Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13942] 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for ACC 
: I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration and that the committee present its final report on or before 12 May 2008.  
This bill continues the Government’s commitment to a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme for reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. This Government has already made substantial changes to the scheme including returning responsibility for cover for workplace accidents to the Accident Compensation Corporation and the introduction of the new treatment injury provisions. These changes have provided major steps in the Government’s goal of making the scheme more responsive to the needs of claimants. This amendment bill continues to progress this goal by making changes to cover for work-related injuries eligibility and entitlement to weekly compensation and entitlement and processes for vocational rehabilitation and independence.  
This bill makes some significant changes to cover provided for work-related injuries by extending this cover to include mental injuries caused by a single traumatic event and by making changes to the cover provisions for work-related gradual process disease or infection. This Government believes that if a person is clearly harmed in the course of his or her employment he or she should be covered by the scheme regardless of whether the injury was a result of an accident or an occupational illness. The changes proposed in this bill make that intent clear.  
The bill introduces cover for mental injury caused by exposure to a sudden traumatic event in the course of employment. This means for example that a train driver whose train hits somebody on the tracks or a bank worker who witnesses a colleague shot during a robbery and goes on to develop a mental injury as a result will now be covered by the accident compensation scheme. These people are entitled to the same benefits under this scheme as others harmed by their work. This cover will ensure appropriate treatment and rehabilitation and it will help facilitate an early and sustainable return to work in cases where the claimant has to take time off. This is a major and progressive development for the scheme and it brings New Zealand into line with the cover offered to workers in other overseas jurisdictions including most Australian states British Columbia Ontario Alberta Denmark and the United Kingdom. The bill provides cover for clinically significant mental injuries rather than temporary distress that constitutes a normal reaction to trauma. The bill does not introduce cover for mental injury caused by non-physical stress.  
The bill also responds to concerns expressed by the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Work-Related Gradual Process Disease or Infection. The panel highlighted the current test to determine cover for work-related conditions as being a barrier to cover for claimants. The bill introduces changes to the cover provisions for work-related gradual process disease or infection to ensure that people harmed by their work receive greater access to cover and more clarity around whether cover is available and how it is determined. It does this through amending the test of work causation set out in the existing Act to provide greater certainty of cover for claimants with these conditions. In particular the bill clarifies that the responsibility and cost for investigating a claim rests with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).  
The bill also makes changes in the areas of weekly compensation. Weekly compensation is paid to claimants who are earning at the time of their injury and is intended to provide earnings-related compensation so that claimants can meet their everyday expenses and focus on recovery. A review of the existing weekly compensation provisions was undertaken in response to concerns that seasonal workers were being disadvantaged by the current rules for calculating weekly compensation. Nearly a quarter of today’s workforce is in non-standard work—they work part time are self-employed undertake casual or seasonal work or move in and out of employment. The bill updates the weekly compensation framework to improve access to weekly compensation in this increasingly varied labour market particularly to seasonal and casual workers.  
The changes to weekly compensation provisions make the assessment for claimants more reasonable and easier to understand. The bill provides fairer and more straightforward weekly compensation for seasonal and casual employees through improving access to weekly compensation for people who are injured while temporarily between jobs. The bill allows earlier access to minimum weekly compensation for certain claimants and it increases the rates of weekly compensation paid to potential earners. In addition to providing weekly compensation to people who are unable to work because of their injuries ACC also provides vocational rehabilitation to aid them in returning to work. The bill enhances the existing legislative provisions for vocational rehabilitation to provide better outcomes for the claimants.  
Together with the existing provisions the changes help to ensure that injured people are able to return to work or to look for a job. This is important to people and their families as well as to the economy of New Zealand. The provision also provides a greater degree of flexibility to allow ACC to deliver the most appropriate rehabilitation to claimants. The bill provides ACC with the discretion to extend the current 3-year limit on vocational rehabilitation to enable ACC to meet the needs of the claimants where longer periods of vocational rehabilitation may be needed. It also—and importantly—removes the upper age limit for vocational rehabilitation to reflect the changing nature of our labour market.  
The bill also introduces a requirement for occupational assessors to consider a person’s pre-injury earnings when identifying suitable work types. This provision helps to ensure that where possible jobs identified for claimants reflect their previous earnings. The bill also addresses a number of other policy issues and improvements aimed at making the scheme clearer and more responsive to the needs of claimants.  
