Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16954] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement clauses of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I agree with my colleague the excellent Pansy Wong who said that the title is somewhat bland. There is no doubt that the title could refer to a great many different things. The bill could be called the “Labour Government: Forget About Who Pays the Levies Bill” or in fact the “Forget About Who Pays Bill”. 
When I spoke in the first reading debate on this bill about a year ago I looked with horror at the potential costs of this bill and their wide variation. Yet tonight Minister Street admits that the spectrum of costs that was put out a year ago is still as wide as it was then. In fact in the mental health areas costs go from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. That is a range of 1000 percent. No business anywhere in the world could run on that sort of incomprehensible range. It is not just that cost that has not been fixed by the Labour Government over the last 11 months. There are also changes to weekly compensation where the range is $63 million to $138.6 million and Minister Street says: “Don’t worry; this is just a new little experiment by the Labour Government. The imprecision doesn’t really matter all that much. We are just lemmings and we want to go over the cliff.” 
Another appropriate title for this bill could be the “Compensation for Self-inflicted Harm Bill”. I think it is really important to look at what New Zealand Steel said about this. It said the proposed changes will provide entitlements and incentives for individuals who wilfully self-inflict injuries—actions that New Zealand society considers abhorrent. It actually provides an incentive for individuals to self-harm. This does seem lunacy on the part of the Labour Government—but then there are other titles that would also fit this bill. 
The bill could be called the “Labour Government: When Economic Conditions Get Rough For Business We Will Make Them Even Rougher Bill” because that is exactly what it does. Again I cite the example of New Zealand Steel. It points out that the levies fall on the employer and the self-employed and on no one else. They fall quite inequitably and that is the problem with this bill—it is indeed inconsistent and inequitable. That would make another good title for this bill. It could be called the “Labour Government: How to be Inconsistent and Inequitable Bill”. 
One other thought that has crossed my mind is that perhaps we should dedicate this bill to none other than the Minister herself Maryan Street who at one stage of events was talking about the accident compensation scheme being second to none. Of course it is second to none! It is the only scheme like it in the whole wide world. Therefore we could appropriately entitle this bill the “Maryan Street Second to None Accident Compensation Scheme Bill” but that would leave her name on some legislation—an amendment—that is clearly quite ridiculous inconsistent and inappropriate. 
One of the other names the legislation could appropriately be given is the “Let’s Blur the Margins Between Injuries Caused by Accidents and Medical Conditions Bill”. This is particularly important because back in 1974 when National legislated for the accident compensation scheme it was very thoughtful about it. Wisely it brought in a scheme that recognised that the compensation for injury in this country was particularly poor and unfair. I cannot imagine those same visionary people believing that in 2008 self-inflicted injury would be compensated.