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:9117] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I want to gun straight down into the debate on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill because the speech made by Mr Parker showed exactly the sort of area where we do need to have a free and frank debate. 
I have some questions for the Labour members. In 2001 they changed the law to the 35-hour test from the 30-hour test. They changed it so that it went up. My simple question to those members is around the fact the Department of Statistics during the entire period of the previous Labour Government said that people were in full-time work when they worked 30 hours and in the Work and Income office in respect of the invalids benefit and the sickness benefit it is a matter of Labour policy that 30 hours a week is full time. So why should the person who suffers from cancer and is talking with the Work and Income officer about whether he or she is able to go back to full-time work have the test of 30 hours a week but an accident victim has a test of 35 hours a week? 
Hon David Parker 
: Because they used to work 35 hours. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That member needs to be able to answer that key point. We see from the Government that the Inland Revenue Department Statistics New Zealand and Work and Income New Zealand are all saying 30 hours a week. Why should the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) be any different? 
The second point in response to Mr Parker’s contribution is that he puts a great deal of weight on the data between New Zealand and Australia but only in relation to the work account. Every time Labour members get to their feet to talk about accident compensation the only thing they want to talk about is the work account which is about a quarter only of the accident compensation scheme. The earners account I say to Mr Parker is in the most trouble. The earners account is paid for by ordinary hard-working New Zealanders and is quite a regressive tax. As people go on to earn higher incomes they are not hit as hard by the earners account. So it is ordinary workers who are paying for these sorts of costs. 
But the real issue I want to gun in on is why is it that Labour members think crims should get accident compensation. I think every New Zealander has sat back looked at Graeme Burton seen the way in which accident compensation has provided him with a free leg and then seen the way that he has gone on and attempted to murder others and overwhelmingly New Zealanders have said that is not right. Labour members say that the law as it is is OK. Do they know how many cases there have been when a person committing a crime has not gone under the accident compensation scheme in the last 10 years? It is true that such people can apply to the court and the court can make a ruling. How many in the last 10 years? It is zero—absolutely zip. So Labour members are arguing that the current law works fine yet in 10 years there has not been a single case where the court has imposed disentitlement. The last court case involved a person convicted of dangerous driving that resulted in very serious injuries. ACC took it to court and asked that the lump-sum payment that that person was entitled to not be provided. The court said that the test in the current law is so high the person should receive his or her lump-sum payment. So effectively Labour members are saying that law is OK and crims who injure themselves should be able to get lump-sum payments income compensation and full rehabilitation. In my view that is wrong. 
Let us go back to the founding of the accident compensation scheme. It was about losing the right to sue. If I commit a criminal act who do I sue? Who will I sue to try to get some compensation payment? National members say that the community does not owe compensation to those who injure themselves when committing serious crimes and that along with the hundreds of letters that I have seen from New Zealanders is why I say there is support for that sensible change.