Urgent Debates Declined — Skycity Convention Centre—Inquiry into Expressions of Interest Process; Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Resignations 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — Skycity Convention Centre—Inquiry into Expressions of Interest Process; Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Resignations 
[Sitting date: 13 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2905. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Skycity Convention Centre—Inquiry into Expressions of Interest Process 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Metiria Turei seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the implications for current negotiations with Skycity over its bid to build a convention centre in Auckland given the Auditor-General’s decision today to inquire into the expressions of interest process for the building of the convention centre. There is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the Auditor-General to inquire into the expressions of interest process. For there to be a case of recent occurrence there must be either a new situation of importance or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance to warrant the business of the House being set aside. The setting up of an inquiry rarely justifies such an urgent debate. The urgent debate procedure is a means of holding the Government to account for matters that have actually occurred. The time for such a debate may be when the Government announces its response if any to the Auditor-General’s inquiry. The application is therefore declined. 
Urgent Debates 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Resignations 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the resignation of the chair of the board of ACC and the resignations of the chief executive the deputy chair of the board and a board director. This is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I accept that it does require immediate attention of the House. I therefore call on Mr Little to move that the House take note of the matter of urgent public importance.  
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. The Accident Compensation Corporation is in the deepest crisis it has been in during its 38 years of existence. It is an absolute disgrace and it is entirely the responsibility of that Government. Two Ministers for ACC have driven the proudest greatest most important institution in this country into the ground. Nick Smith started it when he declared that there was a financial crisis which never existed. He has caused every wage and salary earner and every business in this country to be levied more than $5 billion more than was necessary over the last 3 years to pay for his folly. The Government is so embarrassed about it. It put the levies up in 2009 and had to quickly take them down again just before the election last year.  
But nothing compares to the disaster that has unfolded under the current Minister. What do we have? Breach of privacy after breach of privacy. The Government’s problem was that it got one of its own wrong. It misjudged her. It misjudged Bronwyn Pullar a person whom Nick Smith gave a great reference which caused him to lose his head and it misjudged Michelle Boag—the mighty Michelle Boag. The Government has caused distress and concern to thousands of New Zealanders injured in the course of going about their daily activities whether in work at home on the roads or on the sports fields. They are the people with complex difficult serious injuries who are trying to get support and assistance from ACC. Because of Nick Smith and the directive he has given the board of ACC and because John Judge—whom he specially recruited into the job—gave ACC a directive to cut back cut costs slash and not worry about the difficult cases but get them off ACC’s books as quickly as possible we now have the disaster that is unfolding that is ACC.  
As it has hit the headlines through innocent people like Bronwyn Pullar this Minister has been called on to act and what has she done? What has she done? Very little—very little. She has become the subject of a privacy complaint herself—she and her office—because she cannot be trusted with information that goes to her office and because of that complaint she will not comment on privacy breaches involving the communication between her and Michelle Boag. Then when the heat gets really tough she starts suing her political opponents because that is the best way she knows to shut them down. This is not a Minister for ACC worth speaking of. This is not ministerial conduct that we understand in a Western democracy. This is shocking stuff. If you asked anybody else in the world whether there is a country where a Minister of Justice who is in charge of the courts is using those courts to sue her political opponents you would think we would be talking about somewhere in Africa or maybe a Pacific Island. But we are talking about New Zealand because that is how this Minister deals with a difficult situation.  
The challenge for this Government and its Prime Minister is this: ACC and every claimant under it deserves better. They deserve better. They deserve a Minister who is prepared to give their full-time energy and attention to the job not to suing their political opponents and not to trying to dis the innocent claimants who are just trying to get their just entitlements. We need a Minister who is prepared to do the job of looking after ACC of making ACC the sort of institution that New Zealanders can go back to looking to for support and assistance in their time of need. That is what it was set up for under the Woodhouse principles—the principle of community responsibility. National has turned it into a corporate behemoth. Nick Smith started it Judith Collins has continued it and it is time to have a new Minister who can start afresh give new directions to a new board and start to restore public faith and confidence in ACC.  
