Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3771] 
9.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she consider that ACC is fair and transparent with regard to ACC levies; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for ACC 
: Yes the proposed levy rates are publicly consulted on each year and are independently reviewed by external actuaries. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does the Minister consider it fair and transparent that from 12 April the part-time self-employed are being charged the full-time employed levy rate irrespective of what they earn and does she agree that those earners should have been explicitly informed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do think that determining levies according to the structure of business—self-employed versus non - self-employed—is unfair and that is why I am considering addressing any inequities. I hope the various competing viewpoints of business on this matter can be reconciled. 
Darien Fenton 
: How do today’s accident compensation levy rates compare with rates from earlier years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Although the motor vehicle levy has both risen and fallen since the change of Government over that same period the average self-employed levy has come down by 6 percent the earners rate has come down by 7 percent and the average employers levy has dropped by a massive 43 percent. That is the sort of result we can expect when we do not have the privatisation of ACC on our minds. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How is it fair for ACC to impose full-time levies on low-paid part-time employees forcing them to pay in one case over $1300 more than the earnings justified; and is that not an example of the ACC monopoly sneakily collecting yet another levy to add to the 43 extra taxes imposed by the Labour Government in the last 7 years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thought at that point that the member’s question was about a part-time employee. Of course employees have their levies removed from their wages and if they are employed part time they will have a part-time wage. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Which ACC helpline worker does the Minister believe was correct—the worker who claimed that charging full-time employed levy rates to part-time workers was a mistake or the worker who claimed that part-time self-employed workers were dishonest and could not be trusted to tell the truth about their working hours—and does either comment not show failure by ACC? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think we have now confirmed that we are talking about workers. I repeat my answer that my understanding is— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Self-employed! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Self-employed workers—are they bosses or are they just working for themselves? If the question is about the self-employed I refer the member to my answer to his first supplementary question. If it is about employees I refer the member to my answer to his last supplementary question. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has either deliberately or out of ignorance still not answered the question after four attempts. My colleague made it quite clear in his first supplementary question that he was referring to part-time self-employed people. That has not changed all the way through. He has now asked four supplementary questions and got no answer. It is unfair to the House if the Minister insists on answering a completely different question about a completely different group of people and thereby avoids answering the question as to why full-time rates are being levied on part-time self-employed people. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I listened really carefully and I think the Minister did work his way through to identifying what the issue was then did address it by reference to his other answers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Paula Bennett 
: Oh here we go. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We just had an interjection from someone who knows full when that when a point of order is being taken—and I had started it—she cannot intervene. 
Paula Bennett 
: He hadn’t started! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: She is doing it again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am afraid—Paula Bennett I think it was—I have been very lenient on this but we are hearing numerous interjections from that part of the House when people are on their feet. Members are on their last warning. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that while the question was being answered by the Minister we in this part of the House could hear barely a word. The noise was deafening. Frankly our position from here on in will be that if we cannot hear what is being said we will demand that the answer be given a second time so that we can hear it. We do not believe that one side of the House should be able to get away with this every darn day. It is unfair on the rest of the House and on the public as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member so I ask members to control the level of their interjections please. 
Hon Bill English 
: Madam Speaker you know that this House has always worked on developing its own disciplines and understandings. If the Minister consistently refuses to answer a question then that is going to create some interjections. In fact this question time has been one of the quieter ones we have sat through. It is a bit like the way the House is asked to tolerate Mr Peters’ continued points of order that are not points of order. He just keeps at it. We are asked to sit in silence. You have just thrown out one of my colleagues consistent with the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have not done that Mr English. 
Hon Bill English 
: You threatened to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I have put the House on warning consistent with the Standing Orders. So everyone is on their warning. Would they please not interject. Please continue. 
Hon Bill English 
: I was about to say “consistent with the Standing Orders”. You were trying to enforce them. But if that member continues to raise points of order that are not points of order it is going to be very difficult to expect the House to behave in a polite and orderly way. So on the matter that you are dealing with at the moment I would suggest that there are going to be interjections when Ministers do not answer the question. If the cross-benchers cannot hear it then that Minister who sits either inside or outside Cabinet—we are not sure which—should tell his colleague the answer to the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Firstly the member did raise a legitimate point of order. A point of order about excessive noise in the House is certainly a point of order. Secondly you had ruled that the Minister had addressed the question. It is not for the National Party to decide whether a Minister has addressed a question; it is for you to decide that. For the member to now say that the Minister had not addressed the question when you had already ruled that he had is in fact to question your ruling. It is not for National Party members to act as the referees in this place; that is your job. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member did raise a legitimate point of order. I ask members again because it is very hard on occasion to actually hear what the answers are. Also I just remind members that as I have said interjections are permitted but the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings state that they should be rare and reasonable. I think that in recent times we have not given enough attention to that particular ruling. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can the Minister stand by the statement made on the inside cover of the annual report of the Accident Compensation Corporation: “The environment is changing but what will always remain constant are the principles we apply.” when from 12 April ACC has just applied the principle of trusting no one and at the same time overcharging thousands of honest part-time self-employed New Zealand workers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I talked about inequities amongst self-employed people in the answer to the first supplementary question asked by the member. They are under consideration and I urge businesses who have differing viewpoints on the way forward to try to reconcile their differences. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table ACC invoices which demonstrate that ACC has been overcharging honest low-earning self-employed workers for at least 3 months. 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table ACC’s annual report which despite ACC demonstrating distrust since April of all part-time self-employed workers states that the environment is changing but its principles remain the same. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a pamphlet from ACC entitled “Understanding your ACC levies” which makes no mention of the distinction between full-time and part-time levies. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.