Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Bennett David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17007] 
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.