6. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this
to the Minister for ACC
Does she stand by her statement yesterday, “it is irrelevant whether he injured his toe or whether it was a gang-related shooting … It relates to the time and the place rather than to how the injury was incurred.”; if so, why?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) Link to this
Yes; because it is factually correct. To summarise the relevant section of the Act, a work-related personal injury is one that an employee has incurred while he or she is at any place for the purposes of his or her employment, including while he or she is having a break from work at his or her place of employment. Also, as specified by the Act, it is irrelevant to the decision whether any employee suffering a work-related personal injury was indulging in misconduct, negligence, or was acting against or in the absence of instruction at the time the injury occurred.
Why does the Minister continue to claim that the 2003 gang shooting of Mr Storey is work-related when the man was not working but on a break outside AFFCO’s staffroom, outside the security fence, and outside the employer’s control?
There are two parts to my answer. The first is in relation to the break. A break is clearly specified in the legislation as being included in one’s time of work. So it does not matter whether the injury happened during morning tea, at lunchtime, or during afternoon tea, as long as the employee was on work premises. The member asserts that the car-park was not defined as a place of work. As I have said for the last 2 days in answers to the same question, there is a process for resolution so that agreement on the facts can be reached. I would recommend again to AFFCO that it follows that process.
Lesley SoperHas the Minister seen any reports confirming that this injury occurred at the place of employment of the injured person and that, therefore, under the definition as found in legislation, it would be considered a work-related personal injury?
Yes, I have seen several. The first is from Anne Tolley and states that the injured employee was “on a work break and was sitting in a car in a car-park that provides car parks for AFFCO workers”. The second is from an AFFCO spokesperson, Mr Richard Griffin, who stated: “As Mr Storey was shot on AFFCO property, ACC’s legal position would be strong if the case went to court.” The third is from AFFCO’s case manager, who told the claimant that AFFCO had accepted cover with the words: “Your employer acknowledges your injury to be work-related.” All three are in agreement that this injury, according to the legislation, is work-related. I still cannot understand why Anne Tolley and the National Party are happy for the taxpayer to pick up what is legally AFFCO’s financial responsibility.
Why is it that AFFCO does not consider it a work-related incident, the Occupational Safety and Health Service does not consider it a work-related accident, the police do not consider it a work-related accident, the media and the public do not consider it a work-related accident, and, in fact, the only person who does consider this gang shooting to be work-related is the Minister?
I do not make determination of cover for any injury; neither does the member, and, tragically, neither does the court of public opinion. There is a legal process for AFFCO to follow. I am not sure why it does not want to. It may be that Anne Tolley, its own case manager, and its spokesperson have all said it is wrong in the law.
Why does the Minister continue to claim that the accident took place inside AFFCO’s security fence, when TV footage clearly shows that the car-park is outside the plant’s fence and openly used by the public?
If there is a dispute over the facts, about where in fact the injury—the shooting—occurred, there is a process that AFFCO could follow. I recommend that it takes up that opportunity.
Is the Minister aware that when AFFCO told the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) it wanted to revoke the designation of this accident as work-related, ACC asked it not to; when AFFCO said it would like to, ACC said it could not; when AFFCO said it would do so anyway, ACC confiscated the file; and when AFFCO finally asked for dispute resolution, ACC said no?
No, absolutely not. I do know that there has already been one attempt at mediation, and that the next opportunity of engagement was delayed while this member raised the matter in the House in an attempt to get the taxpayer contribution to AFFCO’s responsibility increased. Currently, AFFCO is responsible for $1 million of this claim. It is likely that the total cost of this claim will be over $8 million. That is an actuarial assessment. So AFFCO currently is responsible for less than one-eighth of the claim—a responsibility it is trying to get out of.
Will the Minister give an undertaking to this House that she will see that sensible negotiations take place between ACC and AFFCO in order to resolve this stupid dispute over a gang-related shooting, costing a company $1 million?