inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination specifically on the grounds of age. And here we are just a month later with amendments that stipulate that age limits for weekly compensation cannot be used as a factor in deciding whether vocational rehabilitation would be cost-effective. So I congratulate Minister Street Tariana Turia and of course the plaintiff John Howard on a successful action across all fronts. 
I can only hope that it paves the way for another ground-breaking ruling to be made on another case now before the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I refer to the case taken by the Child Poverty Action Group in which it alleges the in-work tax credit discriminates against 220000 children on the basis of work status. This is an act of discrimination that leaves around 150000 children in severe or significant hardship because their families are denied at least $60 a week in family support. 
We support the changes to provisions for vocational rehabilitation and independence. The bill gives ACC the discretion to extend the 3-year limit on vocational rehabilitation recognising that for some claimants rehabilitation cannot be easily wrapped up within the defined time frame. We are pleased also to support the repeal of section 119 so that ACC can provide entitlements to claimants suffering wilfully inflicted injury. There is still much to do to address the gaps in the protection of young and older workers the disabled and those who have been affected by asbestos or chemical solvent exposure. But this bill makes significant steps to improve access to compensation for previously disenfranchised groups particularly those engaged in non-standard work those mentally injured by trauma those between work and those in seasonal and casual work. The Maori Party has always taken an active interest in both workers’ rights and the right to work and we are happy to support this bill at its third reading. Kia ora. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to talk on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). This is the third reading of a bill that we have had substantial debate on over the last couple of days. 
I think there is an element of irony in that we are about to farewell one of I guess the personalities of this House who is known as somebody who will stand up and say what he believes in. It is very good to see that such a good-sized audience has come here to hear him. I will try to stretch out my speech to 5.30 p.m. when Nandor Tanczos will come here to give his valedictory speech. It is good to see that so many people have come here so early to support him. 
This bill is an example of ideology not being implemented in reality. If the ideology behind this bill were taken to its full extent the bill would not have the limitations that Labour has put in it. Although it recognises that mental injury deserves accident compensation treatment and support in the future it has a number of fish-hooks that limit the application of accident compensation coverage. 
The biggest delineation in the bill is that between work-related and non - work-related injury. The bill applies only to work-related injury. A number of submitters suggested to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that it was unfair that there was no encompassment of non - work-related injury. If we were to take the ideology the pure basis for the legislation to its full extent we would have the legislation cover both work-related and non - work-related injury. 
One of the submitters gave a very clear example to show when mental injury is covered and when it is not covered. The New Zealand Institute of Safety Management gave an example that had a number of possible scenarios. A motor vehicle accident could create two classes of injury. First of all the employee who was driving will have his or her physical injuries covered which is what happens now plus any mental harm that may arise—that is the additional component under this legislation. The pedestrian who was hit by the employee not being at work will have his or her physical injuries covered and any mental harm that is caused by those injuries will be covered under this legislation. That is pretty much as one would expect for those two cases. However the witness who was mentally injured not being at work will get nothing. That situation is not covered by this legislation. That non - work-related injury is exempt from receiving the benefits of the accident compensation system. But an ambulance employee who experienced mental trauma from seeing the event is entitled to claim; because that employee was at work he or she will be covered under the legislation. Many submitters raised that concern in the select committee. 
Another big concern that was raised in the select committee related to the examples that were provided. A number of examples were given of train drivers and dairy company tanker drivers who in circumstances totally beyond their control had suffered mental injury because of somebody else’s actions affecting them when they were driving in the normal course of their work. Such situations will be covered when they arise in the future but the examples that were given to the select committee will not be covered under this legislation because there is no element of retrospectivity in it. The point that was being made last night was that if we are going to provide cover for people then taking it to its pure policy extent we should also provide cover for the examples that had come before the select committee—people who while being engaged in their normal work conduct had experienced circumstances beyond their control that had resulted in their suffering mental injury. Those people had quite horrific stories. I do not think anyone on the select committee would wish those experiences on anyone. I think the select committee members would certainly want to see some kind of recognition of the injury that those people had sustained. But they will not get anything under this legislation. This legislation will not provide any support for people who have suffered that kind of mental injury in the past. 
That is a shame. If Labour in promoting this legislation had really wanted to deal with the issue it would have dealt fully with it. It did not. Labour members picked out only what they felt they could deal with in terms of this situation because they had looked at the numbers and from the way that the numbers stacked up it would be very expensive to extend this legislation in the way that New Zealand First had proposed earlier. Full coverage across a whole range of situations would be a major expense for the accident compensation system and on the Government of the day. 
This legislation also will be a major expense for the employer. There is no definite indication of what the actual cost will be. The cost to the employers is up in the air; there is no definite figure that can be plucked out as being the amount that the employers will have to cover in the future. There was a range of estimates from the extremely low—say $30 million—to a much higher figure that would be well beyond the means of many employers. 
So there are three problems with this legislation. The first is the exemption of non - work-related injury. The second is that it does not cover all situations in the sense that the people who provided their stories in front of the select committee will not be covered by it. The third problem is that the costing of it is not identifiable; there will be major costs for the employers but those costs have no formal basis in the sense that they have not been promoted and we do not have a concrete figure to work with. 
We are getting close to 5.30 p.m. and Nandor Tanczos’ valedictory speech. Nandor has not arrived yet but I say to the Green Party members that as a National Party MP and also as somebody from the Waikato it has been a privilege to have Nandor represent the Waikato and his party in Parliament. He has been a national figure and I think everybody in this Parliament will treasure his having been here. The personalities who make up a Parliament are something that we look forward to and something that I think the public look forward to as well. The personalities are the ones who get the coverage; they represent different points of view different beliefs or different expressions. 
Hon Member 
: The House of Representatives. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is the House of Representatives as my colleague has said. It is good that we have representatives from a wide range of backgrounds. The public support for Nandor in the gallery today is an example of that. I have been told that I have to keep going! I say to Nandor that he is late for his valedictory speech. We will have a vote now but I want to say that it has been a pleasure to serve with Nandor and the National Party wishes him all the best. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.