The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) builds on the framework provided by the existing legislation providing a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme for reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury and it is a bill that is responsive to the needs of claimants. I commend this bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Forty years ago Sir Owen Woodhouse’s report led to the establishment of a comprehensive 24-hour no-fault social insurance scheme. The two most defining features of it are firstly 24-hour cover for all personal injuries regardless of fault and secondly no right to sue for damages for such injuries. The accident compensation scheme has stood the test of time because its principles are clear consistent and concise. The report also outlined the importance of prevention compensation and rehabilitation. National supports those principles and that framework.  
As I say the important features of the accident compensation scheme such as conciseness clarity and consistency are now coming under increasing threat because the Labour Government is helping to make it complicated compromising and unsustainable. Let me demonstrate this by highlighting four provisions in this bill. Currently the Act covers mental injury in only two situations: mental injury suffered because of the claimant’s physical injuries and mental injury suffered as a result of certain types of sexual abuse or assault. This bill will introduce a new cover for mental injury arising from a traumatic event in the workplace. Examples given include witnessing a colleague shot in a bank robbery. The annual cost of the claim we understand could amount to up to $72.2 million and it could lead to a potential increase in levies of between 1.3c and 12.1c of liable earnings per every $100. The cost will be funded solely from the work account and the work account levy is from employers and the self-employed.  
But how about witnessing a colleague being shot in a bank robbery while on leave—outside the staff’s working hours? Would that be less dramatic? If not why is the Government not proposing to cover that situation? The levy would have come from the earners account; the earners levy of course is imposed on the worker.  
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Where’s the consistency? 
PANSY WONG 
: That is a good question from my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison. But what about customers who happen to be in the bank and witness the shooting of a bank clerk or feel the risk of being shot at especially if they are children or elderly people? To cover that situation the levy would have to come from general tax assuming those people were not working. So once again we want to know why traumatic mental coverage in this case is confined to only working hours in the employment situation because one of the features of the Woodhouse report was not to distinguish between workers and non-workers. Therefore different funding streams are identified to cover the various situations but the principle of personal injury or coverage should be the same. No matter whether a person is working or not working—a different funding stream—the cover should be consistent. In this case the Government chooses to cover a situation simply because the funding tends to come from employers. We want to know why other situations are not being covered.  
In the typical Labour way of doing things it went ahead raised expectations and then introduced ambiguous terms so that individuals would have to prove the injury suffered. In this case “The event must be seen heard or experienced by the person directly … and be one which could reasonably be expected to cause mental injury.” One can just envisage the arguments and the views of experts involved. The process will drag on and on and Parliament I have no doubt will be asked to introduce future amendments to simplify the provision.  
We have a case in point because in this bill we are now asked to change the criteria to cover the work-related gradual process disease or infection. No sooner had Parliament passed that gradual process coverage into law than we are now being asked to amend the legislation to make it work because not many people can qualify. I bet in the first instance that provision was brought in without detailed analysis and objective principles. The change now is to shift the responsibility and cost for investigation on to ACC and if a person has exposure to the cause of injury both through work and non-work the person will receive cover if the work exposure was the more likely cause—and who is going to decide that? Also if the person qualifies a claim can be declined only if ACC proves that the work task or work environment places the claimant at no significantly greater risk of developing that personal injury. The estimated additional cost is $11 million and the levy once again happens to come from the work account. I am not too sure these changes will actually make the provisions any simpler. All I can envisage is a lot more work for experts in the field to prove the claims.  
Another devious change is brought about in this bill to undermine Parliament’s power to scrutinise the widening of the scope of schedule 2. At the moment schedule 2 is where individual occupational diseases can be added by Order in Council. But this course is introduced to change occupational disease to personal injuries defined by exposure to agents chemicals dusts compounds etc. or by occupational groupings industry or processes. This gives wide power to broaden the scope of claims without the scrutiny of Parliament.  
It is devious and underhand because if we look at the bill in a clause by clause analysis all it states is that clause 30 will repeal section 336(1)(a) of the principal Act and substitute a new section 336(1)(a) which relates to new section 30(3). That is not exactly alerting Parliament and everybody else to that dramatic widening of the coverage of the claim. This broad brush under-the-radar approach subsequently does away with any cost-benefit analysis. We do not even know how much it is going to cost.  
