ACCforum: Nz Asbestos Victims Get $65 A Week - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Nz Asbestos Victims Get $65 A Week An Aussie report on a NZ disgrace

#1 User is offline   ernie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 27 January 2005 - 06:27 PM

NZ asbestos victims get $65 a week

Claire Harvey, New Zealand correspondent
January 27, 2005

DYING asbestos victims in New Zealand are getting less than $65 a week in compensation, compared with lump-sum payouts of up to $1 million for Australian victims.

Victims, unions and academics in New Zealand are demanding the Government put pressure on James Hardie Industries to include Kiwis in its Australian compensation scheme, which pays an average of $250,000 to victims. They also want the New Zealand Government to offer lump-sum payouts through its state-funded compensation scheme.

New Zealand's "no-fault" compensation system, unlike Australia's, bans personal-injury lawsuits, so Kiwi victims cannot sue James Hardie.

"This is a gross injustice, and James Hardie is really guilty of commercial genocide," said John Lehmann, whose father Ross died of asbestos-related lung disease in 2003, aged 79.

"Hardies don't have to pay anything to New Zealanders," he said. "And our Government offers victims an absolute pittance – which means Kiwis are much, much worse off than Australians."

The state-run Accident Compensation Commission is engaged in a legal battle to avoid paying lump sums, and is appealing against a District Court decision ordering it to pay $NZ98,500 ($91,000) to Mr Lehmann's mother Dawn. "My mother can't cope on $68.77 a week," he said.

The ACC has told Mrs Lehmann she will have to repay the lump sum if the High Court decides in the commission's favour, but the Government is understood to have decided she will be allowed to keep the money.

Doctors estimate up to 80 New Zealanders a year die of asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma and asbestosis, contracted from products like the insulation materials made by James Hardie at its south Auckland factory from 1939. But there may be thousands more victims – several hundred people at a time worked at the factory before it ceased asbestos production in 1984, and Hardie products were used by thousands of workers in other industries, as well as by home renovators and handymen.

Paying lump sums to all asbestos victims would cost about $NZ150 million, according to ACC Minister Ruth Dyson. The Government believes it would set a precedent for other workers, such as medical professionals who contracted hepatitis C, to claim massive payouts.

"Some people will always miss out unless you make a policy retrospective," Ms Dyson said, adding that victims could invest their $NZ68.77 a week allowance. "Even if a person is terminally ill they can still capitalise (the allowance). They could get around $NZ20,000 over time."

But union advocates said most asbestos victims died within two years of diagnosis.

"Life is very short and very hard for these people and the Government is not helping them," said barrister Hazel Armstrong, who represents dozens of dying asbestos victims.

James Hardie did not have to offer compensation to Kiwis because they were covered by the ACC, said company spokesman James Rickards. "It's really up to the Government. Our understanding is that the ACC is there to provide appropriate levels of compensation."

Some New Zealanders may be able to apply to the Australian fund, the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation, if they contracted asbestos diseases while working in Australia, or if they became ill from non-occupational exposure – such as wives washing their husband's overalls or handymen building backyard fences.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...%5E2702,00.html
0

#2 User is offline   ernie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 27 January 2005 - 06:34 PM

Quote

Ms Dyson said, adding that victims could invest their $NZ68.77 a week allowance. "Even if a person is terminally ill they can still capitalise (the allowance). They could get around $NZ20,000 over time.


Yeah, good one, Ruth. You do really well investing your $68.77 a week if you only live 6 months from when you get cover. And I am at a loss to find anything in the legislation that allows for capitalisation of independence allowance - or has she stuffed this up by confusing it with capitalised surviving spouse weekly compensation.
0

#3 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 January 2005 - 09:11 PM

a disgusting system we have here in nz, the allowance schemes ensure the money is really a token not really adressing or helping the situation. we need to change this.

the money saved by reducing the by design adverserial acc decision/review /dodgy asessor / bullshit high cost no value medical opinions, incompetent blundering denial case management can be fixed by moving funding to more reliable and accurate and claimant help sources to ensure their proper medical/recovery needs are met

imo there ought to exist provision for lump-sum payouts for damage obtained - especially that of retail/industrial products that have little real incentive for informing of damaging product. a recent tv advert that showed a face numbing insecticide being sprayed without a face mask ought to be an unacceptable level of subliminal marketing via media, considering the huhu bugs the applied product was dropping like flies was eye opening raising concern for the product's level of toxicity.

