Smith Nick: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Accident Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9268] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill comes down to something very simple: what scale of increases in levies can New Zealanders afford? This bill halves the scale of the increases in accident compensation levies that would be required of motorists workers and businesses. The most extraordinary part of the Committee stage debate on this bill was that there were over 100 contributions from members of the Opposition but not once did they mention the issue of levies for ordinary New Zealanders for motorists and for businesses. 
I ask a simple question. Can New Zealanders afford an extra $74 per car for their car registration? I say to people who do not support this bill that that is the scale of increase required under the existing Act for the motor vehicle account. Can New Zealanders right now afford an additional $300 a year in terms of the earners levy for a person on the average wage? Members on this side of the House say no they cannot. Members on the opposite side of the House want to impose that additional cost on to the normal house owner. 
The third question I ask—because I hear so many speeches about jobs today—is whether the businesses of New Zealand can afford a 25 percent increase in their accident compensation levies on 1 April. Members on this side of the House say no they cannot. Members on the opposite side of the House seem ignorant of the sorts of pressure that businesses are under and the sorts of costs that would be imposed on them if we did not proceed with this amendment bill. 
You see members opposite are in a state of denial. It is a statement of fact that Maryan Street the previous Minister for ACC signed off on a $2.4 billion loss in the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in June 2008. But it is worse than that. After declaring a $2.4 billion loss in a cynical political exercise members opposite then extended the accident compensation scheme in an additional dozen areas without providing any funding. That is what members opposite did and despite repeated challenges from National members to provide some explanation for that reckless and irresponsible act we have not heard a single member respond to that challenge. 
The reality is—and no member opposite has denied these facts—that the cost of accident compensation claims over the last 4 years has increased by $1.3 billion or 57 percent. The cynical part of the Opposition members is that they get on the steps of Parliament and they protest against increases in accident compensation levies. They also participate in protests against reductions in entitlement. Well the twain do not meet. Those members cannot have it both ways unless they are financially illiterate. 
Green Party members have promoted a view that the accident compensation scheme should change to a “pay as you go” basis. That would be fair. That argument is a credible argument and I will be happy to have the debate about that. But where Labour members are all over the paddock is that in one breath they use figures for a “pay as you go” basis but in the next breath they say they want to have a fully funded scheme and despite repeated challenges as to whether Labour policy is for a fully funded scheme or a “pay as you go” scheme they will not answer. They do not know. Frankly if they cannot answer such fundamental questions about our accident compensation scheme they are unfit to be the Opposition let alone the Government. 
Let me go through the key changes that we are making in this bill. The first thing is to push out the full funding date from 2014 to 2019. That provision will reduce the volatility in levies and take the pressure off levy payers. Members on this side of the House simply ask whether we should push the full funding date out to 2019. We say yes; they say no. 
During the Committee stage I made a change to the title of the principal Act—that is I called it what I think common-sense New Zealanders would call it: the Accident Compensation Act. In an exercise in political correctness that speaks volumes about the previous administration after 28 years of the principal Act being called the Accident Compensation Act members opposite wanted to call the Act the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. They believed that changing the name of the Act would somehow deal with the important issues of injury prevention and rehabilitation. 
The irony is that after changing the name of the Act in each and every year rehabilitation rates got worse and injury prevention actually did not work because injury rates continued to increase. I make no apologies for saying we should forget political correctness and call the Act what common-sense New Zealanders would call it—the Accident Compensation Act. However I wish to make plain to the House just as I did when I launched the programme of injury prevention in homes that injury prevention is an important area of focus. 
One of the areas in which the differences between the Government and the Opposition are so clear is in the area of criminal disentitlement. Members on this side of the House say that the accident compensation scheme is not for the purpose of providing compensation for those who commit crimes. In the debate I had with Mr Parker about Mr Graeme Burton Mr Parker vigorously argued that Burton should as a matter of basic human rights receive support from ACC. Members on this side of the House have no sympathy for Graeme Burton and make no apologies for the changes in this bill that disentitle criminals from accident compensation when they are committing offences. 
I come now to other provisions in the bill and I want to make a point in respect of holiday pay. Members on this side of the House say that people should not be able to be better off by drawing both holiday pay and ACC income compensation at the same time. Do we live in such a generous nation? Are we so well off that people should be better off after having an accident than when they were working? Members on this side of the House say no; members on that side of the House say yes. 
That is equally so with the provisions in respect of seasonal work. On this side of the House we say it is wrong that Labour changed the law in late 2008 particularly after declaring a loss of $2.4 billion and said that seasonal workers will under Labour’s amendments end up better off in the long term on income compensation than they would be if they were working. What sort of signal do we send to people when we say they are better off on accident compensation than they would be if they were working? That is not a signal that members of the Government want to send New Zealanders. That is why we are making that change to the law. 
There has been the sensitive issue of self-inflicted injuries and suicide. I remind the House that Owen Woodhouse said that that was not appropriate to be included in the scheme. Again that was a provision that was introduced at the last moment by the previous Government. A simple common-sense policy was made by this side of the House. Suicide is a tragedy but it is not an accident. 
In conclusion I say that this bill is about being fair to levy payers and accident victims. It is about securing an affordable 24/7 accident compensation system for New Zealand. It is the sort of reform that sadly this Government needed to do because of the poor way in which the previous Government managed the scheme. This bill deserves the support of the House. 
Debate interrupted.