Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Do any of his Cabinet papers relating to the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill expressly advise Cabinet that the effect of the bill is to restore the right of employees to sue their employer for hearing loss of up to 6 percent; if so what is the date and title of the Cabinet paper and the paragraph number where that warning is to be found? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 No. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he think public confidence and indeed Cabinet confidence in his competence will be undermined or enhanced by his failure to advise Cabinet that the bill reverses the compensation for injury principle of accident compensation and in doing so restores the right to sue for some workplace hearing loss? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Thresholds exist in terms of hearing in the United States the UK and Australia. Also there already are thresholds for entitlements in the existing accident compensation scheme. But let me make plain to the member that it is not the intention of this Government to restore the right to sue. It is our policy to have a 24/7 no-fault scheme. The advice that I have received to date— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: You’ve broken the social contract. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Maryan Street broke the bank. Maryan Street broke the bank! 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What about the advice? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If Maryan Street had not left $2.4 billion of losses in accident compensation of course this Government would not require a bill to reform the scheme. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Bring it on Nick! Let’s have a public debate about it Nick. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Explain your losses; you left it in a mess. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Minister agree that employer costs for Australian worker compensation are already higher than New Zealand accident compensation levies for employers; if so how does he justify his major cuts to compensation for New Zealand workers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is easier to have— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No wonder he’s going to get sacked. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Speaker every time I have got to my feet to answer a question even before I have been able to answer it there has been a barrage of abuse from members opposite. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be silence because I am on my feet. I think the interjections have been a little unreasonable but I have to say that the Minister would have noticed that I allowed him to respond fairly forcefully to an interjection. It is in the House’s hands. If members interject Ministers are perfectly free to launch back into them—within reason. I do not think the Minister needs much protection. I think he is pretty capable. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There are two problems with the comparison with the Australian scheme. The first is that it is easier to have lower levies when a scheme is losing $2.4 billion last year and $4.8 billion this year— 
Hon Annette King 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Annette King says that is rubbish. If it is why did Maryan Street sign the annual report for the 2007-08 year which recorded a loss of $2.4 billion? The second point is that we need to be careful in the comparison of employer levies because in Australia motor vehicle accidents are incorporated in the employer levy whereas in New Zealand they are allocated separately to motor vehicle levies. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister received about the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill and whether it would affect the accident compensation entitlement of a person like Jan Molenaar who after going on a shooting rampage killed himself? Why was the law changed to allow such entitlements in the first place? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I noted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that Jan Molenaar’s partner got $10000 for his— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I say to the Labour front bench—on this occasion it was the Labour front bench—that I simply cannot hear the Minister’s answer. Those members may have their views about the question but we must be able to hear the answer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I noted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that Jan Molenaar’s partner got $10000 in compensation from the Accident Compensation Corporation. Although I have sympathy for any person who loses a loved one the injustice is that every day many law-abiding New Zealanders die of cancer heart disease and other illnesses but their families get nothing. This entitlement extension arose from changes made by the Labour Government in 2008 but that Government made no provision to budget for it; it made no provision to increase the levies to fund those extensions of entitlements. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is it not time for the Minister to admit major mistakes in how he has dealt with both his accident compensation and emissions trading scheme responsibilities or will he try to brush off New Zealanders’ being stopped from getting a hearing aid and the money being given to lawyers instead as inconsequential as he has tried to do with his emissions trading scheme fiasco? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that in states of Australia—where I note there are Labor administrations—there is a threshold for entitlements to hearing aids. I note that is also the case in the UK where there is a Labour Government. It is for the select committee to carefully consider submissions. Talking about mistakes I am yet to hear an apology from Maryan Street or Labour for its leaving huge losses and for breaching the Public Finance Act in not disclosing the extent to which accident compensation was in financial difficulty.