White Helen; Dean JacquiHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise to oppose the continuation of this bill for some very sound reasons. I appreciate the work that goes into members' bills but this is a bill that doesn't help workers whatsoever. I just want to explain what the bill is about and where it is aimed and why it really doesn't help us at all.First of all just to let you know I'm an employment lawyer so I did a little bit of ACC. It is a complex area and it isn't easy. But what happens when I act for an employer in this area is that if there is an injury at work I can on their behalf review that. So I go through a review process. That is already there. That will decide whether there has been a work injury. And that is the right place for an employer to be involved and it is the right place for the employer to have information about that employee.What this bill proposes is that if the employee is re-injured—so for example they go out mountain biking and they re-injure and they might do that years later—then all that information about that re-injury would go to the employer at that stage perhaps even the former employer. It would be private information and it would be given to an employer for what purpose?Now it is actually very clear when you look at the summary what the party who put this forward thinks the purpose is but I want to explain why that is wrong. So the purpose is supposed to be because the actual acceptance of that claim the re-injury claim is going to affect what is called the experience rating. The experience rating is something that sets up the employer for a levy and it is based on a calculation that involves the last three years of workplace injuries and it's a risk assessment. One of the things that goes into that assessment is how many days the employees have had off work. Now if you really want to help your employer what you do is you stay involved. You are quite entitled to and you should stay involved and you should rehabilitate. And if you stay involved the work days off work will go down and your employee will go back to work sooner and your rating will be better. That is how you legitimately get your experience rating down. If the employee has a re-injury or actually an aggravation there is no purpose of the employer being involved in that conversation. That conversation still happens it still goes to ACC and the claim still has a review process that involves the employee who is the right person to involve because they are the impacted person in that situation and they will be involved in that process right there and then. That is a way we keep our system simple and dignified and it is a principled way to actually deal with it.I repeat: if you want to get your experience rating down get down your holistic risk rating by actually getting that experience rating down by keeping involved being involved in rehabilitation in a really meaningful way and those levies will go down. That is a system that works. And I am proud to say that the approach at the present time is one of the better aspects of our legislation in this area. This is a no-fault system and what this legislation would do is it would invite employers to actually come at this at their worst which is to look at a situation and think I'm going to lose out of this situation because my employee went mountain biking and they re-injured themselves." There is no part of that conversation that is good for the employment relationship and it should be absolutely something we resist in a no-fault system because we are streets ahead of the rest of the world in this area. We have a very good system and we should support it and this would erode it. And that is why I oppose this bill. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."