Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It relates to Standing Order 320, which requires that amendments to bills that can affect or have an impact upon the Government’s fiscal aggregates need to be lodged with the Clerk at least 24 hours before they are considered by the Committee. New Part 3 and, I believe, subsequent parts do not meet that test, and most certainly do have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
It is the fiscal aggregates of the Government that we are talking about.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I am reading from the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. Standing Order 320(1) states that an amendment that may have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates—[ Interruption]
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
That will be novel for those people. An amendment that may have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates etc. must be lodged with the Clerk at least 24 hours before the House meets on the day on which the amendment is to be proposed. This part does not meet that test.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I presume this matter can be dealt with relatively quickly. “Fiscal aggregates” is a term that has been used on a number of occasions for a long period of time, and any suggestion that a change as minor as this one would have an effect on the fiscal aggregates of the Government goes to the point of being absolutely ridiculous. The effect would be within the margin of error—1 percent of the size of the fiscal aggregates of the Government. There is, clearly, an ability to veto on the part of the Government, if in fact that is the case. That, again, is something where no Minister of Finance would ever pretend—is the Hon Gerry Brownlee an Associate Minister of Finance?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
He is the Minister for Economic Development. No Minister of Finance would ever pretend that this amendment would have an effect on the fiscal aggregates, because it is such a small number. For example, if the member had moved an amendment to bring forward the close-off date from 2019 to 2015, there might be an argument that that would affect the fiscal aggregates of the Government. It might or it might not; even a number of that size might not. But this amendment is so minor that when the Government’s spending is brought together—aggregated—no one could pretend that it would have an effect.
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this
The point of order raised by the Leader of the House ought to have to been raised at the beginning of the debate on this part, when the amendment was first moved. Instead, no point of order was taken, the Chair accepted the amendment, and debate commenced.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I thank members for their contributions. I think there are four points that I can see arising out of this point of order.
The first point is enshrined in Standing Order 320, and in Speakers’ rulings 119/1-4, where there is quite a raft of information about it. On the strength of that, the point of order is upheld.
I think there are three other points that I need to comment on, as well, and I will deal first with the point of the Green Party member Mr Hague. At no point do the Standing Orders define a lapse time for a point of order if it is relevant. That the member did not raise his point at the time the amendment was moved is not a reason for ruling out the point of order. Had we voted on this part and moved on, we could not return to it. In that regard, it is perfectly relevant to raise the point of order at this time.
The third point that springs to mind—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
—sorry, that comes to mind—in relation to this matter is when the day actually starts. Because we are in urgency, and the sitting day stays the same, it would be my ruling that the day started at 2 p.m. yesterday. I have inquired of the Clerks, and I find that these amendments therefore would have had to be lodged at 2 p.m. on Monday. Even given another interpretation that it was a chronological 24 hours, the amendments do not fit.
The fourth point is whether the amendment is a trivial matter in terms of its effect on the financial aggregates. The Standing Orders do not required the Chair to rule on that; that is the prerogative of the Government. It is not the Chair’s job to rule whether the effect is trivial; it is simply to rule whether the amendment has a fiscal implication. In that regard I am bound to uphold the point of order. That would mean that new Parts 3, 4, and 5 are ruled out of order in relation to the ruling I have just given.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The words you used then were that it was not for the Chair to determine whether the impact on the fiscal aggregates is large. Speaker’s ruling 119/1 states: “During the committee of the whole House, the Government will be able to make a submission to the chairperson that an amendment or a change proposed to be moved, appears to have more than a minor impact on the fiscal aggregates …”. It goes on to say that if there is doubt whether the effect is more than minor, then the amendment should be ruled out. I suggest to you, Mr Chairperson, that there is no doubt that the impact of this amendment is minor. This is the most minor sort of review, and I cannot see how it could have a more than minor impact on the fiscal aggregates. In order for you to rule it out, Mr Chairperson, you have to be satisfied that there is at least doubt that the impact is minor.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
The other point that I would like to draw your attention to, Mr Chairperson, is Speaker’s ruling 119/4, where it is made clear that it is quite proper for the Minister to raise the issue on official advice. I want to ensure that you have sought confirmation from the Minister that there is official advice. If there is official advice, we know that it is always obtained in writing from Treasury. That is the way that that advice occurs. The Opposition wants to ensure that there is that official advice. If that is the case, we are happy to go with it. It was always tabled in the past.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
I am advised by Treasury that the cost of this provision would be somewhere between $600,000 and $1 million. Whatever way members like to look at it, that is an impact.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I will rule on this point first. Can I say that the Chair does not have at his disposal the kind of information that the Leader of the House has just given. It is part of the process of this institution that the Chair accepts Ministers’ advice on that matter, and the Leader of the House has confirmed that he sought advice.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Could we ask the Minister to confirm that that advice is written advice?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is something that is very clear and very important. Ministers, when they have advice that is required by the Standing Orders, have always got that advice in writing. It is part of having a record. It is a protection for the Minister, and it is a protection for this House. I am not doubting that there is such Treasury advice—because the Minister has assured us that there is—but I want to know that it is available, and that it is in writing, because it is something that will have to be tested going forward.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I think, in response to that, that there are layers to the reasons why an amendment can be ruled out. This is not a financial veto, which probably has a higher level of standards around it. But the 24-hour rule is a requirement. I remind members again that all members in this Parliament are honourable members, and if the Leader of the House gives me his word that he received advice, it is not, in my opinion, my responsibility to then require him to present to me written evidence of his having had that advice.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have several points to raise with you. I will first take the point you have just raised.
With regard to Speaker’s ruling 119/4, the ruling contains the phrase “official advice,” and the inclusion of the word “official” must mean something. As Mr Mallard has said to you, we have now had the Leader of the House say verbally that the cost of the amendment would be between $600,000 and $1 million. What happens if, down the track, the official information is found not to have existed, and the Leader of the House has said in the Committee that it does exist and has said what the advice is? When Mr Mallard asked about it, Mr Brownlee waved a piece of paper that is acting as his bookmark in his copy of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. It is a handwritten note on paper that has been ripped out of a notebook—it is perforated along the side. That note cannot possibly constitute official advice to the Government of New Zealand about this matter. So I raise that point with you.
I also raise a second point, Mr Chairperson, about the fact that when we read Speaker’s ruling 119/4—and Mr Mallard has quoted the first part—we see that it continues: “It is quite proper for the Minister to raise the issue on official advice,”, and finishes off: “although it is finally for the chairperson to rule.” That is a very important point for you, Mr Chairperson, because I noticed that when the point of order was taken at 2 o’clock you had a lot of information at your fingertips. You were able to give four points to us when you were ruling on it. But the ability of the Opposition to propose amendments to legislation, whether they are in support of, or in disagreement with, the law, is quite an important point.
