I know the Minister can hear but I hope that he can listen.
I am a strong supporter of our Select Committee process and have submitted regularly to a range of Select Committees since commencing work for NZUSA (the University Students Association) when I was 23 ( a few years ago). Since becoming an MP I have been on the receiving end of submissions and I am impressed with how many people take the time to make well thought through submissions.
Last week I was particularly impressed and I have to say moved by a number of submissions. It is fair to say there have been very strong submissions against the ACC Amendment Bill generally (with many more to come) but it is in relation to the 6% threshold on hearing loss that I particularly want to comment.
Essentially the view of all submitters is that the exclusion of those with less than 6% workplace related hearing loss is arbitrary, a breach of faith which may well restore the right to sue of those no longer covered, inequitable and will cause a significant reduction in quality of life for those no longer covered.
They explained that 6% loss is not trivial, it means the inability to hear birds singing or grandchildren speaking and not hearing many consonants especially in places where there is reasonable levels of background noise. The amont saved is between $3 – 4 million per year. A voluntary industry accord in this area has saved $10 million in the last 18 months. These same industry people were not even consulted about the changes and believe this arrogance will undermine the cooperative approach that has prevailed.
While there has been an increase in claims academic studies show this is now likely to trend downwards as the consequences of better workplace hearing protection means less and less people will suffer workplace related hearing loss. It is primarily older New Zealanders who have worked in primary industries and manufacturing who will suffer as a result of this proposal. These are generally people with low incomes and disproportionately are Maori and Pacific people.
The submissions from a number of organisations working in the hearing sector, and academics researching this area, had a high degree of commonality and were well presented. There was also an individual submitter who had suffered workplace hearing loss after a lifetime of hard work in jobs like shearing, who outlined what that meant for his quality of life. His presentation was very powerful and moving. It reinforced for me the importance of individuals taking the time to submit to Select Committees. What we are tasked to consider as Select Committee members is the effect on people.
I hope this unfair and ineffective proposal is canned. It should be on the evidence, as should many other elements of this Bill. Lets hope the Minister is listening. Unfortunately I feel the Minister along with the Government is hell bent on destroying our world class ACC scheme and replacing it with insurance which costs more and provides less cover. The provisions in this Bill are just the start.
Keep repeating the message eventually he might be vaguely aware of some voice in his head, shrug it off, and go for a drink.
My advice would be to trust him as far as you could throw him
Smith tossing competition!
I’m just curious. I can understand the idea that instances of this may go down because of improvements in the workplace to protect workers. However surely other factors such as the wide spread misuse of portable music devices will take up some of this slack.
I see the Chairman of ACC says only a tiny amount of the proposed levy increases is for current increases in costs, the rest of the money is for ‘reserves’.
I think a lot of that is due to the sudden economic changes.