despite the decades long warning about a hidden epidemic, from that it makes no surprise the unrelenting pursuit by acc the challenging every aspect of the solvent/chemical injured clear cases to drive diagnosis as anything but work related or coverable, as seen in many cases reported. stronger enforcable remedy for accuracy of information, its use and damaging of reputation via use of incorrect, contaminated wrongly obtained reprts etc. we ought to be fully informed as of right, ?
0

#4 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 28 January 2005 - 02:36 PM

Govt should go into bat for sufferers
Friday, 28 January 2005, 2:17 pm
Press Release: Green Party

28 January 2005

Govt should go into bat for sufferers of asbestos-related diseases

Green MP Sue Kedgley is calling on the Government put pressure on Australian construction firm James Hardie to pay compensation to New Zealanders suffering from asbestos-related diseases.

"It is grossly unfair that New Zealand victims seriously afflicted with asbestos diseases are not being compensated by James Hardie," Ms Kedgley, Green Health Spokesperson said.

"The Government must take a lead in the campaign to get the company to pay compensation to former New Zealand workers suffering from asbestos-related lung diseases."

The Government should also drop its High Court appeal which seeks to prevent victims of asbestos-related diseases from getting lump sum payments, Ms Kedgley said.

"It is shocking that the Government is challenging a ruling that would give some lump-sum compensation to victims of asbestos-related diseases. Why is it so mean-spirited as to challenge the right of sufferers of asbestos-related diseases to proper compensation?

"It would be hypocritical for the Government to demand compensation from James Hardie while seeking through the courts to deprive New Zealand workers from an entitlement to lump-sum payments."

Ms Kedgley said the company had a duty of care to all of its employees, whether they live in New Zealand, Australia or Indonesia.
"James Hardie must not be allowed to wash its hands of its obligations to New Zealand victims. It is shocking that workers who have developed one of the most tragic and debilitating workplace diseases are receiving only a pittance, about $65 a week, for their terrible workplace injury. By contrast, victims in Australia are getting an average of $250,000 in lump sum compensation."

http://www.scoop.co....0501/S00279.htm
0

#5 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 28 January 2005 - 05:16 PM

National News

>> Home >> National News


NZ victims put pressure on for James Hardie payouts

28.01.05


Pressure is mounting on James Hardie to offer New Zealand asbestos victims compensation, as they have done in Australia.

Last year, the Australian company agreed to payouts averaging A$250,000 ($272,000) to former workers suffering from asbestos-related lung diseases, such as mesothelioma and asbestosis.

But it has made no offer to New Zealanders who worked at its South Auckland asbestos factory from 1939 to 1984, and the only compensation available to dying former employees is a Government "independence allowance" of $68.77 a week.

Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union national secretary Andrew Little said he knew of no one who had successfully claimed that allowance from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).

"In most cases they are getting nothing," he said.

The union is stepping up its efforts to persuade James Hardie to make payouts or to get the New Zealand Government to increase its assistance.

"Hopefully, in terms of taking on Hardie's, we would like to get the Government involved, through the likes of ACC, to apply whatever pressure we can to get some sort of outcome for these people," Mr Little said.

He would discuss the Australian situation with Australian Council of Trade Unions delegates when he was in Melbourne next month. Part of the problem for asbestos sufferers in New Zealand is that people with gradual-onset diseases are not eligible for lump-sum payments to help with either medical or funeral costs unless they contracted their illness after 2002.

The Government is keen to avoid mass retrospective lump-sum payouts.

ACC is currently appealing a District Court decision ordering it to pay $98,500 to Dawn Lehmann, whose husband, Ross, died of asbestos-related lung disease in 2003, aged 79.

ACC Minister Ruth Dyson said she could not comment on that case while it was before the courts, but she would keep an open mind on any approach to James Hardie.

"I have had no formal approach for any engagement with James Hardie but will be happy to receive and consider any correspondence."

Company spokesman James Rickards said it did not have to offer any compensation to New Zealanders because they were covered by ACC.

"It's really up to the Government. Our understanding is that it is there to provide appropriate levels of compensation," he told The Australian newspaper.

