Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20176] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to respond to the honourable member who has just resumed her seat. She gloated on what the Government has done in terms of accident compensation. I can tell members that it has taken a backward step in quite some significant measure. If she does not believe me she should talk to a few accident victims to see whether they think accident compensation is the be-all and end-all that she seems to think it is. 
I have to tell the honourable member that if an employer wants to get fixed-income insurance for his or her employees or a self-employed person wants to get fixed-income insurance the corporation will tell them to go and talk to the private sector. 
I would like to respond to a few of the comments that my colleagues in other parties have made. First of all I say to the Greens—are they still here? 
Keith Locke 
: Yes. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh they are. If the Greens are serious about producing a clause to rectify the situation that arises when a patient is not treated because of lack of resource—in other words the patient does not get treatment in hospital or by a doctor and gets worse—and if the Greens are serious about wanting to produce a clause to make that a treatment injury then I am pretty confident in saying that New Zealand First would look at it in a realistic manner. My colleague Barbara Stewart raised the matter in her contribution earlier and the Greens obviously have taken it up. They have said they will produce a clause that will address the issue and we would look at it fairly reasonably. 
I thought Judy Turner particularly towards the end of her speech made some very good remarks about acupuncturists. I wrote them down; I thought they were very relevant points. She said they should be getting their act together if they want to be covered by accident compensation. That sits very comfortably with me. I have not discussed it with my colleagues but I am almost certain it would sit comfortably with them. But why does not United Future take a lead on this? They are propping up the Government. Why do they not say to the Government that this is a worthwhile action to take? Let us get the thing done. We should not stand here and make hollow noises to the House. I have to say that that sat comfortably with me; I think the member should show a little bit more gumption and go along and put a bit more pressure on the Government to do something along those lines. 
I am absolutely disappointed by ACT and National. They have put dollars ahead of patients. Heather Roy said that this will cost $8.6 million annually— 
Heather Roy 
: I never said that. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member gave the impression that it would cost a lot more than that—I think she referred to transitional costs of $12 million. The National Party spokesperson made reference to a $10 million cost. I was not on the Health Committee so I do not know but I presume that it will cost somewhere along those lines as indicated by the Department of Labour. ACT and National seem to think that it will cost more. 
The ACT member said she had spoken to some doctors medical clinicians or what have you. I have not—not on this bill—but I have spoken to a few patients and accident victims who have gone through the hospital system and have come out much the worse for wear because of an accident that occurred in hospital. One lady in particular who came to see me—I knew her some years before when she was fit and well—could hardly walk. She is permanently on drugs and she said that that was a result of a stuff-up—my words—in hospital. 
I can tell members that if we get people like that then we should have legislation like this. The sad thing about this legislation is that it should have come into being 5 years ago when the Government came into power and changed the accident compensation legislation. It should have ensured then not now in 2005 that medical misadventure was encompassed by the legislation. 
At that time New Zealand First put a strong case to Government Ministers to address this sort of issue. It is a very serious issue. As I understand it a person working in a hospital is covered by accident compensation legislation but patients going in are not—until this bill goes through. They have to prove medical error or medical mishap and quite often they are much the worse for wear and do not have the ability wherewithal and goodness knows what else they need to prove that there has been a stuff-up in a hospital as a result of some medical treatment. 
This legislation pleases me no end. There is still much to do on accident compensation. I take the point that the honourable member from the National Party made that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has a monopoly. I think he said that it is not very flexible. I add that it has little or no discretionary power in dealing with individual patients and that it fails in many respects to deal with social issues. 
There needs to be a degree of competition in the system. Competition breeds efficiency cost-effectiveness and initiative. There needs to be some form of competition in the ACC’s workplace insurance regime. New Zealand First will in its policies be releasing in due course exactly how that can be achieved. 
I just want to spend a few moments talking about Supplementary Order Paper 365 because I am quite intrigued by it. I received it only today. It states in the explanatory note that it will “provide for funds in the Employers’ Account Residual Claims Account and Self-Employed Work Account to be applied to meet the costs of entitlements for certain personal injury caused by work-related gradual process disease or infection:”. I thought: “Great stuff! We are actually recognising a person who has had an accident but who is then told by the doctor that the backache or whatever has happened because he or she has arthritis or some other such disease that the patient did not know he or she had until the accident happened.” I thought that this bill was meant to cover that. But then I noted that new clause 28A applies when the employment task giving rise “to that personal injury was performed or occurred before 1 July 1999;”. That is before the Government came into power. That is 6 years ago. The funding for this has come about in the last few years yet it will apply only to people who had their accident 6 years ago. 
There is something wrong there. This Supplementary Order Paper should have gone to a select committee for that very reason. New Zealand First will support it because again we recognise it as a move in the right direction but it is not enough. There are people suffering badly as a result of an accident and it adds insult to injury to find out that they are not covered because of gradual process or something like that. They cannot work so they lose their income. When it is taken into account that the legislation the Government passed in 2000 provides for compensation for a person injured whilst committing a crime the House will understand why New Zealand First gets so het up about these sorts of loopholes in legislation. New Zealand First supports this bill.