Hague Kevin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hague Kevin: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9222] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is great to be able to take a second call on this. I echo the calls that come from the Labour members to the Government challenging Government members and perhaps the Associate Minister sitting in the chair Pansy Wong to respond and to actually set out a position on the proposed amendment because on the face of it we have here a dispute about some of the effects of provisions of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill. Labour members and the Green Party say that some of the provisions in the bill will shift costs from the scheme and from the State on to injured people and their families. We are not entirely clear whether the Government accepts that that is the case. I think Government members probably do accept that. I am not sure whether they would be prepared to admit it in the Chamber. If there is a dispute about that then surely the sensible way of resolving that dispute is through some kind of review mechanism as David Parker has proposed in his amendment. It would make sense for the Government to take a call to set out its position about that sensible proposal. 
I want to come to this business of “must” or “may” because to me that is one of the kinds of provisions that are in the bill that in fact give rise to some of the concerns about cost shifting that we are moving from a situation where the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) must take into account certain considerations to a situation where it may. If it may as has been pointed out in the debate on earlier parts then also it may not. That means that a much greater degree of discretion will be required from ACC officers. What we know about the exercise of discretion is that it may be subject to pressure from Ministers. I think what we have seen in the ACC portfolio in recent months is exactly that kind of problem. We have seen the kind of problem where provisions in relation to mental injury in the case of sexual abuse for example have given rise to a different interpretation of the provision. 
Why this is important is that we will see more and more of that kind of problem in the future over the provisions of this bill because ACC will be required not simply to be implementing the law as it exists but to exercise discretion. So if there is cost pressure for example on the corporation that may lead it to start making decisions that significantly change where costs fall. If that were the case then it would represent a significant cost shifting that is not set out in the bill but has resulted from it. 
It may well be that my fears about this could be answered by the Minister or perhaps the Associate Minister. I would very much like the opportunity to ask the Minister in question time today about the Government’s intentions on those issues. Sadly that will not be possible; there will not be a question time before the Government intends to push through this bill so I am not able to address that. 
What I want to come down to is the issue of discretion and the discretion that is opened up by the bill and therefore the increasing possibility of cost shifting that cannot be quantified at this point. In recent months we have seen not only those changes to sensitive claims processing where ACC has changed its interpretation of what the law says about mental injury and about the way that that test is applied. That has resulted in a significant shifting of cost from the State on to the victims of sexual abuse effectively re-victimising them. The bill opens up the possibility—in fact the probability I would say—of very much more of that occurring. 
We have seen an increased incidence in recent months of claims being turned down. We have seen an increased incidence of compensation payments being abruptly terminated. I remember the bad old days of ACC when this used to happen routinely. In the 1980s and early 1990s I took a particular role in advocacy around ACC standing up for some of the people who had been victims of accidents or who had sustained injuries in all sorts of ways. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Debate interrupted.