Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7703. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call in response to some of the comments made by Gordon Copeland who without exception makes well-considered contributions to debates. In my view he has omitted quite a major consideration in his deliberation of and support for Pansy Wong’s Supplementary Order Paper 91. In any one of the accounts there will be a considerable investment opportunity because the amount of money that is required to be collected in levies each year is not just to cover the cost of a claim for that year; it is to cover the cost of a claim for the life of the claim. We know that with some serious injuries tragically the life of that claim could be 30 or 40 years. So more money is collected in levies in the accounts in any 1 year than is required to fund the cost of the injuries in that year and that money is invested. 
So what should the money that has been acquired from sensible—or indeed wise—investment be used for? Should that money go back to the levy payers in that account? Or would it be better used for future investment in order to reduce the overall levy in that account because of the return from the investment? Or indeed should it be used for increased investment generally so as to give advantages to the scheme in areas such as injury prevention? 
Although the member’s comments were cute and might be quite good in a debate about a number of other areas that we have debated in this Chamber I believe that the member is doing the debate his party and this Committee a disservice by saying that it is an outrage that the employers’ account should not have that money paid back without his giving in the debate any consideration of or recognition to the amount that has been accrued to that account and all the other accounts from wise investment. In my view first of all to take away a large percentage of that money from employers’ liability now for the possible increased cost of claims that have already been incurred by the scheme and secondly to reduce the investment opportunity would be to do the entire scheme a disservice. 
The other implication of the amendment from Pansy Wong’s Supplementary Order Paper would be the lack of parity between the Accredited Employers Programme and the employers’ account and that should be a major concern to every member in the Chamber. If the levies for employers were artificially dropped because of a combination of overfunding from the amount that has been accrued and the returns from investment and the employers’ account became very attractive to accredited employers because there was no disadvantage financially to them they could join the employers’ scheme which would mean we had an increased number of employees being covered by the employers’ account without any contribution being made by accredited employers to that account at all. So not only are the potential advantages to the scheme of the investment money that would accrue from that amount being left in being ignored but an opportunity is also being provided for the current accredited employers who have made no contribution to the employers’ account to benefit from a one-off windfall. In my view that is not a fully considered position and I say that with the greatest of respect to the member whom I believe has given Pansy Wong’s Supplementary Order Paper some consideration—but in my view not full consideration. It would do a disservice to the overall levy stability it would do a disservice to future employers and employees because of the lack of opportunity for investment returns and it would give a windfall opportunity to accredited employers who frankly on this occasion do not deserve it. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 91 in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 14 be agreed to.