The reason I raise that is that previously it was totally out of order for an Opposition to put forward any amendments that had any fiscal impact whatsoever. The changes to the Standing Orders at the end of 1995, which came into effect in 1996, altered that, so that an amendment could come from the Opposition that might have some costing associated with it. But rather than use the term “financial impact”—that is, $1 or more—the term “fiscal aggregates” was used, so that it was clear that amendments that involved costs that were small as a percentage of the Government’s total spend would not simply be ruled out or dismissed. It is very hard to accept that in a Government Budget of about $60,000 million, a review costing half a million dollars is somehow some extraordinary change to the Government’s fiscal aggregates. A stay at a hotel in Tonga or a trip on the Interislanderdoes not have a big impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates, either. Those are the sorts of figures we are talking about.
This is a device being used by the Government to try to stop the Opposition from being able to propose amendments to the legislation—amendments that the Government can vote down. It will have that option shortly; we have spent about an hour discussing Part 3, and Government members will have the option of voting against it to show that they are not in support of it.
Mr Chairperson, the Speakers’ rulings make the point that it is finally for you to rule on this matter. If you as Chair accept that a Minister who feels frustrated at the length of time of a debate and says “Oh, look, that amendment is just too expensive.” is not required to supply you with any written advice that is then available for the Committee to look at, and if the Minister does not give any detail about what the advice is, then the Opposition could have all of its amendments ruled out for all time. There is a cost even in the simple fact that when an amendment is accepted by the Committee, it forces a printer to go into action somewhere within the Government. That is a financial cost. If the Government goes down the path of not only stopping us from having question time but also stopping the Opposition from proposing amendments because, by their very nature, there will be a cost of some amount—a fiscal impact—that is different from an effect on the fiscal aggregates, which is the way in which our Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders have been written.
I think that this is a really critical point, Mr Chairperson, and the Opposition respectfully seeks your assistance with it. Otherwise, there is no point in doing any of these debates, because as soon as the Leader of the House loses his temper about these matters, the ball will be thrown and we will all have to go home. That seems preposterous to me.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I refer you, Mr Chairperson, to Speaker’s ruling 136/4, and go back to the question of the perforated piece of paper from a notebook, which the Leader of the House is relying on. I quote: “An official document is not just a piece of paper with notes for the Minister’s guidance, but is a more formal piece of writing conveying a message or memorandum, or recording some matter between officials of the Government or between the Government and other persons.” That is the sort of document that, in my opinion, advice consists of. That is the way that Ministers get advice. It is official. There is a proper record of it. I do not know in whose hand the note on the perforated piece of notepaper is, but it is my submission to you, Mr Chairperson, that, in that form, it cannot be an official document, and therefore it cannot be the source of the advice that the Leader of the House has received.
Just as a matter of guidance on fiscal aggregates, my memory is that, as far as Dr Cullen was concerned, an amendment had to have an effect of more than $10 million before he would—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The next point I am making, as to an effect on the fiscal aggregates, is that Dr Cullen’s view was that a figure of $10 million was the point at which he would start being interested as to whether there was an effect on the fiscal aggregates. Dr Cullen used to make clear that the Government had a majority in the House, and if we did not like an amendment, we voted against it rather than attempting to have it ruled out through this method or through a financial veto. What he saw as an effect on the fiscal aggregates sufficient to trigger this mechanism or to trigger the financial veto—generally, an effect would have to be bigger in order to trigger the financial veto—was something much more significant than the cost of this amendment, which at most would be $1 million, with the best estimate being about $200,000.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
OK. Let me deal with what I think are three points that have come out. I think that this series of points of order on the process around this stuff is useful. I regard it as quite valuable. I will deal firstly with the last point that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised, in terms of amount. There is no guidance for me anywhere that I can find, in the Standing Orders, Speakers’ rulings, McGee, or anywhere, that actually defines an amount. That is the prerogative of the Government. If it were $10 million or any figure, it would be enshrined somewhere. That is my difficulty. Moving away from saying “This doesn’t fit.”, or “That doesn’t fit.”, I tell the Committee that there is no documented evidence for me to go to in order to determine what amount is trivial.
Let us now go to whether it was appropriate or proper for the Leader of the House to have raised this matter, and again we go to Speaker’s ruling 119/4, which states clearly in the second-to-last sentence: “It is quite proper for the Minister to raise the issue on official advice,”. The member raised the matter of whether the paper was an official document, but the ruling does not say “official document”; it states “official advice”. Again, in the time that I have had at my disposal to look at this matter, nowhere have I found a specification about what is official advice. As I said earlier, I have to accept that the Leader of the House has received advice, and I so rule on that.
Then we come to the matter of the responsibility of the Chairperson, which is my responsibility. I go to the latest edition of McGee, at page 381, and the fourth paragraph states in regard to this matter: “The chairperson does not determine such a matter on a balance of probabilities; a possibility is sufficient.” So I am guided by McGee on this matter, in terms of ruling in favour of the point of order raised by Gerry Brownlee.
We move now to the vote on the schedules.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry but a lot of discussion was taking place while you were giving your ruling. Are you declining to rule on Speaker’s ruling 119/4, which sets out that it is quite proper for a Minister to give official advice? You are accepting the torn off bit of paper that is perforated down the side—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
—and handwritten as official Government advice? You are ruling against Speaker’s ruling 136/3?
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I am accepting that the Leader of the House has had official advice. That is what I am accepting.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
His word. So what recourse does the Opposition have if it turns out that that advice does not exist?