National started an ideological change to ACC. ACC was conceived in a spirit of bipartisanship. All parties supported it in 1973 and 1974 when it came about and its board has always reflected a diverse mix. What we have had under this Government is a very narrow range of people who have all come out of the corporate sector and who do not understand the lives of many claimants—those who have brain injuries and complex and serious injuries. We need a new ACC board but most important we need a new ACC Minister who is prepared to give fresh direction and fresh support to a corporation that will start to support and assist New Zealanders when they need it most. What we do not need is a corporation directed by a Government that wants to hike up the levies fleece the wage and salary earners fleece all the businesses extract $5 billion unnecessarily out of their pockets over the last 3 years and cause absolute mayhem. That is what we have now.  
It is sad that someone like Ralph Stewart barely 6 months into the job who brings all his expertise that he brought into the job cannot last cannot stand this Minister and cannot stand what is going on. It is sad that other members of the board who were just starting to make their contributions cannot stand what this Government is doing. It is a disgraceful Government. It has given disgraceful direction to an important institution in this country and it is time it came to an end. Well it is coming to an end because it is unravelling very quickly. They are all leaving like rats leaving the proverbial sinking ship.  
But it all starts at the top and the real top—the real top—is the Minister. The Minister sets the direction. This Government says what happens with ACC. It sets the policy it approves the levies and it decides what happens. We need a Minister now who is focused on the needs of ACC and the people who depend upon it the people who come to it when they are injured at work the people who come to it when they are injured in their cars on the roads and on the sports field. These people should not have to go through hoops and should not have to be treated as something to be managed off a difficult list or a long-term list. People are entitled to be treated with dignity and all around the country I doubt whether there is one MP who is not getting emails and correspondence from the people who have been hurt by ACC under this Government and who have been hurt by its tawdry nasty filthy little strategy of trying to fleece people and get people to lose their entitlements. People deserve better they are asking for better and now is the time to get better.  
The challenge to the Government is this: a new Minister a new direction a new policy and a new culture that says we are here to support people in their time of difficulty and need. Yes let us examine the claims as they come in but let us support people at the time when they need it most. Let us make sure that ACC’s money is not being spent on public relations companies and polling because that is all this Government knows how to do. When it gets in a scrape it goes to the pollsters to find out what is going on. Let us have a corporation an Accident Compensation Corporation that spends its money on the people. That is what the Act says it is required to do: levy people and spend money on their compensation and their medical care and treatment. That is what it is there for. It is not there as a plaything for National Government Ministers to play their ideological games and suffer their ideological bent. [ 
Interruption 
] There is “Mr $5 Billion”—that is his contribution to New Zealand’s economic development in the last 3 years. He fleeced New Zealand of $5 billion over-levied them and in a pique of embarrassment just before the election he realised he had overshot and had to reduce the levies. He has fleeced New Zealanders.  
It is no wonder that ACC is in the state it is. Why would you if you were on the board of ACC and why would you if you were a senior staff member of ACC look to this Government for a sense of confidence direction integrity and reliability? It cannot offer it. It has not offered it for the last 3½ years. It cannot offer it now. This is an opportunity for one of the bright young stars on the backbench of the National Government. Maybe even Simon Bridges himself could step up and say that he takes ACC seriously—that he takes ACC seriously and he wants ACC to return to the time when it was an institution that every New Zealander looked to an institution to rely on to trust and to go to when they were in their time of need as a result of an injury caused by an accident.  
This Government is failing ACC. Every plan that it has had that it called an improvement it has failed to prosecute. It invited the insurance companies to take over but the insurance companies were not interested. It wanted to expand its accredited employer scheme but it cannot do it. It has not done it. This is a do-nothing Minister with a department a corporation that is in urgent need of attention. She has wrapped herself up in legal knots with privacy complaints and with her own litigation against her political opponents and she has compromised herself. She is unable to do anything effectively as a Minister. She should do the honourable thing. She should go to John Key this afternoon and say: “You know what Prime Minister? Andrew Little is right. I can’t do the job any more”— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: You were quite happy to quote how right I was before! She should say that Andrew Little is right and say: “Prime Minister find somebody else who’s up for the job.” It will not be Nick Smith and it will not be Judith Collins. It will not be Steven Joyce because he has got another big ministry to run. But it might be one of the talented ones at the back there. It might be one of the talented ones at the back there who actually believes in accident compensation who believes that when New Zealanders are injured at work on the roads or on the sports fields they are entitled to get the no-fault support that ACC guaranteed them year after year. That is what we are looking for in a Minister: not the last two—not this one and the last one—but a Minister who cares about ACC cares about the people who depend upon it and wants to make a culture difference in it which so far they have not been able to do.  
