Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9153] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I want to put just three facts on the table to answer the points and address the misguided thinking of Lynne Pillay. She said the decision about whether somebody gets a hearing aid or not should be made solely by the hearing company that is providing the aid. Well it is little wonder I say to Ms Pillay that during the last 3 years of her term in Government the accident compensation scheme’s claims costs over grew by $1.4 billion. She says that the decision has to be made by the company to protect the person. To pretend that the person who is installing the hearing aid does not have any interest is about as naive as the foolish decision that the previous Government made to provide for free physiotherapy which even Labour’s own spokesperson for ACC David Parker says was a mistake. The reality is that claim costs are out of control because of the loose woolly thinking of the kind that we have just seen from Lynne Pillay. 
I have a very simple answer to the second question. She asked why should the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How much have hearing aids decreased in cost Minister in the last 12 months? How much have they decreased? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I cannot answer the questions if Maryan Street is going to continuously shout me down. Those members challenged me to get to my feet and answer the questions— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Well answer them properly Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will. I will answer Lynne Pillay very clearly. Lynne Pillay asked why this bill defines full-time work or the point where a person can be exited from the scheme at 30 hours. There is a very simple answer. When Labour was in Government it said that 30 hours a week was full time according to Statistics New Zealand. During its 9 years in Government it said that 30 hours a week was appropriate for the Inland Revenue Department. It said that 30 hours a week was appropriate for Work and Income with regard to people on sickness and invalids benefits. If Lynne Pillay cannot work out where the answer is she has to answer the same question in all three of those other areas. We would be delighted to know whether it is Labour’s policy that it now be 35 hours for the Inland Revenue Department for Work and Income and for Statistics New Zealand? 
Hon David Parker 
: No because there’s a difference. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh it is not. Well then I challenge Labour members to get on their feet and explain why one Government agency says to a person that 30 hours a week is full time but another says that actually no it is not. This Government is being quite consistent. I thought the last point was deeply ironic. Labour members challenged me for not having the courage to face up to a protest. I have to say to members that I think I have probably faced the biggest protest in Parliament. The last big one I really remember was the hikoi. Do members remember it? I ask Lynne Pillay whether Helen Clark fronted for the hikoi. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She did not. She did not and Darren Hughes cannot rewrite history. They had a little gathering last week. Apparently the staff— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Hikoi of Hope. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The hikoi about the foreshore and seabed. It was the biggest protest during Helen Clark’s Government and she did not front. They had a little protest last week. I asked my press secretary to look to see how many people were there. He came back to me and said there were more Labour caucus members than there were at the protest last week. It was a feeble effort which all the journalists said was deeply disappointing. 
The last point I want to make is this: Darren Hughes made an interjection to say that when Maryan Street signed the books declaring a $2.4 billion loss for the 2007-08 year—a full year in which she was the Minister for ACC—it was just because of the loss of investments. Let me put the record straight. Of the $2.4 billion that was lost—$2400 million—in the 2007-08 year what portion of that was due to investment losses? Do members know what the answer is? It was $1 million. Out of the $2400 million loss $1 million was due to investments. Maryan Street has run round all the Labour caucus members and said: “Look it was not that bad it was just the investment meltdown.” That is not true. The truth is—and Labour members need to reflect on this—that Maryan Street’s period of governance of the accident compensation scheme was reckless and irresponsible. If Labour ever proposes to put her in charge of any substantial organisation carrying taxpayer liabilities it will in my view keep itself on the Opposition benches because of the cost fear that ordinary New Zealanders will have if she is ever put in charge again.