Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8873] 
8. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by his statement “This legislative reform is part of the Government’s objective to secure the long-term future of ACC as an efficient and fair 24/7 no-fault insurance scheme for all New Zealanders”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. The legislation is needed to push out the full-funding date and reverse scheme extensions that were introduced by that member Maryan Street but never funded. The alternative was excessively high levy increases for workers motorists and business. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Which part of the accident compensation scheme bill is fair when Te Puni Kokiri advice is that it will have a disproportionate effect on Maori who are frequently employed in more dangerous and lower-income occupations; and can he tell the House whether the Maori Party will vote for the bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is also important to recognise that Maori are levy payers. As a consequence of the quite reckless mismanagement of the accident compensation scheme the levies on Maori—those low-income workers—who are struggling with families— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Oh rubbish! Come on Nick; come on Nick. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Parekura Horomia’s mind obviously was not on that when he was in Government. Actually Maori pay accident compensation levies— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister but this is getting very messy. What led to the messiness was that the Minister was asked whether he stood by a statement. He could have said yes but he went on to give a lot more information which the primary question did not ask for. It did not ask for a reason; it asked just whether he stood by his statement. I did not intervene then. The member then asked a supplementary question which was not an unreasonable supplementary question. I believe that it did not deserve to be treated quite like that. I think the questioner should be treated with a little more respect. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The issue for Maori and the accident compensation scheme is that Maori are substantive payers of accident compensation levies. In fact the accident compensation levy is quite regressive. It impacts on lower-income households more than it does on others. That is why the Maori Party’s concern has been as much about the viability of the scheme and the levies as it is about the claims from accident victims. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What advice has the Minister received on the 12 extensions to the scheme’s entitlements introduced in October 2008 just 3 months after the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) declared its record $2.4 billion loss and what funding was set aside to fund these additional benefits in areas like suicide seasonal workers and superannuitants? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Absolutely no funding was set aside for those extensions. It was quite frankly reckless after ACC had declared a loss of $2.4 billion for Labour just prior to the election to extend the scheme and amazingly also promise cuts in levies. It was reckless it was irresponsible and it is why some of the changes are required today. 
Carol Beaumont 
: How can the Minister say his legislative reform is fair when overwhelmingly submitters have said that the shutting out of those below an arbitrary hearing-loss threshold that particularly affects the elderly is “a breach of faith with older people.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The 6 percent threshold for hearing loss is exactly equivalent to that in overseas schemes. For instance in Australia where they have 6 percent thresholds— 
Hon Annette King 
: So what? They don’t have accident compensation like ours. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Annette King says that it does not matter. Let me tell Annette King something: if our economy is smaller and less able to provide incomes then the benefits— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is that called catching up with Australia Nick? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite think they can afford a whole lot more social benefits without the incomes. In my view the huge increase that has occurred in the scheme’s hearing costs is part of the problem and that is why to be fair to levy payers we need to get those cost increases under control. 
Darien Fenton 
: How can it possibly be fair to force injured workers to use holidays to recuperate in and will he not even listen to Treasury which raised concerns in one of his own Cabinet papers that that was unfair? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a very simple principle. Should people be able to receive accident compensation simultaneously with holiday pay? My view is that our social services schemes were never meant to make people better off than they would be if they were working. This change was made only at the last moment by the previous Labour Government after a $2.4 billion loss. Members on this side of the House say accident compensation was never about people being able to double-dip with both accident compensation and holiday pay simultaneously. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister agree with consultant advice to ACC that it is “too customer focused” and that there is a need to “drain the swamp” to exclude people from cover; and does he think it is appropriate that ACC is being advised to view injured New Zealanders as swamp-dwellers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Not at all. What I would say though is that over the last 5 years and during that Minister’s tenure the scheme’s rehabilitation rates constantly declined. That had a huge negative impact on the scheme’s liabilities. Members on this side of the House make no apologies for wanting the scheme to improve its rehabilitation rates and wherever possible to get people back to work and independent again. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave to table the section from the Morrison Low report to ACC  
Cost Savings Review: July 2009 
 which recommends to the Government that it should “drain the swamp”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Darien Fenton 
: I seek leave to table page 28 of the Cabinet paper to the social policy committee outlining the proposal for the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill which contains the Treasury comment referred to in my supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that page of a document. Is there any objection? There is objection.