Katene Rahui: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
Katene Rahui: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
[Volume:652;Page:1771] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am somewhat bemused at the reaction to the announcement from the Minister that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) needed a fresh start in order to face up to its funding issues. What is wrong with a fresh start? In all other spheres of the world it seems that the deteriorating economic forecast is dominating our thinking. We are calling for results-based accountability funding for outcomes efficiency of services and better targeted support. 
Let us not forget that we are talking about an agency in which a shortfall of $1.5 billion is supposedly of such little interest to its management that it was deemed unnecessary to disclose the amount in the statutory Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. For 3 whole months before the 2008 election the ACC board had recommended that more funding would be required specifically $1.559 billion—gasp—over the next 5 years including $307 million in the current year. Despite the requirements around limited powers that every good public servant knows about officials in ACC and Treasury had not deemed it necessary to pass that information on. On top of the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update we then received the latest 6-monthly PricewaterhouseCoopers valuation of ACC’s liabilities. In this report it was revealed that ACC’s liabilities have increased to $21.875 billion with dramatic increases needed in the earners levy and the vehicle levy. 
Today New Zealanders have had to accept the shock announcement that the motor vehicle levy will be increasing by $32 from 1 July 2009. The motor vehicle licence fee for a petrol car will increase from $136.44 to $168.46 and on top of that the ACC petrol levy will rise from 9.34 cents per litre to 9.90 cents per litre. To many in this House those numbers may just seem like dollars and cents and hardly the stuff to get concerned about but for my constituents the constituents of Te Tai Tonga those dollars and cents come at a time when they can least afford it. The families in my electorate are on a median income of $54500 for an entire household. That is a whole $5000 less than the median family income for New Zealand as a whole and for many of the people in this establishment it is an income level that might be regarded as being too low for even an individual let alone a family. 
But that is not all we need to think about when we think about ACC—bad enough though it is. I want to drill down further into the experiences of our constituents with ACC and specifically the experiences of Maori. All the research tells us that comparisons of need with actual care consistently show us that across the health sector Maori have greater need but less access to treatment. We have seen that for heart disease for respiratory health for cancer for strokes and the list goes on. But the data that is particular to ACC reveals that Maori are not receiving the entitlements they should receive in the areas of care rehabilitation and compensation. They are not receiving their entitlements at a level comparable to the proportion of Maori in the population and so we have to ask why. 
I ask again whether the case of appointing a new chair for ACC justifies the use of the urgent debate formula. The situation that should really warrant urgent consideration is the situation outlined by Dr Peter Jansen of Mauri Ora Associates. His research paper  
Maori consumer use and experience of health and disability and ACC 
 is fascinating reading for all of us because it reveals in some depth that the reasons for the large health disparity include barriers to access barriers to treatment provider behaviours cultural competence institutional racism differences in utilisation lack of knowledge by Maori patients and Maori preferences for care. I know that that is not news to anyone in this House but it should be. What could explain why so little has been done to address that situation? 
 We know that Maori are dissatisfied with the care they receive and with the barriers to care. Now is the time to do something about it. In our world view we have a saying: ruia taitea kia tu ko taikaka anake—strip away the sap wood gather only the heart wood. It literally means to clear away the rubble in order for us to get to the heart of the matter—the ultimate outcomes in terms of health and care. 
We are not about to say that an individual—Ross Wilson or John Judge—is capable or incapable of earning the trust of the public. It is not our place to do that and it is certainly not appropriate to target or finger-point individuals but we do believe it is useful to look afresh at accident compensation. The ministerial inquiry the funding shortfall and the continuing saga of ballooning accident compensation entitlements and levies signalled this week are all vital areas of examination in their own right. But when we overlay the situation for Maori on top of that context it most certainly appears to us that nothing could be wrong with taking a fresh approach and a good look at a system that is clearly experiencing some problems. In the interests of our constituents of Maori of taxpayers and of everyday New Zealanders we say let us be brave enough to withstand the challenge of change and let us look anew at the accident compensation scheme. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call Grant Robertson. I remind the member that this is a 5-minute slot and I will give you a bell at 4 minutes.