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:9123] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of points about the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill raised by the Green MP Kevin Hague when he talked about a fundamental attack on the Woodhouse principles. Let me firstly deal with the awful and tragic issue of suicide where he said the bill breached the Woodhouse report. The opposite of that is true; it is absolutely the opposite of that. The Woodhouse report dealt with the sensitive issue of self-harm and suicide. Owen Woodhouse concluded that it was not right that an accident compensation scheme provide cover for that situation. That cover was only included as an add-on to the scheme during the term of the previous Government. It was only an add-on put in place by the previous Government; it was not recommended in the Woodhouse report. 
The simple question I have for Mr Hague is this. If a family loses a loved one from heart disease or from cancer what is the entitlement of the family who is bereaved? The answer is that they are eligible for support from Work and Income. So the real question I have for Mr Hague and the Labour members is why people who take their own life should have their families treated more generously than the families of those who tragically die from heart disease cancer and many other ailments. That is the real question. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does the member understand about blame and family blame? That’s so sad. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The second challenge I would give to the member who is chipping in is this: why when Labour extended the scheme to include suicide and self-harm did it not fund that? 
Hon Maryan Street 
: For goodness’ sake. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says “For goodness’ sake.” If the Labour members want to extend schemes like the accident compensation scheme someone has to pay for it and we should be honest and upfront about that. It is dishonest for Labour members to argue in this Chamber that we can have those extensions to the scheme but that nobody has to pay for it. That is not true. 
The next question I want to deal with is the issue of the limits in respect of the questions— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: ACC earned $1 billion more than it paid out. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is Maryan Street again. Let me show members where she is being quite dishonest. She signed the accounts for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in June— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: It was in the annual report that that Minister signed. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right. Maryan Street signed a set of accounts that showed a $2.4 billion loss when she was the Minister. That was based on a model of full funding not the cash-in cash-out model that she is trying to drag us into now. She said when she was the Minister that the proper accounting rules for ACC were for full funding. I acknowledge that the Green members are quite upfront and honest about the fact that they do not support full funding; they want “pay as you go”. That is fair enough. I do not agree with them but at least they are consistent. 
I have a simple question for Labour members. Labour members are saying that when they were in Government they supported full funding. In fact they actually extended full funding to other accounts. But when we get into the debate on this bill they suddenly want to change their tune and use the numbers on a “pay as you go” basis. So I have a simple challenge for Labour members: are they in favour of full funding or “pay as you go”? Is Labour in favour of “pay as you go” or full funding? We are in favour of full funding the Green Party members said they are in favour of “pay as you go” but what is Labour’s position? Here is a fundamental policy issue about accident compensation. The spokesperson on accident compensation David Parker says Labour is in favour of full funding and Maryan Street who was in favour of full funding when she was the Minister does not know what she favours. Members can only conclude that Labour members have no idea what they stand for in respect of accident compensation. 
Then we come to a further issue around holiday pay. The Green member argued and Labour members have also argued that people should somehow be able to receive accident compensation and their holiday pay entitlements at the same time. For goodness’ sake in building our welfare State and social provisions such as holiday pay accident compensation and benefits whenever did we say that people should be better off when they are off work after an accident than when they were working? That is what that means. The Labour and Green members are arguing that people should be better off after an accident than they were when they were working. That is not sensible; that is not sound. They say people have earned their holiday pay. Of course they have but nobody is denying them the right to their holiday pay. We are simply saying they cannot receive holiday pay and accident compensation at the same time if they are not returning to work. 
Let us be very clear what the provisions of this bill do. If people are off work temporarily—let us say they are off work for a month—this bill makes it absolutely plain that they keep their holiday entitlements. They do not have to use them as a substitute for accident compensation. But if people are to receive accident compensation permanently they cannot get both. I think that is fair. Members are saying we can have these double add-ons because they are totally unbalanced in their view of the levy payers who actually have to pay for that. 
What was most extraordinary from the Green member was the argument that crims should get accident compensation income lump sums because otherwise— 
Lynne Pillay 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is very interesting. The Labour members are arguing that crims should be able to get compensation. The most interesting part in the minority report is this: “Labour members agree that … an offender like Graeme Burton should not receive lump-sum or earning-related compensation.” But who was in Government when Graeme Burton committed the awful tragedy against Karl Kuchenbecker? Who was the Minister? It was Maryan Street. Did ACC apply to the court to have him disentitled? No. Well who is to blame? It is Maryan Street. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is a good question. Who was the Minister at the time? It was Maryan Street. You know during Maryan Street’s time as Minister there was not a single occasion when there was disentitlement for any criminal. 
I am looking forward as all members of the Government are to getting out on the traps to argue that a vote for Labour is a vote for accident compensation for crims and a vote for National is a vote for a party that takes a more balanced and reasonable perspective than that. We say that whether or not people commit a crime they should get medical care. But I find it offensive that a person who has committed a criminal act then gets a lump-sum accident compensation payment and that is why we are making that change. 
The last point I want to note is in respect of the issue of hearing loss. Both the Labour and Green members effectively say we can have a limitless scheme. They argue against levy increases but say we can have a scheme that goes for ever. I went along to my local audiologist and had a test because I wanted to have a feel for these provisions. I did a lot of tractor work in my student days and I was advised by my audiologist that I have a hearing loss of about 1.9 percent which is within the frequency that is work-related. Those members say I should be able to claim accident compensation for that because they believe in a limitless scheme. National members say that is not possible. When we look at the huge increase in cost associated with hearing aids it is our view that there need to be some sensible limits. Australia has a minimum hearing loss limit of 5 percent in some states and of 6 percent in others. The UK other developed countries such as Canada the US— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s heartless. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says it is heartless. I just think that is left-wing mumbo-jumbo from a member who is disengaged from the real issues of cost in respect of accident compensation and the fact that someone has to pay for it. 
The simple question is whether the Labour members believe that I should be able to get an accident compensation scheme - funded hearing aid? We say no to that on this side of the Chamber. My hearing loss is not bad enough at only 1.9 percent to need a hearing aid but if the hearing lost is over 6 percent then people do. The members opposite do not want to acknowledge that accident compensation cannot be limitless. They want to promise everybody every little entitlement out there and somehow pretend that someone does not have to pay for it. That is not the case and that is why members opposite are incorrect.