Parker David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9131] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith to task with his misrepresentation of Labour’s position in respect of criminals. This is really populist policy on the part of National: “Let’s kick the criminals again; let’s make it look like Labour’s in favour of criminals and unfair compensation to criminals.” The first point is this example that is given with Graeme Burton. What a load of rubbish! Under the existing law the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) could have applied to disentitle Graeme Burton from any lump-sum compensation or earnings-related compensation. That is absolutely clear I tell Dr Smith. The existing legislation provides for that. I do claim some expertise in this: I am a lawyer. ACC told us that ever since this provision has been in there to the extent that it can go back in its records it has only ever applied to the court in 12 cases. In nine of those cases the court agreed and said the person should be disentitled. In three of those cases the court said: “No that’s wrong. It’s too tough. You’ve had your criminal penalty.” I would almost guarantee that if Graeme Burton had any earnings-related compensation or lump-sum compensation and ACC had applied to the court and said that he should be disentitled then the court would have made a wise decision and it would have disentitled him. 
But then really the Minister went even further than that and complained that Graeme Burton had been given a prosthesis as he had lost his leg. Now this is where I disagree with National. What a miserable inhumane society he stands for if National stands for people like Graeme Burton walking around on crutches. Although Graeme Burton is a bad person National would have him eventually re-enter society with a stump and no false leg. Does the Minister really want to live in a country where we not only take away a person’s accident compensation and give the person a serious term of imprisonment—and a person like Graeme Burton may never get out of there—but then we stop him getting a false leg? That is what the Minister stands for and other members in the National Government stand for that too. 
I have recently travelled to some Third World countries. One of the most distressing things for me is to see beggars without legs on stumps and inadequate crutches. If we as a society stand for not only taking away people’s compensation and giving them a criminal penalty but also have the Minister saying things like: “Look it’s terrible; he’s had a prosthesis.” what sort of a country would we be? That is the difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. I tell Dr Smith that that might be popular policy but it is wrong. It is just wrong. 
The existing law is adequate. It is not the fault of the Minister or the previous Minister if ACC sometimes does not apply to disentitle when it should in terms of earnings-related compensation or lump-sum compensation. I agree with that. I also agree that there might be problems with the data that ACC relies upon and that it ought to have more access to criminal justice records so that it can turn up these cases and make the appropriate application. But this change goes far further than that and as Moana Mackey says it applies to anyone who has any sentence of imprisonment in respect of an imprisonable offence that could have a maximum period of imprisonment of 2 years. It does not have to be someone who is imprisoned for 2 years; the person could be imprisoned for a week. 
That is where her example about how this causes injustice is most apparent. Someone could lead a blameless life all of his or her life and make a stupid mistake driving home from work and injure someone coming the other way. The person is charged with careless use causing injury or careless use causing death. The maximum penalty for that is more than 2 years’ imprisonment. The person might be a low-income person and might have other fines that have not been paid because he or she cannot afford to pay a fine. The person gets sent to prison for a month so not only does the person suffer the criminal penalty but he or she loses all accident compensation. That does not affect just that person; it affects the family. Again that is not the sort of society I want to live in. I am happy to leave that issue to the jurisdiction of the courts to judge what is just. What is being done here is unjust and just takes the country in a poor direction.