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I remind the member that all members are honourable members, and if at a subsequent time any member is found to have misled the House, there is a course of action, which is substantially Draconian, for dealing with the matter. Well, it rules justice in a way that members understand. There are matters of privilege; there is a whole range of things. Members have that course open to them if it is subsequently found that any member has misled the House, and this issue is no different.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I am about finished with this issue, unless there is new material.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Yes. I did say when I responded in the first instance that I was ruling out the amendment in your name currently under debate, and also the amendments to add Part 4 and Part 5. I have already given that ruling.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are we to take it, then, that the advice you have received from Mr Brownlee is that each of those amendments, of itself, causes cost that would materially change the fiscal aggregates, or is the advice that, in the aggregate, the amendments would cost between $600,000 and $1 million, or whatever the figure was? By the way, I accept the Minister’s word as to the amount.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I think there are two points there. Let me clarify the member’s first point, which was about advice that I as Chair have received: the Committee of the whole House has received that advice; it is not pertinent to me only. The second thing is that I have accepted that advice in relation to the three amendments before us to add new Parts 3, 4, and 5.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not trying to be difficult. My confusion about the amount that the Committee was told is material. Is it the cost of each of these reviews, or is it the cost of all of them? It is a relatively simple question that I thought we should be able to get an answer to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
This is my interpretation of it. We have trolled through this area and established some principles around it. The Leader of the House has said to us that each of the amendments has an impact on the fiscal aggregates. We have also established that there is no threshold of triviality, so we simply accept it. The Leader of the House, of his own volition, gave some numbers. I am prepared to accept his word that each of the amendments has an implication for the fiscal aggregates. I have accepted it on that basis.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to check that you have had an assurance from the Leader of the House that these amendments could not be done within the baselines that are currently available—that they would require an extra appropriation as opposed to using current appropriations—because if they can be done within the baselines, they will not affect the fiscal aggregates. In my view, in a vote the size of the one we are talking about there is not a bolter’s show in hell of these amendments affecting the baselines of the Accident Compensation Corporation.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Let me affirm again to the Committee of the whole House that I am not privy to any information. When the member raised the point of order he asked whether I had been told information by the Leader of the House; he told the Committee. That is the first thing. The Leader of the House told the Committee that these amendments will have an impact on the fiscal aggregates.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to show disrespect, Mr Chairperson, but you came to the Committee with the answers to a series of questions. I cannot accept that you did not have some sort of briefing on this matter before you came to the Committee. I have enormous personal respect for you, Mr Chairperson, I have known you for a long time and I respect your integrity, but I do not think you should attempt to tell the Committee that you had not been briefed and you were unaware of this matter. You clearly were aware of it.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Let me respond to that. Every day before I come to the House I spend time with the Clerks. They are whom I spend time with. When I came into the Chamber Mr Brownlee was sitting next to me, and I said “Do not talk to me.” He may or may not wish to confirm that, but I think the member will accept my word. So I am dealing simply with some anticipation—because this is developing into a filibuster—as to what the probabilities would be—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
It is taking somewhat of an interesting twist—let me put it that way. I do not want to accuse anybody of anything, and I apologise for that. It is the right of the Opposition to explore every possible avenue, and it is my responsibility to make myself conversant with the pertinent Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and McGee. Also, we have spent some 25 minutes on this matter, and there has been an opportunity for the Clerks to advise me and give me some quotes, like the one I took from McGee. I did not prepare it before I came here. Members have to accept that I am dealing with this matter in the most straightforward manner that I can. We will now put the vote on the schedules.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. First, I echo what Mr Mallard said about the personal respect we have for you. Mr Mallard and I would like to invite you to join us for lunch tomorrow, when the House will still be in urgency, to make sure there is not a single chance of Mr Brownlee getting to you. He will be in quite a mood by then, I predict.
I want to take you to the point where you referred to your role as the Chair of the Committee. As a presiding officer you have a number of functions, but the protection of the rights of the minority is one of the most important ones, and it is one that you do very, very well indeed. You referred to your view of the proceedings of the Committee at the present time, and it is probably correct that things could have taken an alternative, parallel path to the one they are taking at the present time. But there are three amendments that propose three new parts. I would not describe them in the language you did—although you did withdraw it.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
But it goes to the fact that just because the Government is unhappy with the process that has been followed by the Opposition is no reason for our amendments to be ruled out. If every single one of our amendments is going to be ruled out because of a claim that it will have an impact on the fiscal aggregates—and you yourself have said that the triviality or otherwise of the cost is irrelevant—it actually means that the Government could rule out every single amendment that the Opposition seeks to put to this legislation, which affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. That is why I bring you back to Speaker’s ruling 119/4, and to the very last few words—the last seven or eight words—“although it is finally for the chairperson to rule”. If the Government is allowed to get away with this behaviour—and the great irony is that we had spent an hour on Part 3, and we would have had the vote by now, and we would have moved on; we have lost time on procedure, because of the Government’s management style—if every single amendment is ruled out because you are saying that triviality is not important, then the Opposition has lost its voice. That is why we are appealing to you, Mr Chairperson, as the defender of the minority in the Chamber, to make sure that that does not happen. I am not confident that the Leader of the House will not try to bulldoze the legislation through the House because he has the pip about something that is far beyond my intelligence to understand.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Is it a fresh point of order? I should rule on the current one. Are you speaking to it?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I think I should speak to the point of order. There has been a degree of emotive expression that is somewhat disappointing. I would like the member to consider that although it is the right of the Opposition to try to put forward views, equally it is the right of the Government to govern and to go about its business in the House, and our protections, both yours and mine, lie in this book, the Speakers’ Rulings. I ask the member to look at Speaker’s ruling 119/3, which is of no lesser import than 119/4. It has in fact been endorsed by former Chairperson Pettis and former Speaker Hunt. It states that Standing Order 320 “is not neutral as to whether an amendment is out of order. If a member fails to give 24 hours’ notice and there is any doubt or possibility that it has a fiscal impact, the amendment is out of order.” That is all we have raised. These Speakers’ rulings are here for the House to be guided by, and I think we should get on with our business.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I will now rule on the matter that the Hon Darren Hughes raised. I thank him for his expression of respect, and I will look at taking up the luncheon offer. But I want to correct him on something that—[ Interruption] Points of order are heard in silence. I want to clarify—because the member picked me up wrongly—that I said that it was not for the Chair to rule whether something is trivial. The member said that the Chair ruled whether something was a trivial matter. There is a pertinent difference. I have not ruled whether this matter is trivial; I have simply ruled, as per McGee, that the possibility exists. I have therefore chronologically followed through that process in determining that. So I have not ruled that it is trivial.
The fundamental point that the member made is that the Chair can rule out amendments. I pick up on Speaker’s ruling 119/3, which Mr Brownlee raised. It is there for good reason, and it is not neutral. I think it is just a little wake-up call that where there is a possibility of a fiscal aggregate implication, anyone putting in an amendment simply has to obey the 24-hour rule. That does not rule out the possibility of debate, at all. I will now put the question on schedule 1.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
We strongly contest the approach that is being taken—it leaves us with very few rights in the way of posing amendments—but if that is the way it is going to be ruled, then we have to do our best to advocate and articulate for the people we represent. But we rely on the protection of the Chair for these matters.
One of the difficulties is that the House, as you mentioned before, is in urgency. Urgency was signalled to the Opposition very, very late in the piece—far later than more recent practice under Mr Brownlee’s tenure as Leader of the House. This particular amendment to create a new Part 3 was lodged 23½ hours ago. We did our best to comply with the information available to us at the time we put these amendments forward. There is a point where it is impossible for the Opposition to comply with the 24-hour rule. If the Government operates in this fashion, it curtails the ability of the Opposition to comply with that rule.