While they are at it making the culture difference they can start looking to some of the worst victims of the changes in ACC—those who are victims of sexual abuse who have had their counselling support taken off them snatched off them in many cases when they need it most and the ones who have had their privacy breached and their details disclosed. All that the Government can do is stand aside and let the Privacy Commissioner sort it out. The Government knows that that is wrong. It knows that those people are owed an apology but it knows above all that they are owed the support that they were entitled to get as victims of sexual abuse. That is another culture change that the Government can make when it gets a new Minister a real Minister for ACC who cares about ACC and the people who depend upon it and who will do something about it.  
The Government can also make sure that when people need their hernia operations and when older workers turn up with their back injuries and their other orthopaedic concerns they are not going to be told that it is the ageing process but that they are genuine injuries and they are entitled to the support of ACC. It can make sure that they are not going to be kicked around like a football and kicked off a list to suit a Minister’s fantasyland targets but that they are actually going to get the treatment that they deserve. This is the ACC that has been the backbone of a good safe healthy New Zealand for the last 38 years and we want it back. We want it back—we want it back.  
I am saying to that Government and to those Ministers in whatever portfolio on behalf of the thousands of New Zealanders who are writing to me contacting me and saying they have been done over by ACC and they cannot get treated with dignity and respect by ACC—I am saying this to you on behalf of them—that now is your chance to make a change. Now is your chance to do something decent for good hard-working New Zealanders who look to nothing else but the support and the assistance of ACC when they need it. Now is the time to make a change.  
Even Paula Bennett could do something. She could ditch her other portfolio because she is making a hash of that. Young unemployment—there are tens of thousands of young workers who are out of work because she cannot get off her chuff and do anything about it. Maybe she could do something decent with ACC—maybe she could do something decent with ACC. But do not give it to Nick Smith “Mr $5 Billion” and do not give it to Judith Collins who has wrapped herself up and cannot do anything any more. Give it to someone—even Jonathan Young. He has got a smile on his face because he thinks he is in line for a promotion. Even Jonathan Young would do a better job. At least that man of the cloth has got a sense of compassion. Put him in charge because he will do a better job than the current Minister and the last Minister. That is what New Zealanders are looking for that is what they need and that is what they are entitled to have.  
ACC is too important. ACC is too important to let this lot muck around with it and stuff it up. They have gone far enough—they have gone far enough. Their board has told them that their senior management has told them that and now is the time for a change. Start afresh. Start afresh with a new Minister a new culture and a new instruction and give us back the good old ACC that cared about people that looked after people and that gave them the care they needed when they needed it. That is what we are looking for.  
We have come to the end of the road now Minister. The Minister knows we are at the end of the road. She has prevaricated obstructed and avoided as long as she can. She cannot avoid it any more. Her board has deserted her. The senior management is deserting her. It is time she went and it is time the Prime Minister took action put somebody else in charge gave us a decent ACC and gave those thousands of people who have been writing to us in their droves in the last 3 months a chance. It is time to give them hope and to give them a chance to get the care and support they need which ACC was set up for. We do not need surpluses of $3.5 billion; we need a robust sensible organisation that can do the job focus on people and look after people above all—above all. If we are to give those people hope and the treatment and the care they need it will happen only when we have a decent Minister: a Minister who understands accident compensation understands the original social contract understands no-fault and understands that people need help when they are most in distress.  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Mr Speaker have you called me? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes I have. I have called the member. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I could not hear for the noise. Because of the applause I am sorry Mr Speaker I could not hear. That member who has just resumed his seat Andrew Little has called for hope. I have got hope for him. David Shearer is safe. David Shearer is very safe now. I saw today that Mr Little has been undermining Mr Shearer at every chance he can get particularly over superannuation. At the end of the day what we have got here is a member and David Shearer’s deputy who do not want to listen because they are too busy trying to undermine their leader.  
What we have had is a situation where Mr Judge resigned yesterday as at 30 June and I have thanked him for the excellent work he did.  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Ha ha! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: He took over a financial mess in ACC. The former Minister for ACC the Hon Ruth Dyson might well laugh. She was not laughing that hard when she had to resign as Minister for ACC because she was caught drink-driving. If we are going to talk about dirt let us go down there.  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: “So what?” she says.  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: She said “So what?” did she? Well they do not mind attacking my colleague so let them have a little back.  
