Moroney Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7689. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak to the Committee stage of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill—a very sensible bill that has come before this House. The last speaker Dr Paul Hutchison took some time to rewrite history and I want to make some comments on how we have come to consider this bill here today. The only thing that was increased by the National Government when it was in power and privatised the accident compensation system was donations to the National Party. That was the only thing National was able to increase by its privatisation agenda. Donations to the National Party did not do anyone who actually had an injury that needed treatment in this country any good but those donations were all that it was able to increase. So I want to set the record right on that to start off with. 
It is time the member who just finished speaking and his party caught up with the rest of the world in applauding the accident compensation system we have. The no-fault system and the levy system we have in place are the envy of other countries. That is because Governments like the Labour one have stood up and said we are going to have a no-fault system we are going to stick with a system that is fair and a system that is simple and we are not going to sell out our policies to the highest bidder. 
This bill sets right an artificial barrier that was brought in by the last National Government. It is some time ago since we had a National Government and it is now time we put this artificial barrier right. In fact these accounts were not separated to start off with but during the 1990s they were separated for the purposes of privatisation by the National Government. It is quite an artificial barrier: the self-employed working in exactly the same industry and doing the same occupations have ended up in a separate account from the employed. 
It was very well demonstrated when members of the Seafood Industry Council came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that I sit on as a member. They made a very thoughtful submission and put the matter very clearly. They talked about coming forward with a submission where they could not necessarily support or oppose the bill in its entirety because the members of their council fell into both of those groups. They worked in exactly the same industry did exactly the same work faced exactly the same risks but ended up paying quite different levies and paid into different accounts and they could not see the logic of that. 
They brought forward to us the very practical scenario of two people working on the back of a fishing boat one being self-employed and contracting his or her services to the fishing company and the other working directly for that fishing company. As they were hauling the nets in those people faced exactly the same risks but they were on a completely different payment regime. The only reason for that was an artificial barrier based on the business structure that they were involved in. The reason behind that of course as I have already outlined was an artificial barrier put in place by the last National Government to ensure that the insurance industry could pluck off the profitable bits of the Accident Compensation Corporation and leave the rest of it behind. 
In my previous role before I came to Parliament I was actively involved in the issue of health and safety—training health and safety representatives in the workplace. Certainly my knowledge of working with people in the workplace doing the work and looking after workers’ interests in health and safety is that they clearly understand that the risks faced by working people in the workplace are the same whether they are self-employed or directly employed by the company. People who are heavily involved in this work in the real world—in the workplace—understand the good sense of this bill that is before the House at the moment. 
I want to take the opportunity to make a comment about probably the most worrying submission that came before the select committee when we were considering this bill. 
Darren Hughes 
: Who was that from? 
SUE MORONEY 
: The submissions I am concerned about came from those representing employers. They talked about the fact that the levies under this new regime would come down to such a low level that it would not be desirable for employers to go into the scheme set up by this Government. The new regime with lower levies actually gives employers an incentive to have certain health and safety systems in place. I felt that that was a very strange position to come from those purporting to represent employers. They were essentially telling us that even though they knew those very good programmes brought down the injury rate in their workplaces and improved morale and attendance and productivity in their workplaces because this bill brought in great stability and lower levels of levies they might choose to go off those programmes even though they knew those programmes had a very positive spin-off for their workers and their workplace. 
I think it is important we keep an accident compensation scheme in place. It is a fair scheme it is a simple scheme and it ensures that there is a clear link between injury prevention and the levies that are paid. This bill ensures that it makes a lot more sense. Irrespective of whether people are self-employed or employed by others the risks they face—because of the industry they are associated with—will be reflected in their levies. 
The last thing I want to say in speaking in the Committee stage on this bill is this. In the select committee we got a lot of information from the officials on exactly how the legislation would work—there were pages and pages and pages. It was very interesting to note. What we got before us was exactly what industry would end up on what levy and how long it would take for the transition to go through. I was interested that all that the National Party members particularly the one opposite who is interjecting a lot at the moment—David Bennett—really wanted to do was to go straight to the page that indicated the businesses they personally owned and to have a look at what the levies were for their personal businesses. They asked questions of the officials based on the industry that they owned businesses in. They very quickly went fairly quiet because they realised that this is good for them and that their own businesses will benefit from the reduction in levies that will happen under this bill. I finish on the note that the Labour members certainly took into account the effect this bill will have on all New Zealand workplaces all employers and all self-employed people. I commend this bill.