As you can appreciate, these are serious amendments. They create three new parts—three important parts to do with injury prevention. I do not think anyone could argue that they are not serious amendments. The Government might not like them, but they are not ridiculous. They are not frivolous amendments; they are proper ones. We have to write them, to make sure they comply with the Standing Orders, and to have them tabled, and if the ability is not there to do so, because the Government has moved urgency without that happening—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
They had brought this matter up the Order Paper compared with where it had been.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
That is right. This bill was moved higher up the Order Paper than it had been, as my colleague rightly says. It was set down at about No. 4 or No. 5. We arrived in Wellington on Tuesday, we were advised that the House was going into urgency, and the bill became No. 1 on the Order Paper. It became impossible for us to comply with the 24-hour rule. The Leader of the House is losing a lot of time that he need not lose if he were operating in a slightly different way. It does not have to be this way.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I will respond to that point and say that the second reading of the bill was on the Order Paper last Thursday, so members could have assumed that it was going to be dealt with this week, and they could have applied themselves to the sort of exercise we are in now. But given that that is not the case, the final Order Paper would have been printed by 10.30 on Tuesday morning, at the time when caucuses are having their powwows about process—or whatever caucuses do—so there certainly was an opportunity. Thirdly—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Just let me finish. Thirdly, this meets neither the urgency day rule nor the chronological rule. It does not meet either of those. But the member has raised a point to which some consideration may need to be given, but not at this point. I suggest that the Standing Orders Committee would be an ideal vehicle for that matter to be teased out, because in this case I can rule only on the Speakers’ rulings, the Standing Orders, and other literary records that I have in front of me.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That schedule 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 64
Noes 58
Schedule 1 agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That schedule 2 be agreed to.
Ayes 64
Noes 58
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
Amongst the Supplementary Order Papers that are on the Table in respect of the title of this bill is a late proposal by the Government to change the name of the underlying legislation from the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act to the Accident Compensation Act, and I want to explore that proposal. I think we need to look historically at why the current bill name came to be. In my mind there is not much doubt that if members look historically they will see that, following the passage of the original accident compensation law, New Zealand took its eye off the ball when it came to injury prevention. Prior to accident compensation, of course, there was a fiscal cost to employers through the risk of court action as a consequence of injured workers suing them, which meant that they kept a good eye on injury prevention.
After the accident compensation legislation came in, there was a period when New Zealand’s accident rate in the workplace did not follow the same trend as was the case in overseas jurisdictions. For that reason, Governments of the day, including the Labour Government, decided that there was a need for more interventions to make sure that we achieved what I think everyone in this Parliament would want to achieve, which is lower accident rates.
One of the things that was done was that more focus was put on the enforcement of appropriate workplace safety through the Department of Labour, using its regulatory function to ensure better workplace practices so as to reduce accidents. But another thing that was done was a change within the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to a greater focus on injury prevention, and it has worked. Following the changes that the last Labour Government made in terms of both more regulatory action via the Department of Labour and more focus within ACC on injury prevention, that combination of efforts has meant that rather than the trend in New Zealand workplaces going in the wrong direction—that is, separating from the international trend, where New Zealand workplaces were not improving in their safety at the same rate as was being achieved in other places, including Australia—we actually had improved outcomes and less injury.
I will give an example of where the Government is now reversing that trend, and I think this is a shocking example. It relates to a programme that was developed at the University of Otago Faculty of Medicine, and has now been rolled out through most parts of New Zealand. It is the Otago Exercise Programme for falls prevention. We heard the Minister acknowledge in this Chamber in just the last few days that more than the work account, it is the non-earners account that has increasing costs, largely as a consequence of the elderly growing older and many of those elderly falling over in their homes and breaking a hip.
Sandra GoudieThat has additional medical costs and home-care costs. Sandra Goudie derides that, but it has been acknowledged by ACC at recent financial reviews that one of the great problem areas is the growth in falls by the elderly in their homes.
A programme developed by the University of Otago Faculty of Medicine is directly targeted at the most at-risk group, which is made up of people who are more than 80 years old, who have already had a fall, and who have been identified by their doctor as needing an intervention. It is an inexpensive intervention, and unlike most of these programmes it has had extensive peer-reviewed studies by scientists as to its efficacy. That has led to articles in the British Medical Journal, no less, highlighting the programme as an example of injury prevention work that is cost-effective. Indeed the cost-benefit analysis shows that for every $1 spent, $2 is saved in the health system in the year following. Yet this Government has cut the funding, saying that the programme cannot be afforded. It is nonsense economics. This will see the costs of the accident compensation scheme going up, and that is one of the reasons why the Government wants to go back to talking about this being the Accident Compensation Amendment Act, rather than the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act.
The reality is that we are now heading back to the time in New Zealand when insufficient attention was paid to injury prevention. As a consequence, New Zealand will go back to where it was under the last National Government. The trends in respect of injury prevention will be bad, and therefore the trends in terms of the growing number of injuries and the growing costs of injuries will remain. As a consequence, costs will go up rather than come down.
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this
Clause 1 of the bill that came back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is: “Title: This Act is the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2009.” At the initial stages, in tabling the bill for the first time, the Government clearly did not think it was an issue to keep the name as it had been. At the select committee and the second reading, the Government clearly did not think it was an issue to keep the name the same. Come the Committee stage, the Minister in charge of the bill, the Minister for ACC, lodged a Supplementary Order Paper to change the title to the Accident Compensation Amendment Act 2010, and proceeded to perform like a seal about how important it was that the bill would now be called the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill. He made a song and dance about it, and he enunciated in the most exaggerated terms he could possibly manage that people on the street would not know what the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act was. Now it is imperative that it be called the Accident Compensation Act!
My question to the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister for ACC, is why this change suddenly became important. I say to the Associate Minister that it leaves the Opposition thinking that there is an agenda. I quote somebody who is rather more famous than me: “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet;”. There is as much difference between the names Labour and National as there is between the names Montague and Capulet, which is what Shakespeare was talking about. There is as much difference between Labour and National over the title of this bill as there is between the names Montague and Capulet.
This change raises questions about the agenda, and I would like to ask two questions apropos of this name change. What are we to read into this change? If the legislation is to be called the Accident Compensation Act, are we now to understand that there is to be no injury prevention, rehabilitation, or compensation? Or are we to understand that anything that is an accident will be covered by this legislation? I ask whether the Minister has considered—and whether this has an impact on fiscal aggregates—the term “cerebrovascular accident”, commonly known as a stroke. Does this change in the name of the bill indicate that the Government is looking to include strokes, otherwise known as cerebrovascular accidents, in the coverage of the compensation? If so, the Government should say so, and it should prove that there is no fiscal aggregate impact from that change.
My second question is: if only accidents are to be covered by this legislation and not injuries, where does that leave sexual abuse victims, who sustain injuries but never by accident? Sexual abuse does not occur by accident; it is perpetrated upon victims and it creates injuries. At the very least, it creates mental injuries. Are we to assume by this change of name that there is some agenda to move stealthily and without any recourse to the public to take sexual abuse treatment out of accident compensation? That is the impact already of moves this Government has made in changing processes on treatment of sexual abuse victims. Already there are people who cannot get treatment and who risk suicide because they are unable to get treatment in a timely way, because people are waiting for decisions to be made about whether there is an injury.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
While we are on the subject of quotations, I would like to offer the Committee one of my own. In response to a correspondent, the great writer Mark Twain stated: “I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English—it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don’t let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective, kill it.”