In fact as for Mr Little I am going to correct something he said in the House today. I am actually getting a little tired of having to correct him on what he says. He said for instance that my office and I were being investigated by the Privacy Commissioner. No Mr Little; I refer you again to the terms of reference. I know that Mr Little may not like getting the facts in front of a story but actually maybe he should. He is supposed to be a lawyer I understand.  
Hon Members 
: No! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is hard to believe. But anyway Mr Judge took over as did my colleague the Hon Nick Smith a situation in ACC where there was a financial mess—a complete mess— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Shame on Labour. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —and shame on Labour for allowing that to happen. Mr Judge and the Hon Nick Smith had to set about trying to make sure they could bring the corporation back into financial health and they have done so. However what we now have is a situation where it is time for a change in culture in ACC. I think Mr Judge and the Hon Nick Smith have done a fantastic job of getting financial strength and health in the organisation but I want to have a situation where ACC has a culture whereby its staff look at their claimants and they ask themselves: “How would I like to be treated? How would I like my information to be treated?” or even more so: “How would I like my mother’s information to be treated?”. I would like ACC to have that culture.  
I have been around to nine different ACC offices in the last 3 months talking to the staff there. I have to say they have been great. They have been absolutely uniformly supportive in wanting to bring about changes. They have said to me that they accept that they need to improve their performance around privacy and that they need to improve their performance around how they speak about their claimants and about what they actually do. They are extremely committed to getting people back to independence—absolutely committed to getting people back to independence.  
I know that the Labour Party does not like people getting back to independence. We have seen it with the attacks its members have made on my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett and on the excellent work she is doing in welfare. For most people getting back into work will not only help them physically but also help them mentally. That might be something Labour members should think about. Work is good; it is not a punishment. It is part of life and it makes people feel worthwhile and like they are contributing. It is actually very good not only for finances but also for health.  
ACC staff all around the country do not like the fact that Andrew Little day in day out bags them. Day in day out he attacks them for doing the job they are supposed to do. They have been doing a fantastic job of dealing with the 1.6 million claims they get every year. Of course they are going to make errors on occasion—very few errors. I have said to them that they need to put their hand up straight away but they must consider the professionalism that is expected around people’s— 
Andrew Little 
: Why is ACC losing more reviews? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: What is that Mr Little? 
Andrew Little 
: Why is ACC losing more reviews? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh I see. Mr Little wants ACC to not lose reviews. In other words Mr Little wants ACC to have to pay out on every single claim even when it is not legitimate so that ACC would have zero tolerance to any errors.  
The reason we have got reviews is so that ACC’s decisions can be considered. My colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith actually set up Dispute Resolution Services and got it going. It is an excellent thing for him to be able to set up as an independent agency away from ACC so that it could have independence. Frankly do I hear anything from the Opposition saying that that is a good thing? No. But I think it is. I think it actually gives ACC claimants some independence as to where they can go.  
Of course Dispute Resolution Services overturns some of ACC’s claims and that shows its independence actually. If Dispute Resolution Services agreed with everything that ACC did then it would not be independent. If it agreed with everything that ACC did then either ACC is agreeing to things it should not be agreeing to and giving entitlements that are not there or Dispute Resolution Services might be considered to be a puppet of ACC and that would not be acceptable either. Of course we need to change some of the culture around ACC and I am absolutely dedicated towards that.  
I would like to thank Kevin Hague today from the Green Party for the very nice comments he made about me in the media. I think Kevin Hague does generally play the ball and not the person. I would say that about the Greens—unlike some we can mention but we will not bother to mention them. Even though Kevin Hague and I are not going to agree on many things I respect people in this House who actually get on and say what it is.  
