Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9057] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Given the absolute embarrassment for this Government over recent events with the accident compensation scheme and the controversy the heartache and the absolutely shameful behaviour by the Government I am amazed the Government is choosing this time to pursue the progress of this shocking bill through this House. It is just unbelievable. This bill is very clearly part of this Government’s deliberate campaign to strip the entitlements to accident compensation to raise the levies and to set up accident compensation to flog off to the highest bidder in the future. All the rhetoric is there—all the rhetoric about how difficult it is financially. We listened to the Minister drone on and on about how difficult things are financially but as my colleague Maryan Street said it was a tissue of half-truths. In some ways the Government wants to validate this harsh attack on the rights of entitlements of New Zealanders. This bill should not have ever passed its first reading. It did so with the Government getting support from the ACT Party no surprise; from Peter Dunne no surprise; but also support from the Maori Party. That support enabled this bill to progress to the select committee. 
What a proud moment it would have been if people in this House had said: “This is just not fair.” I am not talking about National members but I am talking about other parties in this House who could have said: “We uphold a principle of fairness.” This is an attack on the very fabric of our society and everything that we as New Zealanders hold dear. Our accident compensation scheme has put us up there on the world stage and has been admired by every country in the world yet we have a Government that is hell-bent on dismantling the scheme. 
I pay tribute to the Labour members and the Green member on the select committee. They were the ones who had the guts who actually looked at the issues and opposed the bill. They opposed the bill for the right reasons. They opposed the bill because it was not just and it was not fair. But it is a numbers game and because of the numbers this bill came back to the House unimproved and it was for all the wrong reasons. There are no improvements whatsoever to this bill. I heard the previous speaker David Bennett stand in this House and thank the submitters for coming to the select committee. He said “Thank you we appreciate the submitters.” I think the best way to thank submitters when they come to the select committee and front up is to actually listen to what they are saying listen to what New Zealanders are saying and listen to what the people said in the rally outside Parliament. Then they should say quite honestly as John Key says “Sometimes we don’t always get it right.” This is one of those times. But that is not what happened. For Mr Bennett to stand up and thank the submitters really smacks of cynicism. 
Su’a William Sio 
: It’s a slap in the face and it sucks. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is a slap in the face and it sucks as my eloquent colleague says. But we have already seen cuts to entitlements to accident compensation right across New Zealand for those with physical injuries and for victims and survivors of sexual assault. I pay tribute to some of the submitters who went to the select committee and talked about what had happened to victims of violence and sexual assaults. They talked about the outright denial of claims languishing on waiting lists non-treatment being told that counselling would not help despite every professional in the business saying that it would. The committee heard about all of those things and those people had the courage to go before that committee. Sadly the issue was outside the scope of the bill but I still acknowledge those people and I still say to this Government that that is the most appalling action in the whole of accident compensation legislation that it has taken and the Government must fix it. Labour members went outside to the rally on Tuesday and we heard so many people speaking. National members say they want to know about the accident compensation scheme. If they had fronted up at the rally the other day they would have heard really clearly— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: 2000 people. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: There were 2000 people there were tons and tons of people. If National members had fronted up they would have heard that people were being pushed from pillar from post they are kept waiting for decisions on whether they will have the ability to be treated to return to work to lead an active life or to receive counselling when they deserve it which is so necessary for people who have experienced such horrific abuse. But did National members turn up and listen? No they did not. Did Nick Smith say: “I can’t make it; can somebody go?” No he did not. National members did not listen to the people. Nick Smith in his address in the House today continued with the argument that the accident compensation scheme is struggling financially and will not be viable unless this bill is passed. We are already seeing the underhand cuts that I talked about before and the stress they are causing right through our communities in New Zealand. The Minister hides behind the issue of accident compensation when it is very clear from the numbers that are coming through that it is all part of the National Government’s “pay more get less” agenda. 
On the Minister’s own admission this is actually about cost cutting and the reality is that the Accident Compensation Corporation’s assets exceed its liabilities. PricewaterhouseCoopers’ review found that New Zealanders’ accident compensation scheme costs were lower than any other scheme. That review was an independent review which the Minister says is so good. Treasury itself said it was unsure whether accident compensation was excessive. We have all of this evidence but this Minister is hell-bent on putting the message out with his half-truths that the accident compensation scheme is in trouble. 
I also want to talk about some more victims—and they are victims—of the changes to the scheme: those who are ready for work at 30 rather than 35 hours. We all know that 30 hours of work a week is not a living wage. We know that the statistics show that when people are deemed ready to go back to work that is not the case. There are 32 percent who are deemed to be back in work and are back in work 21 percent are part time and 22. 5 percent were on a Work and Income benefit. That shows that it is not working for these “swamp dwellers”—if we can use that term that the corporation talks about—under the 35 hours return to work. So 30 hours is absolutely terrible. 
I shall talk about two final points. Firstly we all know that in this situation it is disabled people and women whom we have heard about in the House today who in terms of pay and entitlements are languishing behind. They will be the people who by far will be affected the most by these cuts. I also want to talk about hearing loss. Make no mistake: under the accident compensation scheme the only reason people have assistance with a hearing aid is when they require it for hearing loss. The changes that the Government is imposing under the pretext that it is consistent with Australia is simply not true; in Australia if people need hearing aids they get them. It is saying the level must be 6 percent. I agree with the Human Rights Commission I agree with health professionals that that is going to really disadvantage hearing-impaired people in New Zealand. It is completely in line with what this Government is doing to deaf and hearing-impaired people with the loss of sign language classes through the adult and community education cuts and the cuts in support for deaf tertiary students and also the support through teachers for children and their parents. This compensation scheme cut to people who have a hearing impairment is absolutely consistent with that agenda. I find that after ratifying a United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities it is one of the most offensive things in this bill.