Beaumont Carol: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9219] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the amendment proposed by the Hon David Parker to insert new Part 3 in the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I think as other colleagues have said that it is a very important proposal to undertake annual reviews of the impact of the various changes that are being forced through this House under urgency. The changes which we have been arguing about now for probably close to 8 hours include many that are arbitrary changes that are patently unfair and changes that are discriminatory. It seems to me that very much part of any review of the changes should be making sure that we identify circumstances where unfairness has occurred where blatant examples of discrimination have been found and where cost shifting has taken place under the changes proposed by National. 
I find it deeply disturbing that in the course of this debate there have been so few speakers from the Government side of the Chamber. It is particularly annoying that we have a Minister in the chair who amongst her other responsibilities is the Minister of Women’s Affairs. I have raised a number of concerns about this legislation being discriminatory. I have raised the fact that the Human Rights Commission has raised some very specific concerns about the discriminatory impact of the proposed changes. I have raised the fact that the National Council of Women has raised concerns about the disproportionate effect of these changes—a whole number of them—on women. Has the Minister of Women’s Affairs who is also the Associate Minister for ACC bothered to get up and justify these changes or explain to us why in fact these changes are not discriminatory and will not disadvantage women? No she has not. I think that is absolutely appalling. The women of New Zealand should note this and certainly we will make sure that they know about it. 
But likewise there is a Minister of Labour who I now see is back in the Chamber. This is the Minister of Labour to whom I specifically posed a number of questions earlier this morning in relation to holiday pay and the provisions of this legislation that effectively ensure that some people will fund at least partially their own earnings-related compensation. One would think that the Minister of Labour might have a view on this matter— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: A clue. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: —yes a clue or a view really on this matter because frankly this is one of the examples of a patently unfair provision. 
Let us take the case of two workers who both get injured. One happens to have fortunately taken a paid holiday and enjoyed a holiday that he or she had accumulated leave for. Another has not had the chance to take a holiday or is about to—nobody can predict when an accident occurs. Those two workers will have very different outcomes and one of them will have to partially fund his or her own earnings-related compensation. Now that is just unfair. Where is the Minister of Labour to answer that question? She also has not bothered to get to her feet to comment on that and I just think that is appalling. It is appalling behaviour by Cabinet Ministers when they will not get up to defend the legislation that they are pushing through this House under urgency. 
There are many many examples throughout this bill of matters that are arbitrary unfair and discriminatory. Let me give members another one: the 6 percent hearing loss threshold before people have coverage for work-related hearing loss. This is an arbitrary provision. There is no medical scientific or other good reason for the figure of 6 percent. It could be 26 percent or it could be 2 percent; it is an arbitrary figure. But it disentitles people and that is a serious matter. Potentially it returns to workers the right to sue which I do not think New Zealanders actually want to have. It will disproportionately affect older workers; probably men who work in primary industries or manufacturing will be particularly disadvantaged by this provision. Among them will be many Maori workers many Pacific workers and workers who have worked in places like meat plants and shearing gangs. Are we hearing any response to the concerns that we are raising? We are not. 
The reality is that this Government will force this legislation through the House so let us at least review its operation. Let us find out what has happened to these people because this legislation is about people. The failure to respond to the concerns that we are raising that submitters have raised and that advisers to the Government have raised is just appalling.