New South Wales Premier Bob Carr said yesterday that his Government was negotiating with James Hardie to secure compensation for asbestos victims in Australia but it could not extend its influence to help overseas victims.

"We can't solve, constitutionally or legally, the problems of people in other countries because they've got different compensation and legal systems from our own."

Mr Carr advised overseas victims to look to their respective Governments and trade unions to put pressure on James Hardie.

"The sort of moral pressure that brought James Hardie to the negotiating table would, I think, be effective in bringing them to the negotiating table in Indonesia or New Zealand," he said.

Lawyers on both sides of the Tasman are currently working on a series of test cases, in an effort to circumvent current New Zealand law in order to seek damages from James Hardie.

Sydney barrister Graeme Little said he was working on several test cases.

"In New Zealand, they have a no-fault scheme, which means that you can get compo but you can't sue for damages," he said.

"That limits your right to sue for damages in a court in New Zealand. It doesn't say anything about suing in a court overseas."

Mr Little said the cases needed to prove that the wrong occurred with James Hardie in Australia - and not when the victims inhaled asbestos fibres in New Zealand.

Asbestos-related lung cancers currently kill about 50 New Zealanders each year.

- NZPA

http://www.nzherald....jectID=10008415
0

#6 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 28 January 2005 - 07:52 PM

Quote

Asbestos-related lung cancers currently kill about 50 New Zealanders each year.
. if you go out and shoot 50 people you are a mass murderer - if you make a product that kills at least 50 people a year then why are they not facing murder charges? one day hopefully, following the james hardie issue, similar focus might go on other NZ / Aussie companies and the products
0

#7 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 30 January 2005 - 10:11 PM

Efforts for asbestos compo step up
28 January 2005

SYDNEY: Pressure is mounting on James Hardie Industries to offer New Zealand asbestos victims compensation as they have done in Australia.

Late last year the Australian company agreed to payouts averaging $A250,000 ($NZ272,598) to former workers suffering from asbestos-related lung diseases, such as mesothelioma and asbestosis.

But it has made no offer to New Zealanders who worked at its South Auckland asbestos factory from 1939 to 1984, and the only compensation available to dying former employees is a government "independence allowance" of $NZ68.77 a week.

Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union national secretary Andrew Little said he knew of nobody who had been successfully able to claim that allowance from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).

"In most cases they are getting nothing," he said.

The union is stepping up its efforts to improve the lot of asbestos victims and will try to persuade James Hardie to make payouts or get the New Zealand Government to increase its ACC assistance, or both.

"Hopefully in terms of taking on Hardie's we would like to get the Government involved, through the likes of ACC, to apply whatever pressure we can to get some sort of outcome for these people," Mr Little said.

He said he would discuss the Australian situation with Australian Council of Trade Unions delegates when he was in Melbourne next month.

Part of the problem for asbestos sufferers in New Zealand is that people with gradual onset diseases are not eligible for lump sum payments to help with either medical or funeral costs unless they contracted their illness after 2002.

The Government is keen to avoid mass retrospective lump sum payouts.

ACC is currently appealing a district court decision ordering it to pay $98,500 to Dawn Lehmann, whose husband Ross died of asbestos-related lung disease in 2003, aged 79.

ACC Minister Ruth Dyson said she could not comment on that case while it was before the courts.

But she would keep an open mind on any approach to James Hardie. "I have had no formal approach for any engagement with James Hardie but will be happy to receive and consider any correspondence."

James Hardie spokesman James Rickards said the company did not have to offer any compensation to New Zealanders because they were covered by ACC.

"It's really up to the Government. Our understanding is that it is there to provide appropriate levels of compensation," he told The Australian newspaper.

New South Wales premier Bob Carr said yesterday that his government was negotiating with James Hardie to secure compensation for asbestos victims in Australia but it could not extend its influence to help overseas victims.

"We can't solve, constitutionally or legally, the problems of people in other countries because they've got different compensation and legal systems from our own," he told reporters.

He advised overseas victims to look to their respective governments and trade unions to put pressure on James Hardie.

"The sort of moral pressure that brought James Hardie to the negotiating table would, I think, be effective in bringing them to the negotiating table in Indonesia or New Zealand," he said.

