Peachey Allan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Peachey Allan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9187] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the chance to make a modest contribution to the debate on Part 2 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I will begin gently. I do not know that the last speaker—Moana Mackey who is a very experienced member of this Committee—particularly addressed Part 2 but she certainly got a lot of her agenda out there. I gently point out to her that on this side of the Chamber we write our own speeches. We do not need an Opposition member to tell us what we will talk about. 
It is with a slightly heavy heart that I speak this morning. We have been through the first reading of this bill and a lengthy select committee process during which on occasion the contribution of Opposition members was valued and very positive. We have had the second reading and have been through Part 1 in the Committee stage. We are now on Part 2 and all the Labour members have done is to get a whole pile off their chests much of which is not particularly relevant to this legislation. 
I repeat to Opposition members the offer I made to them last night. Let us get rid of all the posturing posing and displays of emotion that have been going on. In this debate on Part 2 I ask why the Opposition members do not reach out to the Government members in the way we are trying to reach out to them and agree that we have to save the accident compensation scheme. Part 2 is about saving the scheme so why do we not get down to work and do so together? The people of New Zealand require us to save the scheme and that is what Part 2 does. Along with Part 1 it is about making the scheme affordable and financially viable for ordinary New Zealanders well into the future. 
The member Ms Beaumont did a far better job than the speaker who followed her Moana Mackey of addressing the clauses of Part 2 and I commend her for that at least. She talked about Part 2 being an attack on workers. I do not understand that. An attack on workers would have happened had Labour remained in office. The consequence of Labour remaining in office and persisting with the attitude it has shown in this debate would have been the collapse of the scheme as a 24/7 accident insurance scheme that still has the potential if fixed by measures such as those contained in Part 2 to serve New Zealanders well. 
The phrase “mean-spirited” was used. I cannot see what in Part 2 could be described as mean-spirited. What is mean-spirited about introducing changes to the legislation that save the scheme within the realms of what the country can afford? The Opposition should have learnt from 9 long and some would say miserable years in Government that we can throw money at a situation for only so long. At some point in time responsibility has to be exercised. I ask Labour members when they will start showing some responsibility. 
We heard the phrase “blatant unfairness”. Is it blatant unfairness to the taxpayers and levy payers of New Zealand to make the accident compensation scheme more affordable and therefore to save it? That is what Part 2 does— 
Colin King 
: Sustainable. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: As my colleague Mr King says it makes the scheme affordable and sustainable. What is blatantly unfair about that? Nothing in Part 2 is blatantly unfair to anybody. The words “mean” “nasty” and “unfair” are emotive words that have no meaning in Part 2.