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:9132] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to have the debate about the criminal disentitlement provisions of this bill because Labour members are effectively arguing that the provisions in the law as they stand are fine and do work. But if that is the case why has there not been a single case of disentitlement in a decade? Why has there not been a single case? Those members are standing up in this Chamber and saying that the Minister is being disingenuous the Minister is being dishonest because there are provisions in the law right now that allow criminals to be disentitled. Well I simply say to them that that may be so in theory but members like me on the Government side are actually interested in what happens in practice. The current provisions do not work; the legal threshold is too high. 
Why do we know that? We know that from case law. If we take the most recent example— 
Hon David Parker 
: Nine out of 12 applications were disentitled. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: How many were there in the last decade? I tell Mr Parker that what has happened— 
Hon David Parker 
: How many have been made— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I gave Mr Parker the decency of hearing him out so perhaps he might also do the same for me if he wants to have this debate. In the most recent case where the corporation did go to court the case was thrown out and the person received lump-sum compensation. Labour members cannot argue about that. 
The second thing was that Ms Mackey argued that I was saying that anybody who was convicted of an offence with more than 2 years’ imprisonment would automatically be disentitled— 
Lynne Pillay 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says: “That’s right.” but she misses out on a key point and that is where Labour members are not saying what the proposed law says. The provision states that not only do people need to be found guilty of committing an offence with a penalty greater than 2 years but they need to be sent to prison or have home detention—both those tests. 
Hon David Parker 
: That’s what I just said. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is not what Moana Mackey said. The issue and challenge I have is when members opposite point out minor offences and say that a person will lose his or her entitlement. I challenge those members to go to the practical decisions of the court. Do we really think that the average law-abiding New Zealander—the exact example that Moana Mackey gave was of a person who was overtired crossed the centre line and was involved in a serious accident—in a court of law will be sent to prison under our current legal system? Not on your life! 
Hon David Parker 
: Sometimes yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No that is not true and Mr Parker knows better than that. The reality is that our judges are under enormous pressure. The reality is that most people who drink and drive do not go to prison on a first offence. It is only when there are multiple offences one after another and gross irresponsibility that our judges send people to prison or require them to have home detention. That is where Labour members are being quite disingenuous about these criminal disentitlement provisions. 
The last bit they are not mentioning—quite deliberately I suspect—is that there is also a provision for the Minister if he or she believes that the disentitlement is unfair to provide an exemption. The further point that Labour is not acknowledging is that there is no question on the part of members on this side of the Chamber that this is a humane society and that people should get emergency and other care funded by the accident compensation scheme. What we are saying and what I make no apologies for saying— 
Hon David Parker 
: Then why did you mention the prosthesis? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Absolutely—Mr Parker wants to raise the Graeme Burton case. I say that Graeme Burton did not get lump-sum compensation to the best of my knowledge; nor did he get income compensation. The issue there was his prosthesis. I make no apologies for the fact that this bill says that unless a medical practitioner provides that a prosthesis is essential for his day-to-day life he will not get it. Do I think that New Zealanders welcome the fact that they provided that man with a prosthesis that enabled him to go on and commit a further attempted murder? I have to say for my part that I am disgusted that my compensation scheme levies gave that man the mobility to again attempt murder. That is where we do differ. 
Hon David Parker 
: It didn’t. That happened after the murder. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am sorry? 
Hon David Parker 
: That was after the murder; the prosthesis— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No no. What David Parker is ignoring—and I challenge him to look at it—is the video of Graeme Burton in prison with that prosthesis attempting to commit another murder. Mr Parker is arguing that we need to provide Graeme Burton with that mobility so he can continue to consider those sorts of acts of thuggery. I make no apologies for saying no to Graeme Burton in that case.