Just to give a little bit of context to this I point out that ACC had 1.675 million claims in the last year. How many calls is that received weekly? It is 24385 inbound calls received weekly—24385 total inbound calls received weekly. That gives us an idea of the scale of what ACC is dealing with. It is dealing with people who have been rarked up by people on the other side of the House to think there are entitlements that are not there. That is one of the problems that ACC got itself into in the 2000s under the Labour Government. The policy paradigms were all changed so that it was basically: “Get rid of anything where there might be somebody who is unhappy with the decision.” Obviously we want the right decisions. Sometimes those decisions are not going to be met with universal approval but ACC has got to be able to make those tough decisions.  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: It’s not a lolly scramble. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is not a lolly scramble. It is actually a very serious business because it is other people’s money—levy payers and taxpayers—for those who are in the non-work area. The fact is that it has got to be sensible. On the other hand let us look at it this way. A wee while ago I was in one of the branches talking to its staff. One of the investigators said to me that they had found a person who was supposed to be at home prone on his back and unable to do anything—completely paralysed—on a social networking site showing him surfing in Bali.  
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Awkward. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is just a teeny bit awkward. That was an extreme. Frankly it is a bit difficult for ACC staff when they are dealing with people when occasionally there is the odd person who is surfing in Bali when they are supposed to be prone on their back at home and unable to work.  
In the meantime ACC has got to actually get on and deal with the vast majority of the 1.675 million claims it had last year from legitimate claimants who have to have their matters dealt with. I can also tell the House that almost every week I get letters from people who are very happy with the way they have been treated by ACC. I get reports from people who have written into their case managers thanking them for the excellent service that they have been given. Actually these 1.65 million New Zealanders the vast majority of whom are very happy with the work that ACC does do not like it when they hear their case managers being pilloried by the Opposition. They want to know that their case managers who are helping to bring them into independence are actually being appreciated not bagged just for helping them to get back to work.  
I also remember just recently going to an Accredited Employers Programme forum. I guess I saw the attitude of some of the unionists or ex-unionists in the Labour Party because I was at this accredited employers forum with trade unionists and employers and obviously with ACC staff. It was a really constructive forum until I got asked questions from some of the unionists. They went something like this: “I hear that accredited employers are forcing people to go back to work on half-time when they’re not ready to do full time.” I thought: “So where’s the problem there?” and I was told: “Oh well you know they’re being punished—to go back to work.” So I said: “I’m sorry to tell you but in my opinion work is not a punishment. It is in fact a fabulous thing that helps people get back to wellness.” But anyway apparently it is a punishment.  
Then I got this other one. It gives you the commitment of some of those trade unionists to health and safety in the workplace! How is this one? This is really good! “Some employers are apparently drug-testing employees without the union approving it.” 
Hon Members 
: What? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh no! Fancy that!  
Hon Members 
: No! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No! It is true; that is what he said. The industry by the way—because you will want to know—involves driving great big cranes with great big containers. So what do you think? Do you think they could be drug tested? I thought that was pretty sensible. So I said: “Actually ACC is really interested in keeping down accidents in the workplace. This is one of our big areas where we need to do even better. And actually frankly I think an employer has to take a responsible line. Do you think it is OK for other employees to have to work in a situation where they have got a drunk or drugged person driving a great big crane with a big containers stuck to it?”. The fact is no.  
In essence and in conclusion ACC has been doing an excellent job around this particular area of getting claimants dealt with. However I am still not happy with the privacy protocols. I am still not happy that the culture of the organisation has not gone as far as I would like. I am looking forward—when the new board is in place and the new chief executive appointed—to seeing further progress along the way. There has been great progress this year. There was fantastic progress in the 3 years before. There is still a wee way to go but I am very confident that it will get there.  
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I want to begin by referencing that great New Zealander Sir Owen Woodhouse and the amazing piece of work that he did in the 1960s and early 1970s on behalf of New Zealanders in which he persuaded New Zealanders in fact to engage in a great social contract. It was a social contract where we gave away our right to sue—and thus gave away the expensive inefficient and haphazard basis of the harum-scarum of legal process as a means of trying to achieve redress in accident compensation—in exchange for our accident compensation scheme. It is a scheme based on principles of community responsibility comprehensive entitlement complete rehabilitation real compensation and administrative efficiency. That is the social contract that was engaged in between the State and New Zealanders.  
I mention those principles not as a point of mere historical interest but because in fact that social contract still exists and New Zealanders expect rightfully that it will be honoured by the State in the form of the accident compensation scheme. This is not just some theoretical construct because indeed the Accident Compensation Act that implements the Accident Compensation Corporation lists the purpose of the Act. I will give just the first part of it. The purpose of ACC “is to enhance the public good and reinforce the social contract represented by the first accident compensation scheme …”. The Woodhouse principles are not some historical curiosity. They are indeed part of the current accident compensation scheme and they deserve to be honoured.  
