Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16637] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The public should be very concerned about the affordability of the accident compensation scheme in the future under the Labour Government. Tonight for the first time I am pleased to share with the public that the Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street has admitted that after nearly 9 years of incompetent management by Labour the accident compensation scheme is at risk. Let me quote what she said at the launch of the book  
Blood on the Coal 
: “… when we look at the forecasts which show injury rates are getting much larger and at a frightening rate. ACC figures from recent years show that: … Claim numbers are rising steadily. … Costs per claim are rising faster than inflation. … Serious injury costs are rising even more and account for about 56% of scheme costs. … Road injuries are a major concern with casualties rising and hospitalisations still high.” The Minister for ACC has admitted to the public that after 9 years of incompetent management the affordability of the accident compensation scheme cannot be guaranteed in the future. 
National opposes this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) because it fails to deliver the stated purpose of the legislation which is to maintain a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme by reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. We will go through the three major provisions and then we will look at which part of those provisions will indeed deliver the stated purpose of being fair and sustainable. 
One of the major changes introduced is that claims will be allowed for those who witness or who are exposed to a sudden traumatic event during the course of their employment. The estimated cost of this provision according to the bureaucrats ranges anywhere from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. Any other accountants financial analysts who provided anybody with that type of estimate would have their case chucked out. The range is from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. 
Submitter after submitter came in front of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said that people who are exposed to a sudden traumatic event in the course of their employment should be able to make a claim. For example we were talking about a bank clerk who had witnessed a colleague being shot—and by the way may I remind the public that after a total of 9 years of failed law and order management under Labour that event will not to be a one-off event; indeed it will happen quite often. That bank clerk should be able to make a claim but what happens to individual members of the public who happened to be doing their banking for domestic purposes and who witnessed the same event? They would not be entitled to the same treatment. 
When two firefighters attend the same traumatic event the paid firefighter can claim but the volunteer firefighter cannot. Where is the fairness in that? Diligent members like National Party members—because we are the only ones who sit and ask these questions at the select committee—asked the intelligent question as to why this Government which says it cares for New Zealanders so much is not looking into extending the same treatment to people who are exposed to the same traumatic event at the same time but who have not witnessed it in the course of their employment. Oh well we were told by the Government that it was too expensive. When one New Zealander’s life—apparently in Labour’s book—is more valuable than another New Zealander’s life I ask where the fairness is in that. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not like doing this and I intend no offence to the member but I have trouble hearing. The sound in here is actually hurting my ears because there is something wrong with the sound system. I think it should be better moderated. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr O’Connor for bringing that matter to my attention. We will see what we can do. 
PANSY WONG 
: I am will not apologise for feeling quite emotional and passionate in arguing against the Labour Government treating the lives of New Zealanders as if they have different values. When a person witnesses a traumatic event in the course of employment he or she gets compensation but a volunteer firefighter will not be subject to the same treatment. 
The reason Labour is quite happy to introduce this provision is that the cost of the levy—the payout—would be imposed on the employers’ account and the self-employed work account. So where employers and self-employers are concerned Labour is very happy to say “thou shall pay” but when it comes to the general fund that is paid for by the taxpayer Labour says: “Wow it is too expensive. We will not do that.” Where is the fairness in that? Just because employers and the self-employed are made to pay for their levies the Labour Government will be generous. But when it comes to the Government having to pay for claims from the general fund which it cannot use to waste on other areas then it believes it is too expensive. Where is the fairness in that? This is outrageous. Submitter after submitter asked why this Government is treating New Zealanders as if their lives had different values and I think the Government has a lot to answer for. 
Another issue that I feel very passionate about and outraged against is the second major provision whereby this bill removes the disentitlement for wilfully self-inflicted injury. This bill is telling people that compensation will be available in respect of suicide and self-inflicted injury. If anybody else were to go out to incite that type of activity then New Zealanders would feel outraged. This is an evening when New Zealanders will feel very angry that this Government is removing the provision that sends the message that the accident compensation scheme is for injury where victims forgo their right to sue and therefore the compensation is there. In the case of a self-inflicted injury if there is a mental illness involved then National has no problem with extending the entitlement. But to extend the entitlement to compensation to situations where there is a lack of proof that a mental illness is involved is outrageous. 
The third provision is to change to the process of claiming for a work-related gradual process injury. The estimate of that cost ranges between $58 million and $124 million. Once again just because the levy—the cost—is borne by employers and the self-employed the Labour Government has no respect towards that burden. It just says: “What does it matter whether it is $58 million or $124 million?”. It has not even applied some diligence to ensure that the cost is accurate rather than being within such a broad range. So this bill will further endanger the affordability of the accident compensation scheme and it will certainly endanger fairness in terms of the treatment of future claimants and members of the public under the scheme.