Meanwhile, lawyers on both sides of the Tasman are working on test cases, hoping to circumvent current New Zealand law in order to seek damages from James Hardie.

Graeme Little, a Sydney-based barrister, said he was working on several of the test cases.

"In New Zealand, they have a no fault scheme, which means that you can get compo but you can't sue for damages," Mr Little told AAP.

"That limits your right to sue for damages in a court in New Zealand. It doesn't say anything about suing in a court overseas."

He said the cases needed to prove that the wrong occurred with James Hardie in Australia and not when the victims inhaled asbestos fibres in New Zealand.

"That's the issue that's before the courts at the moment and will be resolved some time later this year," Mr Little said.

Currently about 50 victims of asbestos-related lung cancers die in New Zealand each year, with lawyers estimating the majority of cases were caused by James Hardie products.

The Dominion Post newspaper reported last night that two New Zealanders with asbestos-related illnesses can have their claim for compensation heard in Australia.

Wellington lawyer Hazel Armstrong said the people were eligible to take their case to New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal because they were working in the state at the time they were exposed to the product.

If they won a payout, it would not affect ACC entitlements they had here, a corporation spokesman said.

http://stuff.co.nz/s...87a7144,00.html

myth

Quote

"In New Zealand, they have a no fault scheme,


am watching this issue with interest, first it will be asbestos next chemicals/solvents.....acc are working hard to bury as many chemical claims as possible - its evident in the claimants files(evidence).
0

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 30 January 2005 - 11:16 PM

now here is OHS and ossssssshhhhh they seam to be silent today about this abestious. In 1988 the ACc scheeme was in full swing and parts of the Act was a occupational saftey division. was this department responcable for the continuing production of a killing product.? Did they neglet there duty to bring saftey into the country?

yes the ACC Acts say that they were responcable but it looks again that they are so inconpendent that they are blaiming someone else for there own stuff up.
0

#9 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 30 January 2005 - 11:25 PM

polydent -do any of you use it?
0

#10 User is offline   Kiwee 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 30 January 2005 - 11:32 PM

Polydent...isnt that like bondofill for parrots???
heh. yes i have used it or something similar... is it bad for ya?
0

#11 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 30 January 2005 - 11:36 PM

used for dentures, if you have a tube i'd like a scanned copy of the ingredient list please.
0

#12 User is offline   Kiwee 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 31 January 2005 - 12:19 AM

sorry cannot find the tube to scan, how about the safety sheet pdf?
http://www.msds-gsk....er/12696205.pdf
says no hazardous ingredients tho.
0

#13 User is offline   Kiwee 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 31 January 2005 - 12:33 AM

sorry above information was for the "free" version,
try this one
http://www.msds-gsk....ns/12709603.pdf
or...
Percentage CAS RN Ingredients
42 8009-03-8 PETROLATUM
32 9000-11-7 CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE
12 8042-47-5 MINERAL OIL
24 Unassigned NON-HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS
0

#14 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 31 January 2005 - 07:21 AM

Hmmm. They seem to contradict themselves.

Attached File(s)


0

#15 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 31 January 2005 - 07:24 AM

And! Note skin and eye effects?

Attached File(s)


0

#16 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 31 January 2005 - 11:22 AM

the reason i asked the above was to test something out, and it worked. someone else and I did have a look at ingredients not listed in the msds, so it seems the msds does not give all the information into the formulation......would you put that stuff in yor mouth if you discovered that a component was a vinyl mixture(vinyl, one of the worlds known most toxic substances and component base to PVC plastic, ). however, dont take my word for it this is just preliminary and not scientific fact yet, however with what was identified by others was not pleasant.
0

#17 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 01 February 2005 - 12:05 PM

NZ victims may sue James Hardie
Print Email Email Alert
Related Articles
Report: Asbestos deaths underestimated
James Hardie agrees to compo deal
Asbestos victims prepare to sue
Jan 28, 2005

James Hardie Industries could face hundreds of new asbestos compensation claims if courts rule that New Zealand victims can sue the building products company in Australia.

Lawyers on both sides of the Tasman are currently working on test cases, hoping to circumvent current New Zealand law in order to seek damages from James Hardie.

Graeme Little, a Sydney-based barrister, said he was working on several of the test cases at the moment.

