Mackey Moana: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Mackey Moana: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:660;Page:9184] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on Part 2 and I very much look forward to hearing more patronising speeches from Michael Woodhouse lecturing the Committee on accident compensation. I say to the member that he would need to be here a little bit longer than 15 months to be as patronising as that. I think it is something the member should just build up to. He should talk to Mr Peachey who is sitting next to him. He will explain how this place works. 
Hon Members: 
 Ha ha! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Or maybe not; maybe Mr Woodhouse could explain to Mr Peachey how this place works—I do not know; they can sort it out amongst themselves. The fact is that we did not deserve that level of arrogance from that member given that he did not answer a number of the very serious concerns we have been raising. 
Jo Goodhew 
: You’ll get to the bill? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I will get there I say to Ms Goodhew; I am responding to the comments made by one of her colleagues. Ms Goodhew could get to her feet and answer some of the questions that members on this side of the Chamber have been raising. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Personal attacks—that’s all that is. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: She says that these are just personal attacks. Well Labour members say that this bill is an attack on every single vulnerable victim of an accident in New Zealand and National should take it a little bit more seriously. I will pick up on the question that my colleague Darren Hughes asked. He said that this legislation would result in New Zealanders paying more and getting less. I absolutely agree. I want the next National speaker—indeed the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour—to stand up and absolutely guarantee that not a single person in New Zealand will pay more for accident compensation and get less. If they are saying we are wrong then can they absolutely guarantee that that is not what this legislation will result in? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: We’re paying less than if you were on the Treasury benches. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Woodhouse refuses to answer the question. The fact is— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw to your attention that thus far in this particular debate Speaker’s ruling 108/5 would appear to indicate to us that this member has not yet addressed the provisions in Part 2; she has not mentioned in any respect that part of the bill. I wonder whether you could rule on that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I understand the point that the member is making. I have just assumed the Chair so I have not had the time to apply myself to the nature of the content of this part. But I think it is a timely warning that this part of the debate is actually about addressing Part 2. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Perhaps Ms Goodhew needs to read Part 2 which actually refers to levies if she thinks that the costs— 
Jo Goodhew 
: You didn’t mention the word “levies” once. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh! OK. “Levies”. Is the member happy? Can I now talk about the cost on New Zealanders? I said the word “levies”. Is Ms Goodhew happy now? I notice how sensitive National members are; they do not like us talking about the cost on New Zealanders. But the reality is that the cost for New Zealanders will go up and they will get less service because of this legislation which Ms Goodhew and her National colleagues are voting for. I think that the next National speaker needs to absolutely categorically state that that is not the case. I guarantee members that the National members will not do that because they cannot. They know that all the evidence that the select committee heard and all the evidence that came out in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report shows that New Zealanders will get less and pay more. 
I spoke on Part 1 last night and one of the questions I raised—which also comes up in Part 2 under clause 51—was not addressed. That is the fact that under this legislation someone who has a large fine and pays it can keep his or her accident compensation entitlement but someone who has a large fine and cannot pay it and ends up going to prison for non-payment of the fine will be disentitled from accident compensation. I would like the Minister in the chair to answer that question because I want to know why. We have heard a lot of argument and rhetoric around this clause about how it is all about the worst of the worst and it is all about Graeme Burton but I actually want to ask a serious question. How is it fair that someone who can pay his or her way out of a large fine can keep accident compensation entitlement but someone who cannot pay and ends up going to prison—ends up with a custodial sentence—loses the entitlement? If Mr Woodhouse who appears to be the guru on all of this would answer that question— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: It’s a nonsense question. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I think that just shows exactly the colour of this National Government. I say to Mr Woodhouse that under this legislation someone who commits an offence but cannot pay the fine goes to prison and loses his or her accident compensation entitlement but someone who commits exactly the same offence and can pay the fine because he or she is wealthy gets to keep his or her entitlement. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: It’s an outrageous insult on the judiciary! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well I tell Mr Woodhouse that we are passing legislation that will be enacted and I think we should be clear. This could be fixed if the Government cared enough about it to fix it. Instead of standing up and making patronising speeches that do not address any of the concerns of members on this side of the Chamber maybe the Government could look at fixing these anomalies and taking some of these concerns a bit more seriously than it is. 