I will follow up with another quote, because of all of the discussion we have had about the royal commission’s report. Owen Woodhouse wrote these words, and I think they are the most enduring of all of them: “Injury arising from accident demands an attack on three fronts. The most important is obviously prevention. Next in importance is the obligation to rehabilitate the injured. Thirdly, there is the duty to compensate them for their losses.” Having stressed that injury prevention was obviously the most important component of any framework, Owen Woodhouse then called the royal commission report, Compensation for personal injury in New Zealand. He did not need the “fluffery” of adding “injury prevention, rehabilitation, and compensation”, or this, that, and the next thing. He called it by a simple title.
The House of the time, in passing the legislation, did what? Did it give the legislation an extra-long title? No, it did not. In highlighting the importance of injury prevention, it said “Let us call this Act the Accident Compensation Act 1972.” It is pretty simple stuff, really. There is so much more about that Act that does not need to be packed into the title. In 2001, when it was given the present name, which was so long that the front page of the Act needed a concertina sort of shape, what was done was done nobly, I think. I do not think that anybody was under any illusions that the priorities were changing, and that the goal of preventing injuries remained. Sadly, we did not seem to have much luck; injury rates have continued to climb and rehabilitation rates have dropped, which is obviously the reason why we are in the Chamber debating this bill.
But let us call the legislation what it is. The Act should be the Accident Compensation Act. Nobody on the street understands it by any other name. They know “ACC” by what it. Let us call it what it is, and let us resist any of these nonsensical suggestions that by giving it a simple name, the Government diminishes the importance of injury prevention. That is simply not the case. Nobody believes it; not even the Opposition believes it. I really strongly support this change.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
I begin by asking the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister for ACC, a question but I doubt very much whether she will answer it because she seems to have been unable to find a contribution to make at all in this debate, despite being the Associate Minister. Her arm is moving; that indicates some form of life. But she does not seem to think that it is part of her responsibility—despite collecting quarter of a million dollars, with a car and free travel, credit card, and all the other trappings that go with being a Minister—to stand up in the debate and say why this is happening, why we are having this debate. But the question I have immediately for the Minister is where Gerry Brownlee is when you need him. Where is the Leader of the House, who felt obliged to come to the Chamber and have my Supplementary Order Paper ruled out of order, on the grounds that it would nearly bring the Government to its knees—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Let us keep this reasonably good-natured, but the member is straying into two areas. The first is implying that a member is not here, and, secondly, speaking about a ruling that has been made. The member cannot do that.
So where is Gerry Brownlee’s contribution when it is needed? Clearly, it is not being provided at the moment because if Gerry Brownlee was able to make a contribution in this debate, I am sure he would look at the amendment to the title and think about the huge impact on fiscal aggregate that this amendment from the Minister, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, will have. How much will it cost for every single letterhead, every single logo, every single front window, every single car, every single business card, and every single bit of paper—including ones with perforated sides—that currently have the existing logo and brand “Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation”—to be altered? Gerry Brownlee is likely to be considering a contribution to this debate and having this amendment from the Minister ruled out. If it is good enough for the previous amendments to be ruled out, it is certainly good enough for this one. But if we were able to put aside the huge impact on fiscal aggregate that this amendment will have, even though it will be debated and then voted on, by the sounds of the current lack of contribution from the Leader of the House, then the Committee would be asking why we are doing this.
At the very time when the focus of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has moved from looking at accidents as things that just happen and we pay out compensation for them, why are we not moving that culture to say that a prime responsibility of the corporation, as outlined in the original Woodhouse commission report, was that injury prevention should come first? That is what the commission said. That is why the name was changed to reflect what should be the primary responsibility and focus of the corporation, as it should be for the leadership position of the Minister and the Associate Minister, to drive injury prevention. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber would want to see anyone injured; even in the most heated moments of debate we would not wish any harm on any of our political opponents. But without that focus in the name, the corporation lost its way. It did not refer back to the original intent of the commission. Now, it has looked to the title of its mandating legislation and said injury prevention comes first.
What should be the second responsibility of the corporation? It should be rehabilitation. It should make sure that when people have the misfortune of an injury, despite the best efforts of any injury prevention programme, there is a fundamental responsibility to try to restore injured people to the greatest extent possible to their pre-injury earning capacity. We must make them as well as we can make them and restore them from their injury to as much as possible their pre-injury situation. So injury prevention should be the corporation’s No. 1 focus. Rehabilitation should be its second, and compensation for loss of earnings or earning capacity should be its third role.
Under this amendment, and under the now new title—yet another leap backwards into the 1990s—we see that the title of the Act will be the Accident Compensation Act. What does that say from this Parliament to the corporation? What does it say to the general public? What does it say to the leading injury prevention and rehabilitation specialists? The message from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Hon Pansy Wong is: “We don’t care any more about injury prevention and rehabilitation. We don’t care about it to the extent that we’re even prepared to change the name of the mandating legislation, so that the message is ‘accident compensation’—end of story.” That is not a good enough message. We have people, day in, day out, who are injured, often permanently, often severely. People lose their lives in incidents that we could prevent, such as children who are killed on quad bikes and children who drown. People lose their limbs in incidents that could be prevented.
My colleague the Hon David Parker spoke of a fantastic programme that was funded in part by ACC, and in part by local authorities and other Government departments and agencies. The programme focused on a group of people who were often neglected in the past in terms of injury prevention. The reason they were often neglected was that they do not cost the corporation much money, because they do not receive earnings-related compensation—that is, people over 80. People over 80 often fall and break their hips. They do not cost much, so they were never in the past a priority. The previous Labour Government changed that. We said that those people were important in society. They have contributed, all of their lives, to our country and to their communities. They have raised families, many of them have fought overseas on our behalf, and we should not write them off just because they are over 80. So we put a focus on a critical area of injury prevention for those people through the National Falls Prevention Strategy. I say all credit to Otago University for the amazing work—led, in particular, by Professor A John Campbell—that was done with that injury prevention programme.
The programme stopped large numbers of senior citizens falling over and often breaking their hip. If older people fall and break their hip, they have a lot of pain, they have to have a lot of surgical intervention, and the most telling thing is that they never fully regain their confidence again. They rapidly decline in terms of their ability to get up, get out of bed, and get out and about because that fall has shaken more than their bones; that fall shakes their confidence. Why would we want to let that happen when we know that it can be prevented by a very simple, internationally well-regarded, falls prevention programme? I do not know the answer to that question, because the National Government scrapped the programme, not the Labour Government. This Government said to over 80-year-olds that it does not care any more about their falls prevention programme, and that it does not care about injury prevention at all, actually. It scrapped the small amount of funding that was keeping so many of those people out of danger and out of hospital and giving them an opportunity to lead a much fuller life.