The fourth provision that I want to comment on is the repeal of the entitlement for wilfully self-inflicted injury. At the moment the Act prohibits ACC from providing entitlements other than treatment for wilfully self-inflicted personal injury and suicide unless that personal injury or death is a result of mental injury. The reason for this change we were told is because apparently the research indicates that the vast majority of suicidal behaviour and wilfully self-inflicted injury is associated with having a mental health disorder. Having further proof of mental injury adds little value to the determination of cover.  
But the Act intended to cover mental injury in only two situations: that suffered because of a claimant’s physical injury and that suffered as a result of certain types of sexual abuse and assault. Now mental health disorder is classified as personal injury and we do not even know how much that will cost. The inconsistency the widening of the coverage without objective analysis and the total disregard of the fundamental principle of accident compensation is irresponsible and unacceptable. We are told in the bill that we could be looking at a cost increase of up to $75 million. ACC is already recommending increases for next year’s levy and no doubt this will ensure escalating costs. Expectation has been raised on the one hand yet the subjective nature of these new claims will ensure ongoing appeals and arguments between ACC and claimants.  
National will not support this bill because it will further undermine and endanger the long-term viability and defining feature of accident compensation as outlined in the Woodhouse report 40 years ago. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The National Party would want the accident compensation scheme to continue with its defining feature: its comprehensive 24-hour claims in exchange for not suing for damages. The last thing we want is any Act to undermine those defining features. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) is a bill to be proud of and I congratulate the new Minister for ACC my friend and colleague Maryan Street on its introduction. The bill deals with some of the harder issues for workers facing work-related injury or disease. It keeps pace with the changing world of work and work arrangements and ensures that our world-class accident compensation scheme continues to be fair and sustainable. 
As we head towards the summer holidays when most of us are able to have at least some time off I am particularly conscious that there will be many New Zealanders working during this period. Retail workers hospitality workers care workers transport workers and tourism workers—many of whom are casual and seasonal workers—will all be at work. This is a time when there is a greater risk of work-related injury because of extra workloads longer working hours and fewer breaks. Sadly some of these workers will become work-related injury casualties. But the good news is that we have an accident compensation scheme that is the envy of the world. We can be confident that most workers who find themselves in this situation will be adequately cared for. This Government is committed to ensuring that our accident compensation system is fair and responsive to all. The bill will close the gap for those workers who may in the past have been deprived of fair compensation. The Labour-led Government continues to work hard to eliminate any arrangement where workers can be disadvantaged whether it be in relation to accident compensation or other minimum rights. 
Concerns have been raised that workers whose earnings fluctuate through the year because they are on casual or seasonal employment or some other form of non-standard work are being disadvantaged by the current rules for calculating weekly compensation. Although the current rules continue to meet the needs of people in standard work nearly 21 percent of our workforce or around 457000 people are in non-standard work. If they are unfortunate enough to have a work-related injury the current calculations do not cut it. Weekly compensation is paid at 80 percent of a claimant’s pre-injury earnings. It is intended to provide real and actual compensation so workers can meet their everyday living expenses and get on with their recovery. The reality in today’s labour market for around one-quarter of the workforce is that current arrangements can put these workers at risk of receiving inadequate or no weekly compensation. The bill addresses this by changing the way weekly compensation is calculated for casual and seasonal workers so that the compensation is based on their earning periods rather than on a combination of earning and non-earning periods. This is a particularly welcome amendment given that casual and seasonal workers are more likely than permanent workers to face work injury. I know the amendment will be widely welcomed. 
The bill also makes changes to cover for work-related gradual process disease or infection. The ministerial advisory panel has highlighted that the three-part test is a barrier for cover for payments with a work-related gradual process disease or infection. The burden of proof currently rests with the claimant and this can be hard to meet. The Government’s commitment to making these changes is reflected in the bill. It amends the three-part test of causation to clarify the threshold of allowable non-work exposure. In addition the bill clarifies that the responsibility and cost for investigating a claim rests with the Accident Compensation Corporation. 