"In New Zealand, they have a no fault scheme, which means that you can get compo, but you can't sue for damages," Little explained.

"That limits your right to sue for damages in a court in New Zealand. It doesn't say anything about suing in a court overseas."

He said the cases needed to prove that the wrong occurred with James Hardie in Australia and not when the victims inhaled asbestos fibres in New Zealand.

"That's the issue that's before the courts at the moment and will be resolved some time later this year," Little said.

Currently about 50 victims of asbestos-related lung cancers die in New Zealand each year, with lawyers estimating that the majority of cases were caused by James Hardie products.

These figures do not include other New Zealand victims with asbestos-related diseases such as pleurisy.

When asked how many victims in New Zealand depended on these test cases, Little replied: "It could be hundreds."

A New Zealand lawyer for asbestos victims, Hazel Armstrong, said she was not optimistic about the cases succeeding.

"I think it's fairly unlikely. If the product was manufactured in New Zealand and your exposure was in New Zealand, I think there are quite a lot of hurdles to get through," she said.

A James Hardie spokesman said it was too early for the company to speculate on the outcome of the cases.

In the meantime, New Zealand unions have pledged to work hard to try to come to a settlement with the company similar to that reached in Australia last December, which was the biggest in the nation's history.

Union representatives hope to meet in Melbourne in a fortnight's time so the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) can share its experience with New Zealand counterparts.

"I'm in the process of setting it up," said Andrew Little, national secretary for New Zealand's Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union.

"I just want to get a briefing on the agreement that the ACTU done with James Hardie.

"I want to get an idea of what it has involved to get to the point that Australia has got to.

"Sadly the victims that were exposed (to asbestos) are starting to die off at a pretty rapid rate. We don't have time on our side."

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_business_story...1%3fformat=html
0

#18 User is offline   Ivan 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 22-September 04

Posted 10 February 2005 - 02:55 PM

Dying asbestos victims robbed by stingy Government
Sue Kedgley & Sue Bradford, Green Party MPs


10th February 2005


The Greens are outraged that the Government is challenging a District Court decision that Kiwis dying of asbestos-related diseases are entitled to lump sum payments from ACC.

“Why is the Government being so mean-spirited as to challenge the compensation awarded to New Zealanders so sick from diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis that they find it difficult to breathe?” asked Sue Kedgley, Green Health Spokesperson.

“The Government’s appeal to the High Court is obscene. It should drop it immediately and ensure that ACC provides a service for which it was set up – to help those who have been grievously harmed as a consequence of their workplace.”

To add injustice to injury, Australian former employees of James Hardie Industries – whose South Auckland asbestos factory was the workplace of those New Zealanders now dying – have been awarded an average of $272,000 in an out-of-court settlement.

Green ACC Spokesperson Sue Bradford said this substantial payment recognised the dire situation of those exposed to asbestos in the workplace and made a mockery of the $68.77-a-week ACC “independence allowance”, which is all New Zealand sufferers will be entitled to if the Government’s appeal is successful.

“It seems that ACC is baulking at paying out adequate compensation for simple financial reasons. This stingy government is putting ACC’s bottom line ahead of the wellbeing of sick Kiwi workers.”

Ms Kedgley and Ms Bradford are challenging ACC Minister Ruth Dyson in the House this afternoon to justify her agency’s mean-spirited actions.

“The question is, Does ACC really believe the District Court’s decision is unfair or are they just trying to avoid having to pay unbudgeted expenses?” asked Ms Kedgley.

The Government’s financial statements claim that ACC will be “vigorously defending” itself from the claims of these dying Kiwis. The statements also refer to the potential for “substantial future liability” should ACC lose its High Court appeal.

“We can only infer that these two issues are linked: that ACC is objecting to the claims of these very sick New Zealanders because they’re worried about having to pay out in future cases similar to this one,” Ms Kedgley said. “It is very concerning that a government agency would put money ahead of both justice and the wellbeing of sick New Zealanders.”

Ms Bradford, also the Green Employment Spokesperson, said the implications of the Government’s actions were even worse in light of the fact that, if the Government appeal is successful, New Zealand will no longer meet minimum standards required by the International Labour Organisation.