Those issues are at the heart of my concern about the change in the title. Many people might ask who cares about the name change. Well, if we cared as little as that, then we would not be debating it in Parliament. It is more than the name of a statute on the books of this House. It is about the message we give about what is important as the legislative mandate for the corporation and its staff throughout the country. It is about what this Parliament thinks is a priority. I do not think we should say that if it is an accident, it just happens. I think we should say that these are injuries and, in many, many instances, they can be prevented. It should be a moral responsibility of this Parliament to make it a legislative responsibility of the corporation to have injury prevention as its highest priority. None of us wants to see anyone being injured, so we should take the next logical step to make sure the law reflects that.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I want to explain to the Government why Labour feels so offended about this proposed name change. The name of the principal Act was changed by the previous Labour Government, as members have pointed out. What was the name of the law relating to accident compensation before that?
That is right. It was the Accident Insurance Act, which described exactly how National saw accident compensation then and how those members still see it. They see workers’ livelihoods and their injuries as tradable commodities. We are upset about the new name, because it means that National has not changed. We know that before the last election National was meeting with business and the insurance industry, and we know that it was making promises about privatising the work account.
The message that we receive from Supplementary Order Paper 111 is that the focus is coming off the things that the previous Labour Government worked so hard on, which my colleague Ruth Dyson so eloquently described, and is going back to the accident compensation scheme being opened up to competition and to private insurers. We heard that kind of language. We heard the statement that it is not supposed to be a welfare scheme; it is an insurance scheme. That is what the Government says all the time. That is what Government members like to say about this scheme all the time. So we are worried about the change of name.
I ask members opposite what is so complicated about the existing name. What is not simple about the words “injury prevention”?
What does the member Sandra Goudie not understand about injury prevention? Maybe she does not have any idea about what it means, why it is important, or why Labour made it the first priority of our accident compensation scheme. The first priority is to prevent accidents, particularly in the workplace, but what are we seeing from this Government? We know that the priority has gone off injury prevention. We know that Government members do not care about it. They are cutting, cutting, cutting—
Is it a waste of millions of dollars to prevent injuries? Due to funding cuts, training for workplace health and safety representatives has been cut from 6,000 places down to 2,000. What did we hear in the last quarter? The Minister of Labour said that she was worried about the increase in workplace accidents. Well, surprise, surprise! If we take the focus off injury prevention and start making cuts to workplace health and safety training, then we will see more of that. It is an utter disgrace.
The second word is easy to understand. It is a simple word: “rehabilitation”. What is so hard to understand about it? Why do members opposite not like this word? They want to ignore the fact that our scheme is trying to get people back to work, back to their ordinary jobs, and back to being productive members of the community. That is what rehabilitation is. That is why rehabilitation is the second platform of the previous Labour Government’s requirements of the scheme.
The final word must not be hard to understand, because National has retained it in the changed name. It is compensation. It is the last resort. When people can no longer go back to work or are recovering from an accident, they are compensated so that they can feed their families and put their lives back together. They can plan for the future.
Those three terms in the current title prioritise the purpose of our 24-hour, no-fault accident compensation scheme. People can understand why members on this side of the Chamber are particularly upset about the change in name, because it indicates the change of focus that we knew was coming. From the kind of language that has been used, from the discussions that have happened in the debate, we knew that the change was coming, and the Minister for ACC has confirmed that with his Supplementary Order Paper.
I will be putting forward some amendments to the title, and I suggest a few alternatives.
That is right. One alternative, for example, would be the “Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, Compensation, and Experience-Ratings Amendment Act 2010”. We have talked about experience-ratings in the debate. We are concerned about what risk rating meant in the 1990s, when we had experience-rating, and how it affected people. It affected the behaviour of employers and workers, but it did not bring the accident rate down; it increased.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this
I congratulate my colleague Darien Fenton on reminding us about the name change made under the previous National Government in terms of our accident compensation scheme. I join with my colleagues in questioning the Government about why this current change is necessary. Members opposite may call us suspicious, but I ask why, when this amending bill came to the House called the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill, suddenly there is a need to change the title of the principal Act by cutting out those words and calling it the Accident Compensation Act.
The Minister for ACC got to his feet yesterday—I note that he is not speaking as much on the bill today—and said that the reason is that is what the Act used to be called. That is the National Government’s answer: that is what it used to be called.
The brains trust came up with that.
I am sure that all MPs care about communities. Surely they want to build on and improve on what was there before. I know that that is what inspired members on this side of the Chamber to come to Parliament: to advocate to improve the lives of New Zealanders. The Act was called that before. Improvements have been made over the years—though, admittedly, only under the previous Labour Government—to this wonderful social contract for New Zealanders. But this Government is intent on cutting back those improvements.
My colleagues have asked what the Government’s removal of the words “Injury Prevention” from the title tells us. What does “injury prevention” mean? We have already seen cuts to injury prevention schemes. We have already seen that happen under the current Act. We have already seen cuts to education programmes for older people about avoiding accidents. We have already seen much of the funding cut for schemes that worked. What does that make us think? I note what else we have seen cut. We have seen cuts in training for the delegates who are involved in health and safety in the workplace. They are involved in working towards ensuring that people have a very healthy workplace. The removal of the words “Injury Prevention” might make us think that this is what this Government is about.
Why would a Government remove the word “Rehabilitation”? It is absolutely the key principle of what is behind any social contract to do with accidents. It is not about rewarding compo. That view is so old-fashioned, it is not funny. Yes, people must be compensated. We note that, but we have already drawn attention to the fact that many people will not receive the compensation that they are entitled to, particularly if they have committed suicide. There are already claw-backs to do with compensation for seasonal workers and holiday pay, especially the provision that means people will have to use their holiday pay before they receive compensation.
But as well as those claw-backs, it seems to this side of the Chamber that the Government is saying that it does not want rehabilitation in the legislation. All it says to me and my colleagues is that this Government does not believe in investing in rehabilitation. We are already seeing examples of that under the current Act. But when it is no longer part of the title of the Act—when and if the bill goes through, which it will unless there is a big change of mind from the Government and the ACT Party—then I make no bones about the fact that rehabilitation will go further and further down the agenda.
It just makes a mockery of a scheme that has worked and that has delivered for so many New Zealanders. It has assisted them to be work-ready, to be working and to fully participate in our society and workplaces, and to effectively support their families. I too have some amendments.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I am happy to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill. I will first remark on a comment that was made by the Hon Tony Ryall, the Minister of Health. When my colleague Maryan Street was using an analogy from Romeo and Juliet, the Hon Tony Ryall said: “Yes, but they ended up together in the end”. That is true, I say to the Minister—but they were dead. In terms of the analogy for accident compensation, I think it is particularly worrying if the Minister of Health thinks that is a good outcome. It is everyone’s happy ending; it is great—apart from the small fact that they were both dead. I think that sums up Labour’s concerns about where this legislation is taking us.
My colleagues have talked about the Minister’s insistence that the name of this legislation needs to be changed. We worry about a seemingly innocuous move on the Minister’s part because the mere fact that a Supplementary Order Paper is put forward will lengthen the debate in this part of the Committee stage. The Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister for ACC, and the Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, have already been in the Chamber desperately trying to shut down the debate and shut down the amount of time we spend debating. It is not a small move for a Minister to come here with a Supplementary Order Paper and put it on the Table—it opens things up for a longer debate, so there must be some reason that he is doing it.