ACC over its history since that time has been through phases of good and bad. I have to say sadly that in recent years it has mostly been bad. We have seen progressive erosion of entitlements so that the comprehensive entitlement that was set out in its social contract has been eroded. We have seen the unfortunate experiment of competition in the work account—and thankfully its reversal. We have seen the introduction of future funding and that is something that the Green Party still opposes. Future funding is funding ACC as if it were an insurance company. It is not. It is a public service and it is a service that ought to be funded in the same way as every other public service on a pay-as-you-go basis.  
The problem with funding it as if it were a private insurance company is that that sets up some of the same drivers that a private insurance company might have. That is how the Hon Dr Nick Smith as the previous Minister and his guy John Judge in 2009 made the extraordinary claims about what a financial mess ACC was—the whole technical insolvent claim about an organisation that at that time had something like $15 billion in reserves— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: And $25 million of obligations. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: —and an operating surplus of $3.5 billion. They did so on the basis—that Michael Woodhouse is just explaining—of accounting sophistry associated with that future-funding model. But actually for most New Zealanders an organisation that had that level of reserves and investments is not something that is in a disastrous financial state. A return to pay as you go would enable the organisation to greatly reduce those reserves use them for some other meritorious purpose and also reduce levies. That sounds like a good idea to me.  
But in 2009 National—which prior to the 2008 election had been working with the Australian insurance industry on plans for privatisation in accident compensation—brought in the changes that it wanted to do to implement that agenda. That is what this sick culture of disentitlement that I have been talking about actually arises from. Under instructions from Dr Smith and the governance of John Judge the organisation redeveloped its service delivery model away from the Woodhouse principles and away from the purpose in the very Act that it was supposed to work under and instead implemented a series of steps to try to establish that privatisation agenda.  
That is nowhere better illustrated than in the documents that I tabled in the House yesterday from ACC staffers Phil Riley and Denise Cosgrove. They talk about how the organisation had been too focused on client needs; about how it needed to learn from the insurance industry and take on terms like “actuarial release”. What “actuarial release” refers to is the practice of the insurance industry of looking at the claims that cost the most and targeting those for exit. That is what ACC set out to do. That was very neatly illustrated in the  
60 Minutes 
 programme on Sunday in the graph that demonstrated how people with long-term injuries who needed their earnings-related compensation were very aggressively dumped from the accident compensation scheme. Phrases like “low-hanging fruit” used by Riley and Cosgrove to refer to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member must use the full names— 
Grant Robertson 
: No it’s not a member. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It’s not a member of Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Sorry my correction. The member will continue.  
KEVIN HAGUE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Indeed they are not members of Parliament and hopefully they never will be. They were using a term like “low-hanging fruit” to refer to those people with long-term injuries whom they were attempting to remove from ACC’s books. That is where these practices come from: this targeting of people with these injuries; the shonky assessments which all members of Parliament will be aware of from correspondence from constituents; these extraordinary breaches of privacy not just once not just twice but again and again and again; and the culture of denial of claims and disentitlement. 
I agree with the comment made by Michelle Boag in that  
60 Minutes 
 programme where she said that the default assumption of ACC has become that the people who are making claims are fraudsters. That has become the default. Although it is true that of course there will always be people who are attempting to rip off the system by and large that is not what people are doing. The scheme should go back to its original Woodhouse principles.  
The Bronwyn Pullar case that we saw illustrated vividly on  
60 Minutes 
 is far from unique and again all members will be aware of it. The only thing that distinguishes that case was that in Bronwyn Pullar we had someone with the personal tenacity resourcefulness and connections to keep on fighting. Because she did that the techniques that ACC has typically used to keep on saying no and keep on denying until people give up actually failed and have been exposed. That is the only reason. ACC is used to getting away with it.  
It is a great institution ACC. It is a great institution that does have a proud history and still—as the Minister for ACC the Hon Judith Collins said—has some good people in it but it is on the wrong path. It has been since 2009. We need to return it to the Woodhouse principles. We need to return it to a culture of good public service and the departure of Nick Smith as Minister the departure of John Judge as chairman and today’s departure of Ralph Stewart as chief executive are necessary steps but insufficient for the purpose.  
