Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:648;Page:17104] 
4.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What reports has she received comparing the accident compensation scheme with Australian alternatives? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have received one report from PricewaterhouseCoopers which states that accident compensation under its current Government monopoly “can be considered to be ‘best practice’ when compared to international schemes.” The other report came from Merrill Lynch which states that accident compensation costs have been “low relative to comparable schemes in Australia”. Despite the evidence National is still secretly telling insurance companies that accident compensation is up for grabs. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has she seen any reports on how competitive accident compensation levy rates are? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes. A report from PricewaterhouseCoopers noted that the average accident compensation employers’ levy is two and a half times cheaper than levies under Australian schemes. We also know that the average employers’ levy is now much cheaper under our public scheme than it was under National’s failed privatised model— dropping from $2.14 in 1999 to $1.26 currently. Again despite the evidence that the accident compensation scheme is cheaper National is still leading employers to believe that they will get cheaper levies under privatisation. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the facts about the accident compensation scheme that are included in the 2008 Budget show that its future liability as assessed by the Government will increase from $17 billion this year to $26 billion in just 5 years’ time and that because the Government has been running the scheme inefficiently extending the coverage and keeping the levies down there is a huge cost problem ahead of all of us in dealing with a $9 billion increase in the future liabilities of the scheme? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: What I can confirm is that if any part of the scheme were to be privatised there would be a cost explosion for every levy payer in this country. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about who stands to gain from National’s planned privatisation of accident compensation? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes; it is certainly not the public. As noted by PricewaterhouseCoopers without the scheme roughly 70 percent of current accident compensation clients would have to rely on social security and the health system alone. The Merrill Lynch report noted that private insurers stand to make a huge profit. I recall for the benefit of this House that Murray McCully when accident compensation was being privatised in 1998 stated: “Insurers like everyone are in business to make a buck.” Just whose interests does National have at heart here? 
Peter Brown 
: Madam Speaker— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Except for the Government’s KiwiRail—they’re not in business to make a buck! 
Peter Brown 
: This question is about accident compensation I say to Gerry. Does the Minister accept that our accident compensation scheme is far from perfect when it comes to dealing with mature working New Zealanders—certainly when they become accident victims—and can she advise whether the Government has any plans to address the concerns of these people noting that they pay their taxes they pay their accident compensation levies and many are treated very unfairly? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I say to the member that there is always room for improvement. In fact he would recall that just last week we were debating improvements to the accident compensation scheme none of which the National Party supported.