The Hon Pansy Wong, the Minister in the chair, has refused to take a call in this debate. I think someone should place a mirror under her nose and check that she is still breathing, just so we can be certain there is not something more serious going on, because normally the Committee stage is about debate. It is the one time that the Opposition gets to question a Minister and, hopefully, get a response, and she has refused to do that. Therefore, we have to try to ascertain why the name is being changed from Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act.
The reason, I think, is that the Government is softening up accident compensation for privatisation. We know the Government wants to privatise accident compensation. It did so the last time it was in Government and it desperately wants to do it again. It got a lot of campaign donations from Australian insurance companies that will benefit to the tune of billions of dollars from picking up the work that is currently done by the Accident Compensation Corporation in New Zealand at a cheaper, lower administrative cost and a lower cost to the levy payers.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am, again, reluctant to do this with one of my colleagues. But it has long been the case that the motives of the Government cannot be challenged. The linking of direct donations for policy is something that would certainly indicate a lack of integrity on the part of the Government. Although the Government whips and the Minister in the chair at the moment, the Minister for ACC, might want to accept that as a fact, I think it is a reflection on the House. Any suggestion that this is a policy-for-money approach, as has been made by my colleague, is, in my opinion, out of order. I know that you were temporarily distracted, Mr Chair. The Minister was clearly listening. I know that the junior Government whip was clearly listening. She appeared to be nodding; I am not sure whether she was going off to sleep or agreeing. But it does seem to me that impugning the motives of the Minister and saying that he and his party are getting cash for the policy is something that implies corruption and probably should not be allowed to continue.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
The first point is that Government members did not raise a point of order because we give little credibility to this assertion, which has been made on repeated occasions. Furthermore, Mr Chairman, I think you should take note that the reason Mr Mallard chose to raise a point of order, far from actually upholding the principles of the House, was to do exactly the opposite. It was simply to give him the opportunity to recite those quite wrong and unparliamentary allegations.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
Firstly, can I say in response to Mr Mallard’s point of order that questioning people’s motives is not a unique event in this Parliament. In fact, a time when members’ motives for putting forward legislation or amendments were not spoken about would be a remarkable period of time. So motivation, in my view, is a legitimate part of debate for this Committee. The second point that the member alludes to, but not directly, is that it is contrary to the Standing Orders to imply or say directly that people in this Chamber are controlled by outside interests. I do think that the member speaking fell well short of that. I take the point that has been made by Mr Mallard that this House is brought into disrepute by some of those assertions or that implication. I will not pull the member up on it, but I do think the member should be circumspect. An attack on any particular member’s motives in the House is an attack on all members of the House. I think the member should be mindful of the decorum of this place and the standard of debate that the public would expect. The member will continue.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I am happy to do so. I think we are very lucky that we have the Hon Trevor Mallard as a moral conscience of this Committee to keep us all on the straight and narrow when the Government fails to do so. I say to the Hon Nick Smith that if he is so upset about these allegations he should stop hiding the money in trusts and let New Zealand people see where the National Party’s money is coming from.
I will carry on. The reason, I believe, that the Hon Nick Smith wants to change the title of the Act from the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act is so that when he privatises the scheme, there is absolutely no onus on the new Australian owners of the scheme to carry out those activities. He is clearing the decks and making it clear that all they will have to be in charge of is paying out money. Let me preface that comment by saying that insurance companies make money by not paying out and by refusing claims, and that is the future for New Zealand workers under this National Government when it comes to workers’ compensation.
The Hon Nick Smith is sending a very clear message that the new owners will not have to carry out injury prevention and rehabilitation. All the niceties and all the weasel words saying that that is not right and the Government still thinks injury prevention is fantastic does not hide the fact that injury prevention is being cut by this Government now. That sends a very strong message. If all the National members who took calls—and there were not many of them—were genuinely concerned about saving money, then surely they would see that injury prevention is the way to do that.
It makes far more sense to spend a bit of money keeping people well. Let us be clear that every single piece of analysis of the programmes that were in place—my colleague Ruth Dyson mentioned the falls prevention programmes—were working. They were saving money. So to say that this is all about saving money is ridiculous when we consider that this Government has cut the very programmes that do save money.
If I were to come up with an alternative title for this piece of legislation, I think I would probably come up with a title along the lines of the “ACC (Kiss Your Holidays Goodbye) Amendment Bill”. I do not think the Minister for ACC is being completely up front with people.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
I wonder, in speaking to this part, which seeks a name change to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill, whether I could divert the Committee with a little homily on pre-parliamentary experience. It is relevant. Before becoming a member of Parliament I was a management consultant and worked for an insurance company over the ditch that specialised in accident insurance.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I could not possibly comment, but no, it was not that one. The key point to make is there were three functions that needed to be undertaken that fit nicely with the name that is proposed by our side: the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill. In looking at injury prevention, rehabilitation, and compensation, we see that the first of those functions speaks to getting upstream and making sure that the environment is safer, that people’s costs are minimised, and that personal harm is minimised. A stitch in time saves nine, and the investment in public information and public education pays huge dividends. So it proved to be.
The second of those functions, rehabilitation, is absolutely critical, especially on claims that are required for moderately serious injuries. A very small injury can often be fixed on the day, within 24 hours and out of the door at a walk-in clinic. A moderately serious claim may require many weeks, months, or sometimes years of rehabilitation to get people back to work so that they can pay their way.
The third category was the very serious claims that required intensive, often lifetime, management and compensation. That company was able to minimise the cost to its shareholders and the Crown by undertaking all three of those functions diligently, as does, I believe, our accident compensation scheme.
The issue with this name change is that it underplays two of those absolutely vital functions. It collects the burden on the organisation under the third function. Compensation should be the last cab off the rank, not the first. If it does that, it will not be good for New Zealanders who either are not educated to avoid accidents before they occur or are not rehabilitated to the same extent after they occur, and we are left with what will be both increased human suffering and increased fiscal risk because the organisation will not be fitted as well to do its job.
We can imagine that the motivation for National in suggesting the name change that Dr Smith has suggested in his amendment is not drawn from the library of Mark Twain. I suspect that it is not a stylistic amendment. By all reports, this is a busy Government that has much on its plate. Would that Minister really spend his time on a purely semantic amendment? Quite obviously, there is a broader game afoot. Things are not always as they seem and I think New Zealanders are finding that the penny is already dropping for them. Here is a Government that is bent on cutting and trimming the services that our accident compensation scheme makes available, that it has interpreted in the most negative way. From the chair on down, in regard to the financial circumstances of the corporation, it has put the most pessimistic assumptions before the public and has used that as a pretext to undertake a rash of cuts. New Zealanders are deeply disturbed that the social contract is being broken. As well as that, it makes absolutely no sense to do it in economic or management terms, as this name change suggests. Each of the functions of preventing accidents, rehabilitating those who are injured, and only then fairly and fully compensating those who cannot be rehabilitated, are equally important.
