Shearer David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Shearer David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9199] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill which the Opposition is opposing very strongly because it really cuts to the heart of what divides us as parties in this Committee. One of the principles on which the accident compensation scheme was established was that we gave up the right to litigate in order that we would have a scheme that stood by us and supported us when we had an accident. The whole point about this bill is that it undermines that contract. It undermines our ability to get the sort of assistance and the sort of support that we need when we have an accident. That is the sort of message that is coming through the doors of my office when I meet my constituents in Mt Albert. 
As the Hon Annette King spoke of Mr Boscawen said that the whole point about the accident compensation scheme is that we will be paying more and getting less. That is exactly what this bill will cause. It further undermines the contract we have with New Zealanders who expect us to stand up and defend a system that gives them the right to proper compensation and proper support when they have an accident. 
Another principle on which this accident compensation scheme is based is that it spreads risk. No matter what we do in our society—whether we are a timber worker a factory worker or work in a more benign office environment—we all pay an amount that means that we are all supported and receive the same compensation. This is so that we do not end up like people in other countries like Australia where if they want to take their kids to school sport or something like that they have to pay more to ensure that their accidents are covered. 
The passage of this bill moves us towards the privatisation and the undermining of those principles. Why are we passing a bill that requires us to pay more and get less? Frankly because the Minister for ACC is saying that the accident compensation scheme is technically insolvent and is going down the gurgler. What a lot of nonsense! That statement completely misrepresents what insolvency actually is and that has been picked up by many of the commentators who have an understanding of what the scheme does in New Zealand. Rod Oram for example noted last year that “ … there is a huge gap between the rhetoric of John Key and Smith and reality.” 
Jonathan Eriksen an actuary—that is an expert on insurance and claims—of Eriksen and Associates said: “All this talk of liabilities being blown out is complete nonsense. It’s ill-founded and smacks of scaremongering which given the current economic picture is the last thing people need to be told”. We are talking this up and people out there in New Zealand are starting to believe unfortunately that this scheme can no longer be affordable for New Zealand when actually that is not the truth at all. That justification is being used to ram through this bill which will mean that New Zealanders pay more and get much less. 
A respected journalist in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 
Brian Fallow said this last year: “For the Government to wrap legitimate concerns about slippage in ACC’s performance in a whole lot of shrill scaremongering and scapegoating is gratuitous. Indeed it is downright irresponsible when talking about the scheme to use terms like ‘insolvent’ and ‘going down the gurgler’—even if the context is counterfactual—because there are people who depend on it to keep body and soul together and will do so for the rest of their days.” It is exactly the contract on which we established the scheme. It is exactly the contract by which New Zealanders gave up the right to litigate their accidents—giving massive amounts of profit to lawyers as they do in other countries—in order to have a scheme that will support them and that they will be able to depend on. 
This scheme as many of my fellow party members have spoken of is very good value. We heard from Pete Hodgson about the comparisons with Australia. Let us look at what accident compensation costs in Australia in terms of the rate per A$100. New Zealanders pay A$0.94; South Australians pay A$3.14; and the average Australian payment is A$1.73. In other words our scheme costs employers about half of what Australia’s scheme costs Australian employers. It surprises me therefore if employers are paying so little for the New Zealand scheme—and I assume that they are aware of it—that a Government that proposes to support and be supported by New Zealand businesses might want to go down that track and increase the levies that employers pay for their workers. 
The last thing I will speak about is exactly how unfair many of the clauses in this bill are. The Hon Ruth Dyson talked about pre-accident earnings and asking workers who were on a high income to go back to work earlier and accept a job at a lower level. They have been legitimately paying their contribution to the accident compensation scheme and they have outgoings in their household at a certain level. They expect under the contract that New Zealanders have with the scheme that they will be able to come back get the proper support and maintain their households without being economically deprived. The pre-accident earnings clause in the bill is not fair. It is simply not fair. 
Grant Robertson mentioned holiday pay. Those provisions are also grossly unfair. It means that if I fortuitously have an accident the first day back from my holidays having used up my annual leave I will not be penalised by having to sacrifice my holidays. But if I happen to be saving my holidays and have an accident the day before I go on holiday I will lose those holidays to accident compensation. Holidays are a basic right of New Zealanders. That provision is mean-spirited. I contest Mr Peachey’s claim that it is not mean-spirited and that the bill will enable the scheme to be far more sustainable and affordable. It is simply not. This particular clause will save $1 million. 
All New Zealanders are fair people. They want a fair go. They want their accident compensation to be fair. They want it to be fair on all people. They want to be able to pay a levy and know that their kids can go out and play sport and if they have an accident they will be compensated. They want to know that workers in high-risk occupations will be compensated in the same way that people in low-risk occupations are. Yet clause 58 of this bill which is about holiday pay is grossly unfair and unjust. As Mr Boscawen quite accurately said this bill will mean that we pay more and get less. The bill simply reinforces what Mr Boscawen argued it should not do. For that reason I think it is completely right that Labour stands up and defends a scheme by which New Zealanders have entered into a social contract and on which they depend.