Woodhouse Michael: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9291] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 This has been a long journey. It is not one that started with the introduction of this legislation into the House; it started back in 2005 I think when the financial performance of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) began to deteriorate. In late 2007 the Department of Labour told the previous Labour Government that Vote ACC was not sufficient by a long chalk to meet the dozen or more extensions to the scheme that that Government planned to put in place. Three times the previous Labour Government was told in 2008 of the well-costed problems that the Department of Labour said would cost $305 million in that year alone and then $1.5 billion in the out-years. In breach of the Public Finance Act the previous Labour Government remained silent about that; it failed to put that into the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. 
The principal finance change denier the former Minister for ACC Maryan Street had the audacity to suggest that it was she who sent the officials to Nelson after the election to inform the new Minister of the financial crisis. Well it was too late then. Of all the ranting we have heard from that member the one thing we have not heard from her and the one thing that this House and the people of New Zealand are owed is a single word: sorry. The second principal finance change denier Mr Parker challenged the Minister and had the audacity to challenge him on the financial justification for the changes made in this legislation. It is a pity his party did not hold itself to the same high standards of accountability that the member seems to demand of this Government. I simply reject the suggestion that those changes have not been rigorously costed—they have. They are inputted into the proposed levies for 2010-11 and thank goodness they are! 
Let me share the positive impacts of this Accident Compensation Amendment Bill on those levies. Without this legislation a worker on the average wage would have faced a $550 per annum increase in accident compensation levies. With it a worker will face a $150 a year increase. Car registrations would have gone up by $103 a year but with this legislation the increase will be $30 a year. Employer levies would have gone up by 44 percent without this legislation but with it the increase will be 12 percent. I find it absolutely amazing that in the over 100 calls that we had in the Committee stage of this bill not a single Opposition member once mentioned the levy payers. In fact Ms Dyson just mentioned them in her speech but there was no other mention of them. The Labour members cannot even bring themselves to use the word “employer”. When I was at ACC and the previous administration was in power it was called the employer account. Labour could not even bring itself to use the term “employer”; it had to change the name to the work account such is its animosity towards employers. 
There has always been a black a white and a grey area when it comes to accident compensation. There are those who suffer mishap due to medical conditions and there are those who clearly suffer the effects of an accident. There is always a grey bit in the middle. I hope you can hear me Mr Deputy Speaker; there is a really bad buzzing in my ear. Over the last 5 years that grey area has become thicker and thicker. It has become more and more difficult for the corporation to manage that grey area and I applaud these changes which bring clarity to the entitlements that every New Zealander has under this scheme. 
My final comment is to the staff of ACC. It has been a tough year for them. I encourage them to continue the good work that they do for the 1.8 million New Zealanders who are injured every year the vast majority of whom are cared for well are rehabilitated in a timely manner and enjoy a fast and lasting return to work or independence. But I also encourage them to continue to improve that rehabilitation effort and not to resile from the goal of rehabilitating claimants even when that goal is tough—tough for the claimant; tough for the staff. The Woodhouse report said it was necessary to have a bit of tough love from time to time. But that can be done with compassion to a high quality with clear communication and above all with consistency so that claimants from Kaitaia to the Bluff can expect to have the same level of service the same decisions being made and the same good-quality care from the corporation. 
I think this bill makes a very important change that will restore the scheme to its rightful place as a world-leading accident compensation scheme. I applaud it and I commend it to the House.