Moroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2655. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Was the then Minister for ACC the Hon Judith Collins correct when she said last year that the reason the Government ignored ACC’s recommendation for cuts to levies for employers and workers was “because we need to get to surplus”?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): I am advised that the previous Minister did not say that the Government ignored ACC’s recommendation. In fact under law the Minister is required to consider ACC’s recommendations. Section 331 of the Accident Compensation Act anticipates that the Government may not accept the recommendation. Furthermore section 300 sets out the wider test that the Minister must have regard to which includes the public interest and may include a factor like the Government’s overall fiscal strategy.Sue Moroney: Why did she cite section 330 and section 331(5) of the Act as giving her the legal authority to use ACC levies to return the Crown accounts to surplus?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I cited those sections for two reasons. One reason is that under section 330 the Minister may take into regard the public interest which may include a factor like the overall Government’s fiscal strategy.Jami-Lee Ross: What information has the Minister seen regarding the impact of the Government’s decision on the ACC board’s levy rates recommendations?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have seen information that shows that if the Government had accepted the ACC board’s recommendations since 2010 levy payers would have paid $630 million more. The Labour Party needs to front up and confirm that under its policy of always accepting the board’s recommendations levy payers would be almost $630 million worse off.Sue Moroney: So with reference to her interpretation of section 330 of the Act does that mean she could overcharge businesses and workers through their ACC levies to fund any other promises made by her Government—for example to replace 10 bridges in the Northland electorate?Hon NIKKI KAYE: It is becoming very clear that the member opposite does not understand the law. I would make three points. The first point is that under the law the levies are ring-fenced so you cannot use the money for anything but claims. The second point that we have continued to make is we take a longer-term view around the levies which means that if you took the Labour Party approach you would continually have levies going up and down and we said: “Take a more conservative approach. In the long term that leads to stability and that is what businesses need.”Sue Moroney: Has she sought advice from Crown Law about the legal authority to overcharge ACC levies in order to get to surplus; if so will she table that advice?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Look I receive regular legal advice but what I would say to the member is that I am aware that in terms of the law it is entirely appropriate and it is set out under section 330 that the public interest is taken into account and that can include the Government’s overall fiscal strategy. But I would make a few other points to the member. There are a range of other factors that are taken into account including stability of levies for businesses.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question and—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And it is being answered at the moment. If the member would resume her—[Interruption] Order! Would the Minister like to complete her answer?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I just want to finish what I was saying. As I said there are a range of other factors that are taken into account including stability of levies for businesses including future claims that may come in the future as a result of gradual process including a range of other factors including the performance of the ACC scheme.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Having listened to the entire answer—Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of the point of order?Sue Moroney: So the point is that I specifically asked about advice from—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member was concentrating on listening rather than jumping to her feet she would have heard the answer. The question was definitely addressed in the answer. Does the member have further supplementary questions?Sue Moroney: Is she disappointed—[Interruption] Well I did not hear the answer about Crown Law specifically and she has not tabled it yet so—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a very good mind to move to the next question. I invite the member to rise ask the supplementary question and make sure it is in line with the Standing Orders otherwise we are moving on.Sue Moroney: As they all have been. Is she disappointed that the Government has failed to get to surplus by growing the economy and instead has resorted to constraining economic growth by overcharging ACC levies?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am not disappointed because I do actually believe we are going to make surplus this year. Secondly I can tell you that under our Government we have given $1.5 billion of levy reductions back. We were left with a $4.8 billion hole and we absolutely are responsible for a very good ACC scheme.Hon David Parker: Is overcharging New Zealanders for ACC by hundreds of millions each year the main reason that National’s support is collapsing in regions like Northland or is it because of other abuses of power like that of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot see any responsibility for that for this particular Minister. I will invite the member—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot see any difference in principle between this line of questioning and the line of questioning around transport that the Minister was asked earlier in question time.Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member if he has a question to ask it to the Minister for ACC in line with the Standing Orders. If he can do that then I can help him get an answer to that question.Hon David Parker: Is overcharging New Zealanders for ACC by hundreds of millions of dollars each year the main reason that support for National is collapsing in regions like Northland or is it because of—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Firstly the question makes an accusation that is completely unsubstantiated and secondly it asks the Minister a question that can only be answered by someone who is on the political stump not someone in Parliament who is accounting for a ministry.Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that is true. The Minister can answer in regard to the suggestion of overcharging but she certainly does not have any responsibility for political parties’ polling in any region in New Zealand.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?Hon David Parker: The point of order from Mr Brownlee interrupted my question.Mr SPEAKER: No. I am satisfied the question has been answered. [Interruption] Order! I am being very lenient by even allowing this member to ask this question. I am inviting the Minister to answer the question with regard to the suggestion of overcharging but she certainly has no responsibility—Hon David Parker: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet and my patience has just about failed with this member. I have been very generous to him. It is very doubtful as to whether the question he has asked is in order. I am assisting the member and I am not getting much gratitude shown by the member I am trying to assist.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you feel that you have been generous to me. I am entitled to ask a supplementary question. My question was cut off by the Minister rising to his feet—Mr SPEAKER: Order! You had moved to an area that was in danger—in fact without doubt had made the question inconsistent with the Standing Orders. I could rule it out of order. I am very tempted to do so and if the member rises to his feet again I can assure you that will be the result.Hon NIKKI KAYE: I reject the statement in the member’s question. What I would say to the member and what we have consistently said is that we take a longer-term view in terms of the accounts because you are dealing with $30 billion and $30 billion potentially around liabilities. So a $300 million shift is about 1 percent. What we have said is that we do not want a situation like Labour left us where you have a $4.8 billion hole and you take into account the December shift in discount rates which was $2 billion.