“New Zealand ratified ILO Convention 42 in 1938. It’s deeply disappointing that this Government is willing to flout international law and undermine the rights of sick workers just to save a buck.”

http://www.greens.or...ocs/PR8297.html
0

#19 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 10 February 2005 - 03:44 PM

I see the ACC actions different. this is That the ACC is going to court to get out of a liability that is provided by legistation. Were is OSH the branch of the Labour Department that should have been operating under the ACC Acts since before 1974. they were responcable for the saftey of all New Zealanders health and wellbeing in the work place. is this called passing the buck.
0

#20 User is offline   ernie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 10 February 2005 - 05:00 PM

Parliamentary Questions for Oral Answer - 10 February 2005

Asbestos—Compensation Payments


11. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Does she have concerns that former employees of James Hardie Industries’ south Auckland asbestos factory, who are now dying of asbestos-related diseases, are entitled to a $68.77 a week “independence allowance” as compensation, while Australian victims have negotiated lump-sum payouts from James Hardie Industries that average over $272,000; if so, what does she intend to do to rectify this inequity?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): I want to make two points in answer to this question. Firstly, it is incorrect to represent that these claimants receive only $68.77 a week, because that is only the independence allowance. They may also be entitled to weekly compensation, home help, childcare, treatment costs, personal care, medical products, housing modifications, and a number of other supports. Their estate, should the claimant die, may be entitled to funeral grants, and their dependants to survivor grants. The second point is that former union employees of James Hardie Industries’ south Auckland asbestos factory do have an agreement with the company for lump-sum compensation for employees who were employed on 1 April 1974. I will seek to table this document at the end of this question.

Sue Kedgley: Will the Government be applying the same sort of moral pressure on James Hardie Industries as the Australian Government applied, which successfully brought James Hardie Industries to the negotiating table in Australia, to include New Zealand sufferers from asbestos in its compensation scheme; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I outlined in the answer to the primary question, there is already an existing agreement for union members who were former employees of the factory in south Auckland if they were employed on 1 April 1974.

Hon Mark Gosche: Why has confusion arisen about lump-sum compensation?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Confusion has arisen because the former National Government removed lump-sum payments from the accident compensation scheme in 1992. Our Government reinstated those payments from 1 April 2002. A High Court case is pending to clarify whether entitlement to a lump-sum payment for people with asbestos-related diseases should stem from the period of their exposure to asbestos or from the day on which they first sought treatment.

Sue Kedgley: Why is the Minister not prepared to go into bat for all asbestos sufferers, regardless of when they contracted the disease, and why is she allowing the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to engage in a mean-spirited legal battle to challenge the lump-sum compensation that was recently awarded to a dying asbestos sufferer?

Hon RUTH DYSON: In my view, it is appropriate for a Minister to support his or her department or corporation in applying the law in the way that it believes that it is correctly interpreted. In this situation, I believe that it is appropriate to let the High Court determine its interpretation on that confusing aspect of deemed date of injury.

Sue Kedgley: Does she really believe that $66 a week is enough to compensate—and I was referring to compensation, I tell the Minister—victims of a debilitating workplace disease that will kill them, or are she and ACC just following Treasury advice that they should avoid any compensation payouts to asbestos sufferers who contracted the illness before 2002 because it could set a precedent for other gradual process illnesses, which is a risk that is explicitly identified in the Government’s financial statements?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Given that we had a 10-year period during which no lump-sum compensation was available and, therefore, no levies were collected in order to pay for it, it is a responsible response from the Government to listen to the financial implications of any retrospectivity of the reintroduction of lump-sum compensation. That is exactly what we did. How else would we pay for it?

Sue Bradford: Is the Minister aware that if ACC does succeed in its appeal against those extremely ill people, the accident compensation scheme itself will no longer meet minimum standards required under ILO Convention 42, ratified by New Zealand as long ago as 1938; if so, is it no longer Labour Party policy to uphold internationally required standards for workers’ rights?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I do not agree with that interpretation of the application of ILO Convention 42. That convention says that we must ensure that gradual process illness and injury has a comparable level of compensation with other injuries. If there were no retrospectivity at all, which is the matter being determined, it would be exactly comparable.

I seek leave to table the document, the James Hardie agreement, which I referred to in the answer to the primary question.

Leave granted.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users