Street Maryan: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
Street Maryan: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
[Volume:652;Page:1774] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 This Government is trying to perpetuate a number of myths around accident compensation and they need to be busted. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just apologise. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The extravagant language of the Minister for ACC tempts me into using unparliamentary language but I will resist that. 
The solvency myth is the first myth that needs to be busted. The $22 billion in liabilities may well be the case. I do not doubt that but the $22 billion over time is what matters. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is in a long-term game and that is why the investment portfolio has taken a hit in recent months. When I was the Minister there was a little over $12 billion in assets and I understand from the current Minister that it has gone down to a little over $10 billion. It is taking the same kind of bath that all investment portfolios around the world are taking. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did you hide the $300 million? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have heard the barrage from the member opposite to the member who is speaking but when he brings you into the debate as he did then that is inappropriate. I ask you to ask him to cease and desist from doing that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is correct; the Speaker should not be brought into the debate. I invite the member to continue her speech. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The whole point is that the liability of ACC is spread across the lifetime of the injuries. 
 So the $22 billion is not liable and that is why some of the backbenchers in the National Government ought to ask their Minister for a few correct facts not just the spin he wishes to put on things. It is about the liability that is payable over the lifetime of the injury. 
I will go on to the question of the principles of the Woodhouse report because the Minister has said even as recently as today that the Government intends to uphold the principles of that report. There are five principles: community responsibility comprehensive entitlement real compensation administrative efficiency and complete rehabilitation. It is patently obvious that the direction this National Government is taking in respect of accident compensation will infringe at least three if not all five of those principles. 
In the first instance introducing competition is about introducing private insurers into the scheme which cuts absolutely across the principle of community responsibility. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The member breached the Public Finance Act and should apologise. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: That Minister is the only National member to be returned to this House with a reduced majority. When the tide was coming in for the National Party the tide was going out for that member. I am sorry that it hurts him so much but it is true. Dr Nick Smith was the only one of his caucus to have a minus figure beside his results at the latest election. The point is— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the member breach the Public Finance Act? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: This member did not breach the Act and Dr Nick Smith’s own ministerial inquiry found that to be the case. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it didn’t. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: It absolutely did. The fact that the Minister keeps repeating it does not make it true. 
I will talk about the other principles underpinning the Woodhouse report that would be breached by this Government were it to proceed with its intentions. The first is the introduction of private insurance companies. Because that Minister does not understand the fundamentals of accident compensation he does not recognise the extent to which private insurers would jeopardise the principle of community responsibility. He does not understand that principle. This is not an ordinary insurance scheme; this is a social contract. I say to Sir Roger that this is not an ordinary private insurance scheme; this is a social contract. 
The citizens of New Zealand have given up the right to sue in order to get one of the Woodhouse principles which is comprehensive entitlement. That means that New Zealanders get comprehensive entitlement—full cover for an injury—in exchange for giving up the right to sue and that principle is in jeopardy. 
I will go further and look at some of the specifics that the Minister has been parading recently in more or less inflammatory language depending on how the editorials run the next day. Another one of the Woodhouse principles is administrative efficiency. Let us go back to the 1990s when the National Government put a cap on the number of physio visits one could have under accident compensation. It limited the number of visits to five after which there were huge hurdles to overcome in order to get another treatment. The risk of sending incompletely rehabilitated workers back into the workplace is very high with such a limit so that would also infringe the complete rehabilitation principle. This Government is looking to limit the extent of the treatment that could be given to people who are injured and to send them back on to the shop floor inadequately rehabilitated which would only rack up costs against the health system later on as their injuries revisit them. 
I will go into some more specifics to do with the levies. If one looks at the question and answer section of the Minister’s own media release which was publicly released the other day one finds that he said in respect of the residual claims account that if one were to push out the residual claims date to 2019 it could bring down the expected levy rate per $100 of liable earnings from 68c to 36c. Let me just make that plain: this Minister could have had he been on top of his game—which he is not—reduced these levies. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You had 9 years! 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I say to Dr Smith that that does not wash because the residual levy— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why didn’t the member do it? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I had announced that change. It was not required before that point. 
The point is that this Minister could have reduced the levy to employers and reduced the levies on motor vehicles. Instead of putting them up by $32 today according to his own paper he could have reduced them by $100. He could have reduced by $100 the motor vehicle levy according to his own paper for every family with a car. Why did he not do that? Why did he not take down the employer levy? I will tell members why. It is because he wanted an articulate and vociferous lobby group such as the employers to be grumbling about high levies. Why did he not take down the car levy? Because he wanted every family in the country to say that accident compensation is unaffordable. That is why he did not take it down. That is why he did not drop the levies when it was in his power to do so. 
It was in the Minister’s power to drop those levies at the end of last year and he should have done it then. If he had done so there would have been no need to raise motor vehicle levies now. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Wrong! 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Absolutely. He could have lowered by $100 the car registration levy. He did not do that because what National is looking for is constant noise about accident compensation against which it can say that the system is failing and that it needs to cut it down and take away people’s entitlements.