If there is no human interest reason for the proposed change and if there can be no managerial or economic reason for it, I ask what it is. One of my colleagues has suggested that perhaps it is a pretext for privatisation. We know, and there is nothing outside the Standing Orders in recalling for the Parliament, that Merrill Lynch, a firm not unknown to the current Prime Minister, advised its clients in the insurance industry that there were hundreds of millions of dollars of profit to be made should this Government proceed with privatising the New Zealand accident compensation scheme. That would be a tragedy for New Zealanders. The only beneficiary would be those Australian insurance companies or their like, and that cannot be allowed to happen, for the sake of New Zealanders.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
I have a couple of questions for the Minister for ACC. I will give them at the outset and then spend a little time trying to convince him that it is not a bad idea to answer them. The first question is: why change the name? We have been saying to the Minister that we think he has changed the name for this reason, that we think he has changed the name for that reason, and that we think he should have left the name alone for the other reason. We have been at that for a while and we have had no response.
The second question is: when was the name changed? The last time a National Government took the axe to the accident compensation system was in the 1990s, when the Rt Hon William Birch had a go.
Nick Smith was there, I was there, and a few others in the Committee were there. The name change, which put the word “insurance” in the title, was made up front at the outset.
Hon Maurice WilliamsonMaurice Williamson is old enough to remember. It is clear that the Government had a policy shift afoot and wanted to reflect that policy shift in the title, so it did. It was upfront, which gave us months to say that it should not have done it, as it is not an insurance scheme; it is a social contract. That debate continues to this day.
But not this time. This time the Government is taking the axe to the accident compensation system in all its totality. It is changing the first couple of words of the title of the bill from “Injury Prevention” to “Accident Compensation”. I would like to know when the Minister decided to do that, and I gently challenge the Minister with the proposition that he had decided all along that he would change the name. He has, after all, had to be across this portfolio very tightly because he was the person who said that the accident compensation scheme was broken. No one else agreed with him, but he said it and he stuck with it. He ran that line hard and fast. He then decided to proceed with the legislative changes that are in front of us today.
The Minister started this issue, so he has been across the issue for about 15 months. I wonder whether it is within the bounds of credibility that within that time he did not at some stage have some conversation, either with himself or someone else, about the name change. I suspect he did, yet the legislation as introduced into the House was the same, and no change was made to the title by Government members of the select committee. I am not aware of submissions calling for a name change. There may have been some; it would be interesting to know, if the Minister would like to tell us about them. I suspect that the Minister had the name change in his back pocket all along. I think the Minister decided that he would do a little quickie and make the name change on the floor of the Chamber towards the end of the legislative process. That is my challenge. I would not call it as strong as an accusation, but I would like the Minister to get up and give us his side of the story.
Those are my two questions: why did the Government believe that a name change was a good idea, and when did the Government—or, indeed, the Minister—decide to change the name? I wonder whether the Minister would care to indicate whether he would like to respond to me. If he does not want to respond, I am happy to continue with the debate, and I thank the Chair for allowing me the opportunity to do so. However, as soon at the Minister twitches a muscle, I will happily sit down. I am just making that clear to the Minister and to the Chair.
On the substantial issue of the name change, I think an important point to make is that, as with the health system, prevention is where the cheap benefits come. Prevention is a cost-effective activity; compensation is not a cost-effective activity. I want to know from the Government why it has chosen something that is determinedly and systematically inefficient. This Government is preoccupied with economic growth and with catching up with Australia, yet with this name change it has arguably chosen an approach that is known to be less efficient. If there is to be a downturn, a downsizing, or a reduction in attention to injury prevention, or if more programmes of the ilk of the University of Otago Faculty of Medicine falls prevention programme are to be cut, I want the Minister to explain to the Committee why he thinks that will be economically efficient. I tell members to notice how I am choosing my language. In essence, this is a social portfolio, but I ask the Minister why he thinks that would be more economically efficient.
JO GOODHEW
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
I rise to add my concern to the concerns that have been raised about why we are removing very important words from the title of this bill—words like “injury prevention” and “rehabilitation”—but I want to take a slightly different approach. I intend in this contribution to tie this issue back to some of the strategic priorities of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), because I wonder what the implications of this message the Minister is sending are for the corporation and its work.
In relation to injury prevention, I say that that is clearly the way we could make a real difference to cost containment. Cost containment is supposedly one of the major drivers for many of the changes in this bill; there is very little other justification for some of the arbitrary, unfair, and discriminatory provisions in the bill. When it comes down to it, we are told that the reason for the bill is cost containment. The provision around holidays will save $1 million a year, so that is a cost containment measure, but even Treasury wonders whether such a small saving is worth it for the unfairness of the provision. That was the advice given.
But I go back to the words “injury prevention”. These are the most fundamental words that should be in the name of this bill, and of any bill to do with accident compensation, because injury prevention is where it should start. Injury prevention is more than just cost containment. Obviously it is the most effective way of containing cost but, more important, it is about ensuring that people do not have accidents—that people do not get hurt, that they do not die at work, and that they do not lose their parents, spouse, or child through workplace fatalities, see them severely incapacitated through workplace accidents, or see them lose income from being off work for a period of time. Injury prevention is about people’s lives and protecting people, yet submitter after submitter has said that injury prevention is what is missing here.
I will finalise my comments in relation to injury prevention by noting that a strategic priority of ACC is to work to reduce injuries and occupational diseases. I wonder what this title is saying in relation to that strategic priority. Thank you.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
We have a number of amendments in the name of Darien Fenton, which propose to change and amend the title of the bill. I draw members’ attention to a Standing Order on page 27: “preliminary clauses means the title clause and the commencement clause and, if applicable, a principal Act clause”—so this preliminary clause is the title clause. The second issue here is that the amendments that are going to make changes must not to be an attempt to criticise the contents. They must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than simply being an attempt to relitigate issues and criticise the contents. Accordingly, the following amendments have been ruled out. These are the amendments that insert words as follows: “Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation (Reduced Emphasis on Rehabilitation to Reduce Costs) Amendment Act 2010”, “Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation (Primary of Cost Reduction) Amendment Act 2010”—
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt you, but just from the point of view of being helpful, could you repeat the Standing Order you are quoting; 27, I thought you said, is—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
No, page 22. I am ahead of myself a little bit on that, because this will come up later—
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
So you are going to move through the different amendments to the amendment, in the names of the different members, and say which ones are not consistent, in your view as Chairman.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
The first ones we are dealing with here are amendments that attempt to criticise the contents of the bill; amendments have to be serious and in order. If they are an attempt to relitigate issues or criticise the bill, the Speakers’ rulings are that they are out of order.
[... plus a further 165 contributions not shown here]