Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:661;Page:9888] 
1. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What changes have been made to ACC coverage relating to the presence of “pre-existing degenerative” conditions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 There has been no change to the legislative cover. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) will do more elective surgery this year at about 50000 procedures than the average of about 43000 procedures per year under the previous Government and approximately 80 percent of applications are being approved. There had always been a contentious issue on the margin between what is an accident and what is a pre-existing degenerative condition. I remind the member opposite that over 50000 people were declined elective surgery funded by the accident compensation scheme during the previous Government. Most of them were declined because they had a degenerative condition. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: If as the Minister says there has been no change in policy can he explain why the number of complaints that have been sent for formal review against ACC’s decision to refuse accident compensation cover has increased by 65 percent since National came to office when compared with the average for the 4 years prior to the election in 2008? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There has been an increase in the number of elective surgery cases taken to review. I am monitoring that closely. I have noted that the actual proportion of cases going to review where the decision of ACC has been overturned has actually declined. It is critical that these decisions are made on medical and not cost grounds and I intend to continuously monitor that to ensure that New Zealanders are receiving the accident compensation support that they are entitled to receive. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: How is it that ACC seems to know the full financial details out to 2019 which support its scenario that accident compensation is in a financial crisis when in response to written questions to the Minister neither he nor ACC can answer any questions concerning data on pre-existing degeneration or a decline in cover classification or concerning data on the proportion of claims for the treatment of shoulder injuries that have been declined due to a finding of pre-existing degeneration and when there is a whole list of similar unanswered questions where information is lacking that I will seek the Speaker’s leave to table because it is too long to go through in a supplementary question? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was not sure whether the member was asking a question or seeking leave. He made the claim— 
Grant Robertson 
: Or you could just answer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to answer the question. The member seems to make the assertion that ACC does not have financial challenges. I point out to the member that in the 2007-08 year the annual reports signed by Maryan Street showed a loss of $2.4 billion. In the year following that ACC made a loss of $4.8 billion. Only members opposite would pretend— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question about why ACC is not able to answer a whole range of very pertinent questions about accident compensation and the corporation’s refusal to cover claims. The Minister has gone off on a tangent that I submit to you does not in any way address my question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In his question the member made specific assertions that were incorrect about ACC not having financial problems and not being able to look forward. When members make those sorts of false assertions it is quite proper for a Minister to want to put the record correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is the dilemma that we get into. If the honourable member had asked precisely the question that he said he had asked without the little preamble bit I could have asked the Minister to answer it. But the dilemma is that the question was not quite as precise as that. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What response does the Minister have to the case of Mr Neville Toohey who last week barricaded himself in Christchurch Cathedral over ACC’s declining of his elective surgery? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly I would note that Mr Toohey’s claim was declined in 2008 which reinforces the fact that there has always been some contention around what is an accident and what is a degenerative condition. I also note that Mr Toohey did not take up the option of seeking an independent review within 3 months of that decision despite being properly advised of his right. He was also given an independent hearing of his case but he failed to turn up and gave no reasonable explanation for his absence. Taking up his review rights which are free would have been a more constructive way for Mr Toohey to test ACC’s decision to decline surgery for his back problems. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Why did we go from a level of reviewed accident compensation claims that was remarkably consistent for 4 years prior to the election of the National Government in 2008 to a 65 percent increase in 1 year; was it the result of an accident was it the result of bad luck or was it the result of bad policy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member’s statistics are selective. I remind the House that 80 percent of the applications for elective surgery are being approved by ACC and that 50000 elective surgeries will be provided this year as compared with an average of 43000 per year under the previous Government. I say to the member that the amount of elective surgery that is being provided is properly meeting the requirements of the accident compensation statute. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the advice given to the select committee by the Ministry of Health from the transcript of that advice about the transfer of $60 million worth of surgery from the accident compensation scheme to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Am I to understand that the member seeks to table advice to a select committee? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Has the select committee reported to the House? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Therefore the information is readily available to the House. I do not think we need to waste the time of the House on that.