Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7767. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by his statement “the scale of the increases proposed by the Accident Compensation Corporation board will not need to be advanced.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes but the member should have used the full quote from  
Hansard 
 where I preceded that statement with: “I am confident with the changes this Government is advancing to the accident compensation scheme that we can make some savings”. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is it not true that the Minister has known for many months that the accident compensation increases to motorcycle levies do not need to be as high as those he allowed to be published? Why did he embark on another of his scaremongering campaigns? Is it because he has to justify the accident compensation scheme as being insolvent in order to justify privatisation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that John Judge the chair of the board of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has made very critical comments about the previous Government’s financial management of the accident compensation scheme. I also ask the member to note that the board is required to make recommendations on the basis of the current law. I am changing the law to enable the increases to be less. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Is the Minister aware that the previous Government increased accident compensation levies for motorcycles from $134 to $212—a whopping 57 percent increase—in 2003? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I am. The increase was justified by the then Minister for ACC Lianne Dalziel in response to a protest at the time. She said: “Injuries from motorcycle accidents tend to be of a more serious nature a longer duration” and motorcycles are a higher risk. The irony is that Miss Dalziel now joins in the protests and says exactly the opposite. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Minister not accept his responsibility as the Minister for ACC and take responsibility for his own scaremongering rather than blaming the ACC board which he hand-picked for the excessive increases he caused it to publish? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is absolutely no need to do any exaggeration in respect of the accident compensation scheme’s finances because the facts speak for themselves. The annual report signed by Maryan Street discloses a $2.4 billion loss the greatest loss of any Government organisation in the history of Parliament. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What advice has the Minister received on the levy differential between motorbikes and other vehicles historically? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The differential was increased by the previous Government to 1.5. That is it decided that for motorbikes the levy paid would be 1.5 times that for the average car. The Hon Ruth Dyson recommended to Cabinet some years later that the differential should be further increased to 2. The Cabinet minute noted that even with that increase the levy payments would meet only 35 percent of the cost of motorcycle accidents. I find it ironic that the very facts that Cabinet noted when Phil Goff was in Cabinet are now described by him as “crap”. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Minister had time to consider why more than 6000 motorcyclists yesterday described his explanations as “bullshit bullshit”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am not at all surprised because whether there is a Labour Government or a National Government people do not want their levies to go up. But I note that when Mr Parker was in Cabinet Cabinet noted that motorcycle fees met only 35 percent of the actual costs. It is not consistent for this Government to argue that the numbers are wrong when he in Cabinet argued just the same. I say to Mr Parker that I think a bikie would call it a backfire. I seek leave to table a press release—and I realise it is a press release but it is from some years ago—from Lianne Dalziel the then Minister for ACC justifying the very large increase— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the House should know before the member goes into the details how many years ago. What is the date? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The press release was in 2003 which is quite recent. I think the House should know what Lianne Dalziel said in 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not accept that. It is contrary to the principle of the ruling I made the other day. The member is seeking leave to table a document purely for political purposes and not to provide information to the House. I will not accept that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Can I seek leave to table her blog of 15 November? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Nice try but no.