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:9136] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I challenge both Ruth Dyson and Maryan Street in the sense that they have decided to get quite personal in this debate on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. Let us just talk direct. During the period that Ruth Dyson and Maryan Street were Ministers for ACC the unfunded liabilities grew by $13 billion. It is all very well to wear one’s heart on one’s sleeve but the truth is that we cannot provide accident compensation security for ordinary New Zealanders if we are driving the scheme broke. That is exactly what those two Ministers did and it is a matter of public record. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister’s comments have no bearing at all on Part 1 of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I know this is a robust debate; words are flying around. We cannot call someone “chicken”. I heard that from somewhere. We will not have that sort of language. This is a robust debate. If the Minister wants to refer to some points that have been made previously that is fine but the Minister cannot concentrate his 5-minute speech on those rebuttal points. I ask him to come back to Part 1. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I used the word you refer to and I withdraw and apologise. It was inappropriate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The issue is that the member Ruth Dyson has just got to her feet and said—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. You have insisted that during the course of contributions from members I do not interject. Every time I have attempted to answer after members opposite have challenged me to get to my feet and answer their points I have been shouted down by members who have moved their seats— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will determine the level of interjections and whether they are acceptable or not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite have argued that it is inhumane for the work test in this bill to be 30 hours. They argue that it is not reasonable for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to tell somebody that if he or she can work for 30 hours a week that is a reasonable requirement. The simple question I have for Labour members is why it is OK for the test to be 30 hours for someone who is on a sickness or invalids benefit but not for someone on accident compensation. During the entire period of the previous Labour Government 30 hours was the test used by the Statistics New Zealand the Inland Revenue Department and Work and Income. Why would we have a different definition when it comes to accident compensation? 
The last point I want to cover is very sensitive and it is related to suicide. We have had those arguments. I think it is going way beyond the margins to blame people for causing suicide. It is an awful tragedy. There are far too many suicides in New Zealand. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Oh what concern! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I simply challenge Ruth Dyson that if she and members opposite really believe that the accident compensation system should cover suicide they should note that Owen Woodhouse the architect of the scheme did not include suicide in it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: They’re dead for goodness sake. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Ruth Dyson whether she with all her passion is giving an absolute commitment that a future Labour Government will put suicide back into the scheme. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: We put it into the law. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Will she put it back in? It is a simple challenge. I have been in this House a wee while and I have heard all sorts of passionate debates but the real test for Labour members as to whether they really believe that is whether they will give an unequivocal commitment they will put it back. Members can see that they are silent are they not? Is it not interesting? It shows it is all puff. I think they know and in fact I am sure the Labour spokesperson for ACC David Parker knows in his heart of hearts that it was a mistake for Labour to extend accident compensation without the funding— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Rubbish. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Ruth Dyson says it was a mistake just like it was a mistake when she extended free physiotherapy into the scheme. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Parker says that was a mistake. I am looking forward to seeing Ruth Dyson stand up in this Chamber and apologise for introducing free physiotherapy. Does Labour now accept that it was a mistake? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is the Minister’s eighth call in this Part 1 debate. He has not referred to Part 1 yet. He has made personal allegations and they have gone far of the mark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear what the member says. I will determine whether we have gone outside the scope of the debate but I ask all members to concentrate on Part 1. When we look at Part 1 there are a number of clauses on which I have yet to hear any debate. There is a lot of material here that can be debated. I ask for the debate to be concentrated on Part 1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A key part of Part 1 is the decision that suicide and self-harm is a tragedy but not an accident. It is a very simple point and it is a point on which there is a difference in the Committee. My simple challenge to members— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Tell family members that. Tell family members who have to live with the blame and the shame. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask the member Steve Chadwick where the funding was when the previous Labour Government extended the scheme to include suicide and self-harm. I searched under the desk; I searched in every corner. In fact in the first year I became Minister the accident compensation scheme made a loss of $4.8 billion. Members of the Labour Party are in denial that there is any sort of issue. The simple fact is that if expenses rise—when we extend the scheme and do not fund it—we end up in financial difficulty. Change is required; that is what Part 1 is about.