I take some heart from the Minister’s commitment to a culture change and an understanding of the total need for an overhaul of those privacy management processes. We will be alongside the Government and giving her some suggestions about the agenda to achieve that. That total culture change is precisely where we need to go and we need to go there now. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There are some people in this House who seem to think that Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag are heroes in this matter. I want to remind them that those are the very people from the National Party who began this attack on ACC’s re-visioning under Nick Smith and backed him all the way until one sad day it affected them. Then they wanted to be different from all the rest of the people around New Zealand who were suffering massive cutbacks of physiotherapist services all around the country. All those other people were on the outside because of the policy that they in the National Party promoted and all of a sudden one of their own got caught by their own policies—and some people are trying to forgive them and paint them as heroes.  
What is happening with the National Party and ACC? You see Bronwyn Pullar was a National Party campaign organiser. Michelle Boag is a former National Party president. Despite the fact that she had been convicted of trying to pervert the course of justice at a commission of inquiry by this country’s leading judge she still went on to be promoted to being the president of the National Party. This is extraordinary. Then you have got Nick Smith the MP who was a Minister in the National Government. Collins is a National Government Minister and of course there was Wayne Mapp who used his influence as a Minister to push for Bronwyn Pullar’s case before an insurance company to extract millions from it.  
Now what are the coincidences of this here? It is no coincidence at all that the involvement of these people and the National Party officers with ACC is as though it is some private little fiefdom for themselves. The National Party is using ACC as some sort of private agency. Nick Smith was acting for Bronwyn Pullar against his own department. Then you have got the repatriation of Nick Smith by National as we speak. That is why he is being given all this speaking time and why he has been allowed to ask all these questions. It is because National intends to bring him back even though he was found out to be a totally inappropriate Minister at the time. We all know that. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh no no we are not going to have two standards here for the case of Simon Bridges. No sirree!  
I want to ask Simon Bridges whether you have read this article. Have you read this article today in the  
New Zealand Herald 
? It sets out the words and the writing from one Michelle Boag the former National Party president. You see she is trying to appear as pure as the driven snow but I want to know from Simon Bridges who claims to be a lawyer and a prosecuting lawyer at that—we know that the prosecuting licence is held by the firm and not the private individual although Simon told us otherwise did he not? Back to my point. Michelle Boag writes: “You will see in the correspondence attached to the email I am forwarding that while Mr Murch asked for the return of data he did not acknowledge that this would be contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties which was our understanding.” Mr Bridges does that sound to you like extortion? Because it does to me. It does to me.  
Look just last month Justice Young revealed that ACC had to take legal steps to prevent a man publicly releasing another person’s case notes which the corporation had sent him in error. So there is a court case in the High Court stopping a man doing exactly what these people were threatening to do as part of their resolution plan. That is corruption. That is extortion. The Minister involved in that one is no longer involved here but he knows what I am talking about. Even though it was happening right under his nose he pretends that he somehow was innocent. No he is not and I want to know from the present Minister for ACC what on earth she is doing not going for these people: Bronwyn Pullar and this woman Michelle Boag. Or is it because if you are in the National Party you can do any old thing?  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the police do? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What did the police do? I am asking Mr Nick Smith the former Minister. Does this not sound like extortion to him? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I think it’s for the police to decide. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no excuse me. It is not for the police to decide. It is not for the police to decide; I am asking that member over there. When you write these sorts of words: “You will see in the correspondence attached to the email I am forwarding that while Mr Murch asked for the return of data”—which he was entitled to ask for. He was entitled to have it given to him before the meeting even started. If there was any good faith here any bona fides here or any sort of fair play they would have handed those 6000-plus files back before the meeting. But oh no they did not. This is what she said: “… asked for the return of the data he did not acknowledge that this would be contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties which was our understanding.” I do not give a darn about what TV3 ran the other night. What I am interested in is what you think those words mean. “We are not going to give back the documents until our case for Bronwyn Pullar is satisfied to our satisfaction.” That is what is being said. There is a word for that. It is called extortion—standover tactics. It is just wrong.  
I want to ask Mr Smith and Judith Collins what they are doing about it. Why is the National Party so silent over there right now?  
Andrew Williams 
: They protect their mates. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no. Those members are looking downwards now because they are protecting their mates. It stinks. There is an acrid stench arising out of this House and it is clear as daylight that it is unacceptable. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Well tell Andrew Williams to leave. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I beg your pardon? 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Tell Andrew Williams to leave. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no no. Mr Williams understands what justice is about. Mr Williams understands that justice is universal. He understands that these principles of justice and democracy are immutable to all people not just to the National Party.  
