Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5194] 
3.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any reports regarding potential changes to New Zealand’s ACC system? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have read recently of a policy release from the National Party—shocking though that might seem. It is a rerun of its 1990s accident compensation privatisation agenda— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am asking Ministers not to make these statements please. Just answer the question. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is a rerun of its 1990s accident compensation privatisation agenda. [ 
Interruption 
] Either it is driven by pure ideology or it is the price that the National Party has to pay for anonymous campaign funding from the insurance industry. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you going to allow the last part of the answer to that question to stand? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish I could have heard it Mr Brownlee. Would the Minister please repeat the answer but more concisely so that I can know whether it was in order. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Absolutely Madam Speaker. The accident compensation privatisation agenda is either driven by pure ideology or is the price the National Party has to pay for anonymous campaign funding from the insurance industry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister should not have made that last comment about the National Party now that I can hear the answer. [ 
Interruption 
] There has been a request for the Minister to withdraw just that last remark so would the Minister please do so. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Although inferences are not to be drawn from questions it has always been within the rights of members of this House both during question time and a debate to speculate on the reasons for parties making particular decisions. The Minister speculated that the very large donations made anonymously by the insurance companies to the National Party were a reason for that. [ 
Interruption 
] Well we are told that that was the case. Gerry Brownlee who claims he does not know what is happening in the National Party cannot deny it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind the front bench on the Opposition side of the House that most of its members would have been ordered out for intervening on a point of order. But the point of order went beyond making a point of order and into making comments. So I ask members to please observe the Standing Orders. The last part of the Minister’s question was ruled out of order. Mr Brownlee I think we will leave the matter there. It was not a personal reflection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But you asked— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please Dr Smith. The second part of the Minister’s answer was out of order because it related to a party matter. The matter should be left there. It was not a personal reflection; it strayed beyond a legitimate answer. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know how challenging this is becoming for you these days with the level of interjection and barracking. The problem that has been raised by the alternative parties—ACT United Future and New Zealand First—is how difficult we are finding it to hear answers given by Ministers. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of control there appears to be. This afternoon there have been interjections by National Party members on three points of order the last of which was when you yourself were on your feet. Rather than put your foot down firmly and demand the sort of order that Mr Brownlee was requesting earlier today you have again shown leniency and again allowed those National Party members to remain. I simply ask Madam Speaker in the interests of the alternate parties at least getting to know what is happening in this House hearing and being able to participate that some even-handedness be applied across the House and where people like Dr Lockwood Smith seek to interject on a point of order that they be ejected from the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comments. I did rule on that matter. I ask all members when they are making points of order to ensure that they are in fact points of order not speeches and that they are made concisely. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to ask about your ruling on this particular matter. It seems that you are not requiring the Minister to withdraw that comment on the basis that it was not personally directed and therefore it was difficult to take offence. It was not difficult for us to take offence in that regard because there was a degree of recklessness with the truth behind that particular statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In the interests of moving on would the Minister please withdraw and apologise for that last remark. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I withdraw and apologise Madam Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The last expression used by Gerry Brownlee has been repeatedly ruled out by Speakers and I ask that it be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please withdraw and apologise Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That puts me in a difficult position because if I had not put it to you in that way I suspect you would not have asked the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think you need to speculate on what I may or may not have done. In the interests of moving on would you please withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Has the Minister received any other reports regarding potential changes to New Zealand’s world-class accident compensation system? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I have seen a memo from the chief executive of the Insurance Council of New Zealand which refers to the National Party’s announcement last year that it intended to privatise accident compensation. It states: “The details of the policy have been deliberately kept out of the announcement after consultation with the Insurance Council.” 
Georgina Beyer 
: Has she received any reports regarding the effects of those potential changes to New Zealand’s world-class accident compensation system? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen numerous reports from New Zealand and overseas that show that our accident compensation scheme is a world leader in every respect. Many New Zealanders including private businesses would pay higher levies under a private scheme. In other words New Zealanders would end up paying for the National Party promise to repay the insurance companies for any funding donations. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister for ACC turned a blind eye to the appalling accident record of Toll Holdings Ltd because of the huge political donation it made to the Labour Party in return not only for her turning a blind eye but for the Prime Minister accepting a huge cash sum as well as providing it with cash for the railway line and very cheap access to the rail corridor? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to the Standing Order I referred you to earlier. Clearly the Prime Minister would never receive a cash donation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we will call that a marginal call and I will permit the question. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member’s question demonstrated his total ignorance of the way the Accident Compensation Corporation’s no-fault scheme operates. That is further compounded by the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Service investigates all injuries including those of Toll. I seek the leave of the House to table the memo of the Chief Executive of the Insurance Council of New Zealand Chris Ryan about the Insurance Council’s involvement with the National Party accident compensation privatisation policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] Was there objection? Perhaps members would like to be silent while these matters are being dealt with because when they are having conversations it is sometimes difficult to know whether they are objecting. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Was there any objection? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There was no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.