Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Skycity Convention Centre—Inquiry into Expressions of Interest Process; Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Resignations 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Urgent Debates Declined — Skycity Convention Centre—Inquiry into Expressions of Interest Process; Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Resignations 
[Sitting date: 13 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2917. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a thoughtful contribution to this important debate and to correct a number of very basic facts. The very first is that the speaker who has just resumed his seat Chris Hipkins has said that the financial difficulties in ACC were a manufactured crisis. Let the record be very clear. In the 2007-08 financial year—and I have a copy of the annual report right here—ACC declared a loss of $2.4 billion. That annual report was signed off by Maryan Street. Then with exactly the same group of actuaries and exactly the same audit office in the following financial year ACC declared a loss of $4.8 billion. Together those two sums add up to $7.2 billion—more than all the losses of all the finance companies. And have we seen a single—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The senior Opposition whip made a very unparliamentary comment and I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Challenging members to tell the truth is something that is used regularly in the House. It is different from saying that they are lying or that they are not telling the truth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well it is actually very close to saying that someone is untruthful. [ 
Interruption 
] No it is not acceptable. “Untruthful” is not acceptable. I ask the member to desist. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is important and I can see that quite a lot of discussion is going to happen on this. Asking someone to tell the truth is prospective; it is not retrospective. It is not looking back at what they had said; it is looking forward and inviting them to obey the rules of the House. It is in fact not a breach of the Standing Orders and members should not be asked to desist from doing that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just tell members that this has actually happened before. I referred to the issue of “untruthful” which means given to lying. It also means diverging from the truth. A generalised charge that a member is untruthful cannot be permitted but a particular reference to an occasion on which a member has admittedly diverged from the truth in a certain statement is not unparliamentary. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 42/4 from Gerry Wall. I am asking members to be careful with their use of interjections across the House because they can lead to disorder and that is not what we want. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the spirit of referring to Speakers’ rulings can I also ask members perhaps to read Speaker’s ruling 42/3 from Speaker Wilson who did rule the term “Tell the truth!” as an unparliamentary term as it is a phrase that creates disorder in the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member whose statement you have not asked to refrain has alleged that I was not telling the truth in respect of the figures I quoted of a $2.4 billion loss at ACC for the 2007-08 year and a $4.8 billion loss for the 2008-09 year. I seek leave of the House to table the Auditor-General’s signed-off accounts showing that those two figures are correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No he’s not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s already been tabled—for goodness’ sake Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The House is the master of its own destiny. Any member in this place is entitled to seek leave of the House to table something. Members can say no. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will be aware that the Speaker Lockwood Smith has ruled that we cannot seek leave to table documents that have already been tabled in the House and are already available. That is exactly what Nick Smith was just trying to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The document is already available?  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yes of course it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The document is already available. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I want to speak to Mr Hipkins’ point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have been in the House a number of years and I have heard Dr Lockwood Smith say that if documents are freely available then they are not to be tabled in the House because it is seen as a waste of parliamentary time. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just by way of clarification what Mr Hipkins said was that the document had already been tabled in the House and that is not accurate in so far as it is tabled on the Table. It has been received and I would suggest that because the document that Dr Smith was referring to is now nearly 5 years old in fact it would be in the public interest to seek to table it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised that the document has to be publicly available and it is publicly available. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Those same financial accounts show that in the period 2005 to 2008 ACC claims expenditure grew from $2 billion a year to $3 billion a year. That is an extra billion dollars in a period of just 3 years. It was financially reckless. It was not sustainable. That is why for me as the incoming Minister for ACC significant changes were required. There is a very important balance required in ACC between ensuring that claimants who have accidents receive the entitlements they should receive but equally so there is a very important obligation to ensure that the levies are affordable and that they do not rise as rates that are not sustainable for households and businesses.  
I also want to put on record that one of the first issues I had to deal with in ACC was genuine corruption—a senior property manager within ACC during the time when Mr Peters was a Minister. And there is a person—not some made-up claim—who lodged a complaint with the police and a prosecution— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote the Pullar letter and why? Talk about corruption! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Mallard that there was a conviction for corruption in a court of law in New Zealand in respect of the property dealings of ACC that was brought forward by me as Minister. I do find that over the 3 preceding years huge improvements have been made in ACC’s finances. In the last year in which I was Minister ACC was able to deliver a substantive surplus and that has enabled levies for both employers and households that are struggling to be substantially reduced. I want to put on public record thanks to John Judge the former chief executive Jan White and Ralph Stewart and the team for the very effective job they have done in correcting the finances and those difficulties that were a very serious threat to New Zealand.  
In respect of the issues over which I chose to resign I also wish to make some comments. It has been alleged in the media and repeatedly by people opposite that I waded into the case of Bronwyn Pullar.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Ah yes you did. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well actually the record shows Mr Peters that I wrote four letters in respect of Bronwyn Pullar. Every one of those letters involved me saying that she was a friend and that it would be inappropriate for me to interfere in her ACC case. I did make an error in putting on record the fact that I knew Bronwyn prior to her accident and that she was well prior to that date. I regret that. In my view it created a perception that somehow if a person is a friend of a Minister they might be treated differently from others. That was never my intent but I do stand very strongly by the principle that this Parliament and New Zealand must have which is that all people must be treated equally—thus my decision to tender my resignation.  
I now want to say that it is somewhat ironic that the Opposition is contradictory in its views of Bronwyn Pullar and so too are the media. When this debate erupted 2 months ago members opposite said she was a villain and that she was a taker. Now we are presented with the case that somehow Bronwyn is a hero. In fact neither of those things is true. Bronwyn is a sad case of a very capable person who has had an accident and it actually well illustrates the dilemma for many New Zealanders involved with ACC as to what is the appropriate time for rehabilitation.