Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:16934] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I will continue my very good speech to go over some of the background. Basically the new provision regarding cover for traumatic events during the course of employment is very unfair and inequitable. In my last call I was elaborating on how the provision is unfair because as the levy comes from the work account it covers people only for injuries incurred during the course of their employment. The Government was not of a mind to extend cover to people injured in non-work situations which is why the provision is unfair and inequitable. I am not too sure why the other parties are supporting the provision. The costing is also a worry. The officials gave us an indication that it will range anywhere between $7.6 million and $72.2 million. That is not what I would describe as an estimate; that is almost a wild guess. That is why employers and the self-employed are anxious. They are wondering why this legislation is being introduced when its financial impact is just a wild guess and the cost of everything is going up. 
The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) put out a press release about the very unfortunate tragedy that occurred in the last 2 weeks in South Auckland. Ms Joanne Wang the owner of a bakery had her bag snatched then was run down by the offender’s car. Her 8-year-old was very unfortunate—he witnessed the whole thing. As the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) pointed out the poor young boy aged 8 would not be entitled to any claim to damages. Where is the equity in that? Members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee asked officials why the Government had decided not to extend coverage to non - work-related events. We were told that consideration was given to providing cover for mental injury—not limited to work-related injury—resulting from witnessing a traumatic event as part of the policy work undertaken prior to the introduction of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. At that stage it was considered that the provision of entitlements for witnessing a traumatic event was unaffordable. When it comes to general funds the Government says that such entitlements are unaffordable but when it comes to a levy to be imposed on employers and the self-employed they somehow become affordable. 
I also point out that this new cover would extend to overseas visitors. Let us imagine a situation in which overseas visitors are here for work purposes—they would actually be eligible for cover for mental injury caused by a traumatic event. Can we imagine that? I have already received lots of complaints from people asking why New Zealand taxpayers are paying for health care for overseas visitors who have been injured in car accidents. Let us consider the case of a bank robbery. If an overseas delegation from an overseas trading bank came here to witness learn or train in a local bank about its operation and they witnessed a bank robbery in action then technically under this legislation they would be eligible to claim. Not only do we believe that the estimated cost—which varies between $7.6 million to $72.2 million—is a wild guess but I am not too sure that people understand that the funding would also have to cover people who have travelled from overseas to New Zealand. I am not sure whether that cost has been included; I am not sure that the officials have a real grip on that issue. 
The other issue is subjectivity. The nature of mental injury which is being introduced in the legislation is very subjective. It is another case whereby lawyers will have a lot to argue as will psychiatrists and people involved in the health sector. I could just imagine that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) would appoint its own assessors claimants would have their own health professionals and each of them would have their own sets of lawyers arguing how serious the traumatic events were whether the injuries related to particular traumatic events and whether the injuries occurred in the course of employment. The ACC is already facing a lot of complaints. I have received complaints from self-employed and small-business people about levies and also about petrol increases. A lot of people might not realise that from 1 July there will be a 2c per litre increase in petrol which is already expensive just to cover the accident levy on motor vehicles. Let us think about all these additional costs.