Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16999] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 We have seen the headline in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today: “More price hikes in the pipeline for drivers” due to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) levy increase through the petrol tax as well as motor vehicle registration fees. We can be assured that with the passage of this bill with the support of New Zealand First there will be continuing price hikes for employers and for the self-employed in terms of their ACC premium through the work accounts. 
Last night we had the revelation from the Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street that she and the ACC actually have no idea of the cost of some of the new coverage that is introduced by this legislation. For example the estimated cost for mental injury caused by witnessing a traumatic event ranges between $7.6 million and $76 million. That is a wild guess—I would not even use the word “estimate”. According to the Minister it does not matter to her that they do not know how much roughly the changes will cost so long as New Zealand can lead the world. We are quite fed up with the Labour Government wanting to lead the world and leaving New Zealanders behind to cope with the increased living costs—those arising from the emissions trading bill the regional petrol tax and now the ACC premium—so that the Government can stand up and say it is leading the world. Last night we heard the expression “leading like a pack of lemmings jumping off a cliff”. That expression kept resurfacing and it is very appropriate. 
Let me go into a bit of the detail of this legislation. I will cover the three major changes or new areas of coverage introduced by this legislation. The interesting thing is that the first two—mental injury caused by witnessing a traumatic event and the changes in the onus of proof with regard to injuries caused by gradual process—are all changes that would apply to those we call workers but it would not apply to non-workers or non-earners. The reason the Labour Government so boldly introduced those changes is that they have to be funded by employers and the self-employed. When it comes to non-earners the Government suddenly says providing cover would be too expensive and is not affordable. Indeed officials have produced reports stating that it is too expensive to extend the coverage to non-earners so it cannot be done. It is interesting that the Labour Government is blatantly making the statement that an earner’s life his or her well-being is worth more than that of a non-earner. If women who are not in the workforce suffer the same traumatic experience then they will not be covered. There is a problem of equity. If new coverage is to be funded by employers and the self-employed then the changes will be introduced but when it comes to non-earners and the cover is to be paid for from general taxation then it will not be funded. That is the equity issue. 
There is also another problem. I am not sure whether this is true but someone has told me—this has still to be checked out; I learnt this only yesterday—that in respect of volunteers the Volunteers Employment Protection Act means that when volunteers attend their voluntary work they are assumed to be in the normal workforce. The Minister may think that volunteers who attend the same traumatic event as for example a firefighter would be treated as if they are in the normal workforce which means they would be covered. We were told that volunteers will not be covered. Of course that is also a contradiction given that the Minister said that the cost of providing cover is not a concern because such events will not happen very often. After 9 long years Labour has suddenly felt the need to rush this legislation through. On the one hand it is confessing that it does not know the cost of providing cover and on the other hand it is saying we should not worry about the cost and this provision is being introduced because such events will not happen very often. I am afraid that with law and order being an issue and crime getting out of control they may happen quite often. 
The other issue I want to point out is that this legislation is not very fair to employers. Representatives from Massey University came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said they had tried very hard to be good employers and had introduced good work practices to avoid injuries due to the height of laboratory bench tops or using a keyboard all the time yet no matter how much good work practice the employer introduces into the workplace when there is an injury the employer will assume the liability for it. At present there is a need to prove that the injury was more likely to have occurred at work than after work. My good colleague Colin King raised a very good point. He is a champion shearer but he is too modest to admit it and he is also a rugby player. Last night he gave us some personal examples of the difficulty of holding the employer totally liable for back pain for example. He asked how we could know how much of it was attributable to shearing work and how much was because the individual also engaged in rugby activities. It was very very unfair to make that change in the onus of proof even though a provision has been put in to say that where there is doubt the ACC can investigate. We all know that the Privacy Act and all sorts of legislation will make it difficult for employers or even for the ACC to inspect any individual’s home environment in order to decide whether it has contributed more than the work environment has to those gradual injuries. 
The last matter that I want to raise is one that I think is really outrageous. For a long time the legislation has had a provision that if an individual intentionally inflicts self-harm then he or she would not be entitled to accident compensation. Labour with the support of New Zealand First has repealed that provision. That means that an individual who intentionally inflicts self-injuries or who attempts to commit suicide will now be entitled to compensation as well as to treatment. We would feel appalled about anyone in New Zealand going out there to encourage or entice people to commit suicide. But we in this House are now passing legislation that is against the objectives of the accident compensation scheme. One of the scheme’s principal purposes is to minimise injury. We are now sitting here and debating the passing of legislation that says it is OK for people to inflict injuries on themselves and in fact the corporation will pay them compensation. What a nonsense that is. In 2005 there were an estimated 5000 reported cases of attempted suicide and the Minister and the officials did not even bother to estimate the costs relating to that. But what is the message we are sending out here to people—that it is OK to inflict self-injury? Is that why the corporation is spending $5 million on a campaign—to say that is OK? It is appalling it is an outrage and National will vote against this bill.