Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11915] 
10.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she agree with the principle that employers should be responsible for work-related accidents? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I do as expressed and defined consistently in accident compensation legislation since 1992. I also agree with the principle that accredited employers should continue to have the right to determine themselves whether an injury is work related or non - work related and to revoke that decision if after reconsidering the facts they change their view. 
Anne Tolley 
: How does the Minister justify the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) billing the AFFCO works in Wairoa $1 million for the ongoing medical care of a young man shot by Black Power during a work break outside the factory in 2003; is this not bureaucracy gone mad? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: AFFCO made the decision to accept that claim as a work-related injury. Because AFFCO is an accredited employer it made the decision as per the legislation. AFFCO as an accredited employer under section 65 of the same legislation could have revoked its decision if when it reconsidered it it changed its mind. It made the decision. It was handed over to ACC a year later because it was a complex case. ACC is required to bill AFFCO for its responsibility which is $1 million under AFFCO’s stop-loss cover decision which it signed up to. It signed the contract. It made the decision. It is liable for the responsibility. It made the cover decision not ACC. 
Anne Tolley 
: Is it Government policy that employers rather than ACC should pay the ongoing medical costs of employees who fall victim to vicious crimes committed outside employers’ businesses? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The definition of work-related injury has been consistent in the legislation since 1992. In the case the member has referred to in her primary and supplementary questions the worker concerned was inside a security fence on AFFCO property in a car-park which has a sign next to it saying “Employee-only Car-park”. Under AFFCO’s own determination the worker was in its workplace and therefore it was liable for the decision and was responsible for cover. Actually that is what private insurance companies would have decided as well. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister explain what is work-related about someone being shot in an ongoing gang war whilst on a work break and whilst sitting in a car in a car-park that provides car-parks for AFFCO workers but also for people using the next-door public park grounds and a retail butchery—totally out of the secure control of the employer? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If the member considers those are the facts then I suggest she goes back to the AFFCO board of directors and asks them why they made the decision to give that injured employee work-related cover. It was their decision. They made it in April 2003. They had every opportunity under section 65 to revoke it. They never revoked it. 
Darien Fenton 
: Could the Minister please tell us how the Accredited Employers Programme works? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can. Under the Accredited Employers Programme the accredited employer can determine first of all whether there is an injury and secondly whether it is work-related. If it is work-related the accredited employer is responsible for paying entitlements to the injured worker up to the agreed level. Accredited employers also have the right under the legislation to revoke their own decision; if they think they have made an error they can revoke the decision. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister confirm that AFFCO has made direct representations to her over this ridiculous case and that she has refused to intervene; if so can she justify why employers in New Zealand should have to pick up a tab of as much as $1 million for gang violence which this Government has allowed to run rampant? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am unable to confirm that the first-ever incidents of gang violence occurred after the election of a Labour-led Government; I am not sure that that is a fact. I can confirm that an intermediary—with utmost confidentiality according to his request— presented the AFFCO position to me via email. I passed it on to ACC and asked for its consideration. I was told that it was 2 days before the final decision was made on an agreed settlement and that ACC thought a settlement might be reached. I decided—appropriately in my view—that it was not right for the Minister for ACC to intervene in what was clearly and according to the legislation AFFCO’s decision which it decided to change its mind on when it realised how much the claim would cost. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is on a point of order. We will hear it in silence. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from ACC to AFFCO dated 15 October outlining that— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table a letter from ACC to AFFCO dated 9 June stating that ACC would continue to— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table a letter from ACC to AFFCO outlining that the injury does fall within— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Gisborne Herald  
that quotes the Mayor of Wairoa pleading for an end— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Gisborne Herald 
 dated 11 April detailing that the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table an article from a  
Dominion Post  
of November 2003 outlining the three— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is.