Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9238] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate my colleague Darien Fenton on reminding us about the name change made under the previous National Government in terms of our accident compensation scheme. I join with my colleagues in questioning the Government about why this current change is necessary. Members opposite may call us suspicious but I ask why when this amending bill came to the House called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill suddenly there is a need to change the title of the principal Act by cutting out those words and calling it the Accident Compensation Act. 
The Minister for ACC got to his feet yesterday—I note that he is not speaking as much on the bill today—and said that the reason is that is what the Act used to be called. That is the National Government’s answer: that is what it used to be called. 
Darien Fenton 
: This is the brains trust. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The brains trust came up with that. 
I am sure that all MPs care about communities. Surely they want to build on and improve on what was there before. I know that that is what inspired members on this side of the Chamber to come to Parliament: to advocate to improve the lives of New Zealanders. The Act was called that before. Improvements have been made over the years—though admittedly only under the previous Labour Government—to this wonderful social contract for New Zealanders. But this Government is intent on cutting back those improvements. 
My colleagues have asked what the Government’s removal of the words “Injury Prevention” from the title tells us. What does “injury prevention” mean? We have already seen cuts to injury prevention schemes. We have already seen that happen under the current Act. We have already seen cuts to education programmes for older people about avoiding accidents. We have already seen much of the funding cut for schemes that worked. What does that make us think? I note what else we have seen cut. We have seen cuts in training for the delegates who are involved in health and safety in the workplace. They are involved in working towards ensuring that people have a very healthy workplace. The removal of the words “Injury Prevention” might make us think that this is what this Government is about. 
Why would a Government remove the word “Rehabilitation”? It is absolutely the key principle of what is behind any social contract to do with accidents. It is not about rewarding compo. That view is so old-fashioned it is not funny. Yes people must be compensated. We note that but we have already drawn attention to the fact that many people will not receive the compensation that they are entitled to particularly if they have committed suicide. There are already claw-backs to do with compensation for seasonal workers and holiday pay especially the provision that means people will have to use their holiday pay before they receive compensation. 
But as well as those claw-backs it seems to this side of the Chamber that the Government is saying that it does not want rehabilitation in the legislation. All it says to me and my colleagues is that this Government does not believe in investing in rehabilitation. We are already seeing examples of that under the current Act. But when it is no longer part of the title of the Act—when and if the bill goes through which it will unless there is a big change of mind from the Government and the ACT Party—then I make no bones about the fact that rehabilitation will go further and further down the agenda. 
It just makes a mockery of a scheme that has worked and that has delivered for so many New Zealanders. It has assisted them to be work-ready to be working and to fully participate in our society and workplaces and to effectively support their families. I too have some amendments.