The other issue I raised last night was that instead of only talking about the Graeme Burtons—which we all agree was a serious issue and that is why the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has the ability to disentitle—members on the other side of the Chamber should maybe look at the reasons why ACC is not using that power and resolve them. One of the questions the select committee asked was whether it is about information sharing. ACC said that one of the problems is that it does not know when people have been convicted. How can it disentitle people when it does not know whether they have been convicted? If the issue is information sharing between departments then that issue should be fixed and I would like the next National speaker or the Minister in the chair to tell us that it has been fixed. We could fix it in this legislation. We could make it absolutely clear that that information can be given directly to ACC so that it can use its power to disentitle where appropriate. 
The other thing I would like to raise is the concerns that were raised by the Legislation Advisory Committee. Mr Woodhouse is very concerned about good practice and good law. Well this committee had a lot to say about this bill and in particular the fact that we are now reversing that entitlement. Currently the Minister cannot disentitle; ACC does it. I think that separation is appropriate. This bill says that the Minister can entitle someone but nothing in here has any criteria around that power. So we are now giving a power to a Minister who can be lobbied and politically persuaded. I mean National has done a deal with ACT over this and other legislation—it hated the “three strikes” law and it was only going to select committee but it has done some deal to support some other legislation probably this legislation and now they think “three strikes” is wonderful. Ministers deal in politics; Ministers make political decisions. Now a Minister has the right to entitle someone to accident compensation. This right is not sitting apart from the politics and with the department. The Legislation Advisory Committee said that in that section there should be criteria around how that decision is made. 
I would like the next National speaker or the Minister in the chair to explain why there are no criteria in this bill relating to this power. How will we ensure and how will the people of New Zealand have confidence that that power will not be completely unhindered by any kind of control; that the decisions that are being made will be appropriate and not political decisions; and that all politicians—but Ministers in this case who can be very prone to lobbying on a number of issues—will put that lobbying aside? Labour members believe that there should be criteria. If a Minister is going to have this power—and there is a question over whether a Minister should have this power—then there should be criteria so people can see clearly and transparently how those decisions will be made. Maybe Mr Woodhouse could tell us why there are no such criteria in this legislation. 
For someone who had a lot to say for himself not very long ago he has gone very very quiet. Now he is doing that whole: “I am looking up at the gallery.” thing; he did not really hear what I had to say; he does a little bit of a quirky smile. I say to Mr Woodhouse that it is all textbook; we have seen it all before. Maybe instead of pretending that he is waving to some constituent up in the gallery he could answer the question I am putting which is why there are no criteria— 
Jo Goodhew 
: You have no idea how to actually talk about the bill Moana. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh Ms Goodhew is getting upset. “Levies”—there is she happy? I said the word “levies”. Maybe Ms Goodhew could answer the questions about why there are no criteria in this legislation for the power we are giving the Minister. Does she know? Does she care? No not really. She just wants to go home. She is just upset that we will not roll over and let the Government pass this terrible legislation which will be incredibly damaging for all New Zealanders. 
Maybe Ms Goodhew could stand up and explain—and I think this is a very simple question—why people who use up all their holidays get to have accident compensation and people who do not take their holidays do not. How is that fair? No one knows when he or she will have an accident. No one can predict that. But if people happen to have taken a holiday before they have the accident and used up all their holiday pay they still get their accident compensation entitlement. But if people are unlucky enough to plan their holiday for the period after they end up having the accident they get nothing and they lose their holiday pay. I ask Ms Goodhew how that is fair. We see that she is now doing the “tugging on the ear pretending I’m not listening” routine which is a variation of Mr Woodhouse’s “pretend I’m looking at someone in the gallery” routine. Maybe she could answer that question. Again she had so much to say for herself before; maybe she could take a call and explain to me how it is fair that people lose their entitlement just because they did not take their holidays.