Mapp Wayne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6008] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Well we can certainly tell when Labour members think that not very many people are listening—they get up and talk about their hatred for business; they talk about their hatred for competition; and they talk about their arrogance in just passing legislation and steamrollering it through irrespective of the economic reality of the situation and irrespective of whether submissions are being made on the best way forward. This Government is putting legislation into the House before it has even heard submissions from the industry on the whole issue. 
That is typical of this Government. It is just like last week when we had validation legislation dealt with in 24 hours without listening to the public. Well I have news for the Minister. The public have given their verdict and they hate this current Government. They want to see the end of it. They see this Government as an arrogant hateful Government interested only in its continuation in power. The voters will get to make that judgment in 2 years’ time and they will not forget. 
This kind of legislation is exactly what we now expect from this Government. It hates competition. Mr Gosche was proud to say that Labour hated the competition of 1998 and 1999. That was the era where for many businesses the premium cost fell by as much as 80 percent. Why was that? It is a simple thing that Government members cannot get their heads around. It is the whole element of risk and reward the rate of accidents and the level of premiums and the incentives to get people back to work so that the cost of premiums can be reduced. 
Government members do not understand it; they hate it. Whenever they think the public is not looking they talk in hateful ways about competition and effectiveness. They seem to think that when National members talk about the value of competition and about the value of getting private sector competition into the provision of accident compensation we have somehow lost it. The proof of 1998 and 1999 is completely lost on this Government. We are proud to say in this House that we will reintroduce competition. The one thing this Government has never really understood is what that competition was about. We still had 7-day 24-hour cover based on 80 percent of earnings. That never changed. The only thing that changed was the range of options that businesses could choose from to provide that cover. There was a competitive-based premium approach based on the level of accidents. The only way the Government got through its bill back in 1999-2000 was to get some sort of synthetic approach from the accredited employers partnership. 
This bill today sabotages that scheme. That is what this Minister is doing to that scheme. The one bright spot in its socialist nationalisation of the scheme in 1999 was the accredited employers partnership. The reason it worked is that there was at least some connection between risk and cost of premiums and self-management. That is why it was successful: there was that connection. Of course the socialists hate that connection. They want a flat uniform charge whenever possible. So there is a complete disconnection between the risk of accidents and the levels of premiums They want that to be broken. 
I have heard Labour members talk many many times on all of these kinds of social insurance schemes. They want a total universal approach. They want a flat-fee approach. They want no connection between the level of accidents and the level of premiums for particular businesses. So they will always find devices and mechanisms that break that link and that is because in their hearts—and I include the members sitting in the Chamber today Mr Maharey the Hon Ruth Dyson the Hon Judith Tizard and even dare I say it Darren Hughes—they are all socialists. They believe in socialisation and whenever they think they can get away with it that is what they will do. 
I have news for those members—the 1950s have come and gone. The 1990s have come and gone. We are looking towards a 21st century where New Zealanders expect to pay in relation to a connection between risk and what they get. People know that in the modern world and this Government has lost this truth. 
I want to produce some evidence for the Government. A submission was made to this Government by an organisation called Wellnz which is a private provider associated with the accredited employers scheme. This is what it had to say. It manages 4000 claims per year within the accredited employers scheme. It is in its interests and in the interests of the accredited employers to reduce its costs because that is how it reduces its premiums. How does it reduce costs? Basically it is by rehabilitation. There is a real incentive for people to get better because when people get better they go back to work and fall out of the accident compensation system as they have gone back to independence. Wellnz focuses on that and this is what it achieved—I am quoting from its submission. It has an entitlement claim cost measured over 4000 claims of $3900. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) average is $13700. Another way of looking at that is to say that the ACC is four times less efficient than Wellnz at managing claims. Why is that? It is because the ACC is a bureaucracy and bureaucracies and State socialists simply do not make the connection between the costs they incur not for themselves but for businesses. They think it is all just a cost-plus mentality. 
 That is the flaw in the ACC model as represented by Labour. As soon as there is any element of competition any element of incentive when there is a connection between the level of the premium and getting people back to work there is a real incentive on the provider to go through the rehabilitation process and get people back to work. 
The other interesting statistic is that the average entitlement claim lost days is only 4 days under Wellnz; under ACC it is 35 days. That is nine times more simply because of the dead hand of bureaucracy over employers. 
This bill summarises Labour’s philosophy: it hates competition it hates efficiency it has an arrogant approach to employers and employees and believes in dependency; that is its hallmark and it will be judged on it. On this side of the House National believes in competition in rehabilitation in people getting get back to work and making a contribution. It believes in independence as opposed to dependency. That is what New Zealanders are looking for and in 2 years’ time they will judge this Government as a failure.