The bill also addresses cover for mental injury arising from traumatic events in the workplace. No cover is currently available for mental injury caused by a sudden traumatic event while that person is at work. We are all aware of awful situations that have occurred at work—shocking accidents or crimes that have been witnessed by workers. I ask members to just go and talk to a train driver who has been in that situation. This exposure can lead to the development of long-term mental or psychological problems that impact on a person’s ability to function day to day. This is an important and essential addition to the accident compensation scheme. 
As has been mentioned this week is the 40th anniversary of Sir Owen Woodhouse’s recommendation to introduce what became one of the most revolutionary and innovative systems for accident compensation in the world. New Zealand’s universal no-fault accident compensation scheme has stood the test of time and is still a landmark social insurance scheme of international significance. Since the 19th century decent people have accepted that common law claims do not provide an equitable and socially desirable response to the industrial injuries of workers. Even way back then there was a growing belief that industry needed to have better regard for the welfare of its workers and that the costs of injuries should be borne as part of the costs of production. The first legislation in New Zealand to provide workers with a right to compensation for work injuries was the Workers’ Compensation for Accidents Act in 1900. But New Zealand claimants had to prove injury by accident arriving out of and in the course of employment before they were eligible for cover. Cover for disease was precluded. 
From 1940 coverage for industrial disease was gradually introduced. After the passing of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1947 compensation became payable in respect of any disease contracted in the course of employment and due to the nature of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Act 1956 provided a system of insurance at the expense of the employer of the worker against accidents arising out of and in the course of his or her employment. The benefits available under the Workers’ Compensation Act 1956 proved far from satisfactory. The maximum compensation corresponded to approximately 52 percent of average weekly earnings and could be paid for only 6 years after which it ceased automatically. Injured persons could sue for damages but they had to prove fault and if they could not they got nothing. Of course there was nothing available for those not in paid employment. 
The dissatisfaction with that scheme led to the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry chaired by the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse. As we all know a key recommendation made by the commissioners was the abolition of common law claims for compensatory damages. It was recommended that New Zealand should replace the common law lottery with a comprehensive meaningful no-fault compensation scheme in exchange for which those who had cover would surrender their right to sue. It is interesting to note that the 1972 Parliament voted unanimously to pass the Accident Compensation Bill into law which demonstrates the consensus there was around the Woodhouse recommendations. Unfortunately that all changed under the National Government of the 1990s. Listeners should have no doubt that if it gets the chance the National Party will wreck our accident compensation system again. It will privatise the system and sacrifice on the altar of privatisation the social contract that New Zealanders entered into all those years ago. 
John Key has recently confirmed that National’s policy is to re-establish a competitive market to provide accident insurance. When Murray McCully was the Minister for ACC he said that creating a competitive environment is a vital part of the reforms— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: She’s namedropping! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Mr McCully should listen to what he said: “Insurers like everyone else are in business to make a buck.” I respect Shane Ardern but even he said that accident insurance should be no different to any other form of insurance and that the most price competitive way of making this cover available to any industry in New Zealand is to let the insurance market compete for this business. He said it worked before and that it would work again. The truth is it did not work. It was a mess—a major botch-up—and the only people who did well out of it were the insurance company mates of the National Party. 
I welcome this bill; it is another step in this Labour-led Government’s commitment to that very important social contract Sir Owen Woodhouse introduced 40 years ago. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I look forward to hearing submissions and progressing this bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I note there is a stark contrast between the objectives put out in the policy statement of the Government and the purpose described by the parliamentary Bills Digest which was also put out. The Government goes into a long-winded waffle where it says the overall purpose of this bill is to continue the Government’s commitment to a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme for reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury etc. whereas the parliamentary Bills Digest says the purpose is to amend the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.  
There is no doubt that National will not be supporting this bill because we believe it has not been well-thought-out. It blurs the margins between injuries caused by accidents and other medical conditions and it is extremely poorly costed as Pansy Wong pointed out earlier and as I will do shortly. The Labour Government never managed to understand that when the accident compensation scheme came into being in the late 1970s along with the substantial benefits gained—and I must say it came into being under a National Government—New Zealanders also lost the very important right to sue. Although there is absolutely no political inclination to change that situation it is important to emphasise that New Zealanders made a substantial trade-off when they gave up that right to sue. 
