Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1913] 
4.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he agree with actuary Jonathan Eriksen that “All this talk of liabilities being blown out is complete nonsense. It’s ill-founded and smacks of scaremongering which given the current economic picture is the last thing people need to be told.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 No and nor do other actuaries I have spoken to. I am advised that Mr Eriksen tendered for the actuary work of accident compensation against PricewaterhouseCoopers and was rejected. I stand by the actuary valuations provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers which show that accident compensation liabilities over the last year have increased by $3.9 billion to $22 billion. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree with Brian Fallow that “it is downright irresponsible … to use terms like ‘insolvent’ and ‘going down the gurgler’ … because there are people who depend on [accident compensation] to keep body and soul together and will do for the rest of their days.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Accident compensation has a serious problem because costs have been rising at a very fast rate. Although the discount rate may go up and down—and it did both over the term of the previous Government—the fact is that those liabilities grew by $16 billion under the term of the previous Government and that is why this Government has to make changes to get costs under control. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What did the MartinJenkins report say about the primary reason for the increase in accident compensation liabilities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The ministerial inquiry showed that although the discount rates had gone up and down during the mid-years of this decade they had masked the very substantial increase in costs. Now that the discount rate has fallen as have returns from investments the underlying problem of cost extension and cover entitlement extensions has been exposed and that problem now leaves accident compensation in a position where change is required. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree with Vernon Small that this is a “manufactured crisis” and “principally caused by the global recession and its impact on lower interest rates … and falling equity prices.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I did not create the situation where before I even got my ministerial warrant Department of Labour officials sought an urgent appointment with me to deal with a $300 million shortfall that we now know was a breach of the Public Finance Act. I did not create that situation; members opposite did. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister think it is fair that hard-working New Zealanders have to pay higher levies in order for the accident compensation scheme to subsidise criminals who injure themselves while breaking the law? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member raises a legitimate question about how far accident compensation entitlements should go. ACC has raised with me concerns about the issues the member has raised. In the process of reviewing accident compensation entitlements that is one of the issues I wish to look at. In my view we need to get right the balance between ensuring accident victims get proper care and taking into account the costs on levy payers. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why for the first time in memory did neither the chair of the ACC board the former chair—and still a current board member—Mr Wilson the deputy chair nor any other member of the board of ACC appear at the select committee’s financial review of ACC this morning? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I advised the chairman of the select committee on Tuesday that there had been a change in the board chair which I had announced on Monday and that the new board chair Mr John Judge was unavailable this week. Given the change that I am making to the board the chairman of the select committee agreed that I should come along to the meeting. I have said to— 
Hon Member 
: How ridiculous! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Usually members are upset because Ministers will not come along to select committee meetings. Mr John Judge the chair of the ACC board is more than happy to come along to the select committee and I understand that that is the chair’s intent. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member puts me in a difficult position in that he says that the chair of the select committee wants the current chair of the ACC board to come along yet I am prevented from commenting— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not a point of order. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why after gagging the board over recent months then gatecrashing the financial review himself— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The accusation that I have gagged the board or done anything different is quite inappropriate. That is not the way that Standing Orders require members to ask questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. He is quite right with his point of order. Members cannot make such allegations in supplementary questions. I invite the member to reword his question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I might be in the difficult position of incriminating myself here but I have said on many many occasions—and you have never ruled it out Mr Speaker—that the Minister of Corrections had gagged her chief executive officer. I have said it in this House and you have never ruled it out so how can you rule out that member saying it? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: In his case no one was listening. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: A further point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not take any more points of order on this matter. That was not a point of order; I accept that absolutely and I did not need that kind of assistance from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I have ruled on the matter in respect of the Hon David Parker. He is not losing a question. I have invited him— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I happen to be on my feet Dr Cullen. I have invited the member to reword his question. He is not losing a question. I believe that is perfectly fair. If I have missed noticing that members have done this in the past I apologise for that but when a Minister takes objection a member cannot make allegations in a supplementary question. The Standing Orders are absolutely clear on that point. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You did not give a chance for anybody to comment on the first point of order from Dr Smith. Dr Smith of course did not deny that he had told the board not to make public comment last year. It is a matter of public record— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have indicated my considerable respect for the member’s knowledge of the Standing Orders on a number of occasions but what he is demonstrating here is that he is trying to step beyond the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are not about debating matters that are considered to be fact; the issue is that the Standing Orders are very clear on what can be included in a supplementary question. Supplementary questions cannot contain allegations; that is totally out of order. There is no discretion about it whatsoever. I have not cost the member who made the allegation a supplementary question; I have invited him just to reword it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What we are getting to now is what is an allegation as opposed to what is a fact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and I invite the member to sit down. The Speaker is the sole judge of these matters. Objection was taken and the Standing Orders are absolutely clear. I have no discretion on the matter. I invite the member to ask his— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You dip sometimes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not dipped one little bit and if the member is not careful he may be dipping himself. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. And that member will resume his seat. The House has been quite noisy today and that is fine. It has been quite robust today but members will comply with the Standing Orders. I have ruled on this matter and I will not tolerate—because the Standing Orders do not allow—any discretion in this matter. I invite the member to be careful. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without challenging your ruling I invite your reflection on certain matters in  
Hansard 
. If my memory serves me correctly when I was the Minister of Immigration I faced extended questioning from another member who made extensive use of supplementary questions that contained allegations against another member of this House Taito Phillip Field. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I perceive the member to be questioning my ruling. I have made it very clear: an allegation of gagging was made objection was taken and I have no discretion in that matter. The Standing Orders are absolutely clear on it. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet Mr Cosgrove. I warn the member that I have ruled on this matter. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To be clear so that we can frame our questions incredibly precisely and carefully are you saying that if the member were to ask: “Did the Minister tell the board that it was not to make public comment on certain matters?” you would not object to that? In common language it would be the word “gagging” but am I to assume that it would not be an allegation? I think we have a real problem here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this matter. Offence was taken and the Standing Orders make it very clear that members cannot inject into supplementary questions those kinds of things. I have ruled on the matter and there has been no penalty to the member who made the allegation. I have invited him simply to reword his supplementary question. I believe that that is totally fair. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why at the select committee this morning did the Minister stop the chief executive from answering some of the questions posed by members of the Opposition and pass notes to the chief executive to intervene in her answers to other questions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly I did not pass a single note to the chief executive. There were questions from members that related to policy. For instance there were questions about the setting of the motor vehicle levy. That is done by the Government not by the chief executive. I say to the member opposite that during the period of questioning at the select committee I think 90 percent of the answers were given by the chief executive and I think it was a helpful interchange.