SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to talk on this bill at its second reading.One of the trends I see emerging out of certainly this Government since the last election is the number of well-meaning changes sought to be made that could easily be done without legislation. The Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee has been considering the Companies (Directors Duties) Amendment Bill—a waste of time. The Business Payment Practices Bill—a very well-meaning waste of time. The Governance and Administration Committee wasted its time and this House's time on a member's bill about plain language—we all want plain language in documents but is the State legislating for these things actually going to improve outcomes? To that list and many others I would add the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—a well-meaning waste of time.Now as I've mentioned in this House between 1996 and 2001 I was a manager at ACC. Tama Potaka: Oh you lucky thing!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I was its national contracts adviser—lucky me!—where we implemented the elective services purchasing framework for the delivery of contracted health and rehabilitation services a framework that endures 27 years later; it was a very good framework. I was on the first floor for at least some of that time of Shamrock House on Molesworth Street; the department next to me was the department that gathered and reported on ACC statistics. From the mid-1980s until about 2006 ACC produced a very comprehensive document—I recall it was larger than its annual report—that summarised all manner of ACC statistics. I find it somewhat ironic that Minister Russell in moving this motion talked about how this being put into legislation will ensure that the expectation endures across Governments and across Ministers. Well that's highly ironic because it was the Clark Government that dispensed with the collection collation and reporting of ACC statistics in 2006. Nevertheless the data still exists.Now we talk about in this bill and other groups" but actually this is about equity for Māori—a very important goal because we all want Māori and all communities to have access to Government and publicly funded services at the same rate and at the same quality and quantity as non-Māori. We also know that Māori in our fatal and non-fatal injury statistics are largely overrepresented and in our workplace injuries that's actually understandable. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment reports that sectors with higher harm rates have greater representation of Māori. Take forestry—I mean I think forestry is still our riskiest industry—34 percent of that workforce are Māori. Construction and manufacturing is also highly represented by Māori and overrepresented in our injury statistics. Māori workers have high rates of temporary and precarious work and there's a high correlation between that and injury rates. We know that in the last 20 years fatal injuries amongst Māori are about 20 percent higher than the overall population—I think it's between 40 and 50 per 100000 over the last 20 years; whereas the total population rate is about 20 percent below that. When it's combined with fatal and non-fatal together it is marginally higher not quite as marked a difference. But there are some particular highlights. I think we have a 67 percent higher rate of motor vehicle injuries amongst Māori usually young Māori men—and if one goes to the Ōtara or Burwood Spinal Unit tragically young Māori men are overrepresented in those wards. We know that assault victims are three times more likely to be Māori than non-Māori. And in our work stats as I say they're certainly more highly represented. Interestingly they're lower by half in the statistics for injuries by falls and one wonders whether that's a genuine data point or in fact whether they are truly being underrepresented in that having suffered an injury by a fall they're less likely to lodge a claim with ACC or seek medical attention.But the point is this: why do we know all of this? We know all of this because we're already gathering and reporting the data. The data is easily found in ACC databases. And on our Statistics New Zealand website a simple search of this tells us what we already know. You don't need to legislate for ACC to report; they're already doing it—not nearly as well as they used to before the Clark Government dispensed with that requirement but it is there. It's not that hard to find.In our pursuit of equity we need to ask ourselves three questions. Are Māori at increased risk of injury? Well on the face of it one would suggest yes. Secondly when they are injured do they access health and ACC services at the same rate as non-Māori? Well when they are seriously injured it's very hard to avoid those services but it's worth verifying: particularly when one looks at the falls data perhaps there is an issue. And the third question is this: when they are accessing those health and rehabilitation services do they access those services at the same level of quantity and quality as non-Māori? Now Minister Sepuloni in her first reading speech actually addressed this to some degree by referring to the Ngāi Tahu Māori health research unit data that actually found that "at least for some injuries"—I'm quoting the Minister here—"ACC supportive claimants once they're already in the system appeared to be on par for Māori and non-Māori." I mean that's good. On the face of it there doesn't appear to be material inequity but we should redouble our efforts to make sure that we continue to ensure that equity. But equity for me is not making sure that when they are injured they are accessing those services at the same level of quantity and quality. Injury prevention has to be of paramount importance—that actually preventing injuries at home in our workplaces in our motor vehicles on our rugby fields is lowered for Māori because at the moment it is unacceptably high. There are a number of ways we can do that and in particular those high-risk areas we need to continue to focus on are health and safety and harm reduction rather than counting the number of deaths or injuries. If only we spent as much time in this House and in select committee and in the ministries taking steps to reduce the incidents and prevalence of injury and harm as we have wasted on needless legislation then perhaps our iwi would be better off.So I say again that this is a well-meaning waste of time. Let's deploy these resources in a much more productive manner. Let's find those ways to prevent harm before it occurs but when it does let's ensure that all New Zealanders—Māori Pasifika of whatever ethnic and cultural background—are cared for equally. This bill will do nothing to improve that and as a consequence National will continue to oppose it."