Tariana Turia 
: So they should. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I agree with Tariana Turia. I do absolutely accept that. But we must not underestimate how important that loss of the right to sue is. For instance I can give an example of a young man with a family of three down in Queenstown who had a traumatic incident that has left him a paraplegic. He had just started his business so all his money had gone into that. He was therefore on a low income and for the rest of his life at 80 percent of that income he will not have the ability to be able to provide well for his young family. If he had the right to sue he would have indeed received a substantial claim because the way that it happened the perpetrator was undoubtedly in the wrong. We must not underestimate just what has been lost and therefore it is absolutely important that we make the scheme work as well as possible.  
There are several areas in this amendment bill that are particularly problematic to National. One of them is associated with the costings and the poor way in which the Government has gone about sorting out the costings related to mental harm from trauma at work and the inconsistency as again pointed out by Pansy Wong that there is no provision for mental-harm compensation outside of work. It just seems extraordinary.  
The other area of course is the way in which not only injuries but also gradual process conditions can be added to schedule 2 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 which causes further blurring with other diseases and conditions. I think it is important to point out the situation with schedule 2 which does indeed give far wider power to broaden the scope without the scrutiny of Parliament. It is a very very much wider power and again as Pansy Wong pointed out this is being introduced in a very devious way and not in a transparent way. If we look at clause 30 we see that section 336(1) is amended and paragraph (a) is repealed and substituted with “(a) adding or varying the description of a personal injury together with the corresponding—(i) agents dusts compounds substances radiation or things (as the case may be) and if appropriate the relevant level or extent of exposure to such agents dusts compounds substances radiation or things; or (ii) occupations industries or processes; or”.  
That indeed leaves a very wide scope with which a Government can by Order in Council introduce a whole series of things. We know that the aim of the Labour Party has been for a long time to equate disease with accidents where New Zealanders have given up the right to sue. If indeed this Labour Government had raised New Zealand from the lower half of the OECD into the upper half of the OECD maybe it might be a reality to afford these things. But undoubtedly we have to spend every dollar wisely.  
It is more than a coincidence that today at Auckland University there is a forum on accident compensation. It is marking and acknowledging the 40 years since Sir Owen Woodhouse outlined this plan. I think it is important once again to reiterate the five principles that he talked about: community responsibility comprehensive entitlement complete rehabilitation real compensation and administrative efficiency which is one of the things that we are concerned about. In an article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
the other day written by Associate Professor Rosemary Tobin Susan St John and Dr Grant Duncan they say administrative efficiency is achieved in a collective scheme whose costs of administration are far lower than any private insurance arrangement could be. What absolute rubbish this is because we know that the partnership programme and third party administrators have managed to deliver these services far more efficiently and effectively than the grand monopoly of the ACC itself. I think it is very important to point that out.  
About a year ago when the issue of expanding the schedule of gradual disease process was being brought up Simon Porter who is a senior solicitor with the employment team at Bell Gully noted that the biggest challenge with these diseases is in determining whether the onset was work-related or caused by other outside factors. He said that this is certainly Business New Zealand’s main concern and mentioned that chief executive Phil O’Reilly has commented that although he does not object to the expansion of the list per se he sees real problems with some of the proposed conditions. In particular he questions how accurately hearing loss one of the proposed new conditions could be diagnosed as being caused by employment.  
But I do want to talk just for a moment about the regulatory impact statement that this Government has brought out. It is way way out of reality—just have a look at the variability. In fact we can see that the Government is costing vocational rehabilitation at about $1.7 million and the upper age-limit for rehabilitation at about $1.17 million. I cannot for one moment accept that that is anywhere near realistic. But then we go to the changes to weekly compensation packages and the variations go from $63 million to $138.6 million. That is a huge variation. How on earth does this Labour Government expect to gain any credibility whatsoever when it costs something as important as this so pathetically? Then of course the range for mental injury cover caused by work-related trauma went from $7.6 million to $72.2 million per year which is almost 700 percent. That is absolutely pathetic in terms of once again the Labour Government failing to do its homework on such an important issue. The Government says that the central cost of the cover for work-related gradual process is in the order of $11.835 million but of course that does not cover all the new claims that would be accepted. The Government merely says that claims that have previously been declined are not likely to have an impact as the reasons for their declination will not have changed.  
