Pillay Lynne: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9289] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I want— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Two minutes on such an important issue. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —well I do not think it was 2 minutes—to talk about what all New Zealanders hold dear; that is the accident compensation legislation which is historic in this country. Under the Woodhouse report in 1974 it was about a social contract that delivered us a comprehensive scheme for looking after all who were injured whether it be at work in an accident at home on a sports field on the road or in special circumstances such as a victim of crime or in rare but tragic circumstance of suicide or sexual abuse. 
I say to Nick Smith that in the complex world we live in there have been changes to the scheme. Some were for good under Labour and some were for bad under National. Nick Smith wants to take us back 3 decades. The broad principles were a fair deal for all—the many not the few—and the fundamental belief in a society that believes in looking after everyone in hard times. But no the National Government wants to take us to the market model so that means that it is not fair. It means that we will pay more and get less. 
Chris Hipkins 
: You can say privatisation. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Well preparing it for privatisation. What did Woodhouse see in his report? He saw a New Zealand where the delivery of support and justice to all New Zealanders who were injured in any way was not left to the market with the only winners being lawyers and those who could afford to pay. Woodhouse said that in circumstances of injury disability death no matter how compelling or tragic it could not be left to the market. There would be minimal justice in that circumstance and certainly none for those who could not pay. We are seeing now in this House a National Government that is throwing away those principles that is demeaning any progress that has been made on the Woodhouse recommendations and on the original legislation and that is wanting to go backwards. 
Who will be the losers under National’s changes to accident compensation? They will be low-paid workers disabled people and predominantly women workers. My colleague Ruth Dyson talked about those with less than 6 percent hearing loss. Those people do not get any assistance with a hearing aid under National’s proposal. Who will be able to afford that? It is not about the 94 percent hearing that those people have; it is about professional people assessing the disability of clients and to drive in a 6 percent mandatory rule that no client will get assistance for hearing aids is nothing short of ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous. 
Who will win out of that situation? The only people who will win are those who can afford to sue because otherwise there is no support. Or people languish on the system that we have under the National Government at the moment to wait for some help from the Ministry of Health and those people will probably wait for up to a year at least. New Zealand legislated for a no-fault scheme. There was a very small levy across all New Zealanders. Whether they were employers business people sportspeople or workers it delivered justice for all in this country. It was not a matter of whether people could afford it; they received the support that they needed and deserved. 
It was the envy of the world. It put New Zealand completely on the map. It was never ever about choice which is what we hear so often from members on that side of the House especially the ACT members. It was never about selling our scheme off to the highest bidder which is what happened under the previous National Government. It was about a country that wanted to ensure a fair deal for all and for all New Zealand citizens to receive the support that they needed if they were injured. The National Government and the “Voucher Party”—the ACT Party—take advantage and say: “Let us work with the market.” Now we see that they are cutting into the rights—not privileges; they are rights—that every New Zealander pays for. 
These are their rights under our accident compensation scheme. The principles of that social contract of accident compensation were about social justice for all who suffered injury. It came down to an investment. New Zealanders gave up something. They gave up their right to sue for this scheme. New Zealanders collectively gave up their right to sue on the realisation that to have an effective scheme both socially and economically—avoiding accidents getting people back into work and all those things that are part of a progressive scheme—it would come at a cost. They could not get into the market that the ACT Party promotes about going to the highest bidder or employing lawyers and being able to sue. Through the electoral cycles we have seen what is so predictable. It happens every time we have a National Government. 
I have to ask Nick Smith this time why he is not going for the full monty and going for cutting lump-sum payments. Why is he not doing that? I ask why Nick Smith is not saying that he will cut lump-sum payments because that is what is in National’s heart. It is about privatisation. I will tell all National members that as long as you have lump-sum payments no matter how much you denigrate the rights that are entrenched in the accident compensation scheme which you are doing tonight in this House your agenda of privatisation— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member continues to bring me into the debate and I know that she knows she should not be doing that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that you are blameless in this and I do apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: And I am not part of  
The Full Monty 
 either! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I think that was directed! But if we look at the agenda of the cost cutting and the lump-sum payments of the previous Government we know we are up for a lot of cuts in the future. Members on this side of the House put up amendments and I think those amendments were very sensible. We said we should have a review to check how much devastation has happened. But it goes round and round. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Wait until next term. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member is right. But what will we see and where will we see it? We will see cuts cuts and more cuts. We will see that for workers instead of a requirement to return work for 35 hours a week it will be for 30 hours a week. The Government wants to reduce the return-to-work level to 30 hours a week. That is 30 hours a week when times are hard in a recession and when it is very hard to find work. What is this Government’s answer? It is to reduce people’s ability to get back into work. Apart from that it is for people to use their holiday pay. Holiday pay is actually a right. All New Zealand workers earn their right to holiday pay. They earn it. I tell members on the other side of the House that when people injure themselves at work it is not a holiday. I say to Nick Smith that it is not a holiday to sit there with a damaged back so one cannot spend time with one’s family.