This amendment bill appears to be recklessly irresponsible by the Labour Government in several areas. The Government simply has not done its homework to find accurate costings of what it is proposing. As the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Work Related Gradual Process Disease or Infection pointed out it recognises that further research was required to fully calculate the cost implications of the advisory panel’s recommendations. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have listened to both the National Party spokespeople on accident compensation and I cannot work out where they are coming from. They are advocating that we go back to the Woodhouse principles more strongly. [ 
Interruption 
] Pansy Wong is saying yes to that. But the impression members on this side of the House have is that National wants to privatise accident compensation. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh National members have changed their minds on that. When did they do that? Was it last night at the party? 
If that party over there is committed to the accident compensation structure then its members should be voting for this bill. If they believe that accident compensation is the way to go they should be voting for this bill because this bill extends a number of improvements to accident victims. It is as simple as that. We can go on with this highfalutin waffle but this bill extends significant improvements to a number of accident victims. The Minister clearly outlined in her speech that it extends cover to include mental injuries for single traumatic events. She used the example of the train driver. Is that guy not worth considering? Is he not worth some sort of cover? Do National members feel proud of themselves for voting that down? For that reason alone they should vote for it. [ 
Interruption 
] They cannot sit back and say no. Does that train driver need accident cover? 
Pansy Wong 
: Look at the bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have looked at the bill; I think the member should look at the bill. The member should pay attention to the bill and not just be blinded by political rhetoric. 
I usually quite like Dr Hutchison’s contributions to accident compensation debates. I have always put him down as a sound thinker. But he seems to be saying that this bill blurs the edges between accidents and sickness. I would say that that is a good move. If we could extend accident compensation cover to cover sickness we would would we not? It is a good move to blur the issue. That is not a retrograde step; that is a good move. 
There is one little thing in this bill—maybe more than one—that I want to stress because I think it is a very good move. Somewhere in the bill is a clause that refers to the loss of potential earnings for young people. Paul Hutchison referred to the case of a younger person and those are the sorts of circumstances I want to talk about. I ask members to imagine a young guy of 18—or it could be a young lady—who is doing exceedingly well at university. Perhaps that person will be a high-flying lawyer or a surgeon or something that will really produce some income—maybe almost as much as Grant Dalton—so he or she can buy a $3 million section in Queenstown. Imagine that that this person takes a year off works in his or her holiday period at the meatworks or on the wharves and gets injured and is incapacitated for life. Right now that person would be getting peanuts. This bill at least acknowledges that that it is a problem. 
New Zealand First fought hard for this when the Government renationalised accident compensation. We fought hard to get this sort of coverage. It is only very lukewarm coverage but at least it is a move in the right direction. It is by no means adequate. We believe that in the longer term the Government will have to say that this young person I have hypothetically referred to should get fuller coverage. It should be recognised that he or she could be earning quite considerably in his or her more mature years and should get compensation for that. But this bill does open the door a little bit on that and New Zealand First will be pressing for a better formula in terms of compensation. 
One area that I thought was in the bill which New Zealand First also feels very strongly about is that— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I thought you’d read the bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: —I know; Dr Hutchison can look at me and he might well agree by looking at me—this country is getting older. The population is getting older.  
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Every year. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes every year as my colleague says. Every year we are depending more and more on mature people staying in the workforce longer. If we look at the accident compensation coverage they get and the treatment they get we see that it is second rate. I thought this measure was in the bill. I was looking at it just before I came to the House but now I cannot find it. But I can say that New Zealand First will support this bill for that very reason—we will be trying to get that into the bill. We will try to get fairer coverage for older people. I know that the Greens will support this. They look at me and they say: “Yes we need people like you to carry on for quite a while yet.” 
Hon Member 
: Yeah right! 
PETER BROWN 
: Yeah right! 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You’ve been carrying on for quite some time already. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have some news for the member: I will carry on for a little bit longer. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: A perfect remedy for sleeping disorders. 
PETER BROWN 
: Exactly. 
This bill goes quite some way to addressing some concerns but it does not go far enough and New Zealand First will be pushing it a little bit further. On the negative side—and my understanding has not been changed; someone will correct me if things have changed—we still pay compensation to a person who gets injured whilst committing a crime. We will be asking the select committee to look at that issue. 
I do not think I need to say any more. The detail has been worked through and I am sure that Mr Bennett will take a call and enlighten us even further as to why National are taking such a hard-hearted attitude to this bill. But New Zealand First will be supporting its referral to the select committee where we will endeavour to improve it even more. 
Debate interrupted.