What we have got here is a cover-up—a total cover-up. There is their former darling head of the party caught red-handed seeking to extort money out of the Crown and what does the Minister do? Oh well she does not want to say anything because that might be an administrative issue. That might be an administrative issue. Meanwhile Mr Smith over there is defending it—defending it.  
Where is the accountability now? What was the role of a board member in setting up a meeting between two senior ACC managers and Michelle Boag and Bronwyn Pullar? What is going on here? Why has the Prime Minister ruled out an independent inquiry? Why has he ruled it out? Do you know why? Because all his friends get nailed if there is an inquiry. Hence no inquiry. And is it not convenient that the chairman John Judge and two of his senior colleagues have been let go—“Don’t come Monday.”? Dead men of course tell tales. It is time to lift the lid on the whole affair. It is time for the National Party to stop protecting its mates.  
It was rightly pointed out by previous speakers that this was a portfolio taken over by the Hon Nick Smith who can be a right “loony tunes” ideologue when he wants to be. He can be a right off-the-wall “loony tunes” ideologue when he wants to be. I will give you an example. He gets the job and the first deceit he runs deceit No. 1 is he says that the whole place is broke—that the whole place is broke. He says if it was an insurance company it would go bust. Well it is not an insurance company. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Yes it is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It was never an insurance company. Read the Woodhouse report. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I have. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no you have not. I will give you a bit of advice. Go and see Justice Thomas QC. Justice Thomas’ serious defence of ACC is on that very basis. With respect I saw that member playing rugby on Saturday. Somebody must have hit his head too hard because he does not remember the facts. The facts are these. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme and the question has always been about the tail. What Mr Nick Smith sought to do was first of all cry havoc and let loose the dogs of increased prices. And that is what he did. The second deceit of course was that he booted up the levies. Then of course the whole thing got somewhat upset when it was found that they were ahead of the surplus so they had to take the opportunity to come into this House and say: “Look we’ve been so brilliant we are going to cut the levies.” which were massively put up wrongly in the first place by one Nick Smith.  
But I want to close and say this. Why is this woman not being charged with extortion? It is all there in her own documents. It is all in her own documents. She wanted to enter into an arrangement that went this way: you get the 6000-plus copies back— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no. It is ACC. ACC will get the 6000-plus copies back contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties. That is extortion. Why is the National Party allowed to defend its mates when its members shout blue murder and “three strikes and you’re out” for everybody else? They are contaminated with this cant. There is a word for it that starts with “h”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member knows that he cannot use that at all. It is a circumlocution and the member is trying to get round it and he knows better. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Can I just ask you this question then: why is it that these mendacious sybarites still remain in office? 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Let us be very clear about what is happening here. This is the unravelling of a very tangled web of deceit that Nick Smith spun when he became the Minister for ACC. This all flows in one direction and that is back in the direction of Dr Nick Smith. He is the architect of the total shambles that ACC has become. What did he do? Well the first thing he did was manufacture a crisis in ACC. He manufactured a crisis in ACC so that he could massively hike up the levies and overcharge New Zealanders by millions and millions of dollars in their ACC levies and cut their entitlement. He cut their entitlement to cover under ACC and that was all Nick Smith’s work. That was all Nick Smith’s work.  
Kevin Hague talked earlier on about the culture of disentitlement in ACC now and that all flows back to Nick Smith. It all flows back to Nick Smith. He was the one who brought legislation to the House to remove people’s entitlements and to cut back entitlements for some of the most vulnerable people: people who had been sexually abused and people who had suffered work-related hearing loss. These are the sorts of people who were attacked by Nick Smith because of the tangled web of deceit that he wove when he was the Minister for ACC.  
Judith Collins inherited that mess and made it worse. And we had Judith Collins come to the House today and have the audacity—the audacity—to challenge the Labour Party to play the ball and not the man and then she went straight into doing exactly that. She basically then went on to attack Ruth Dyson and dedicated a lot of her speech to attacking members of the Labour Party rather than focusing on the substance of the issue. These are serious issues and I think the Minister should take them a little bit more seriously than she has done.  
I was interested to learn just a few moments ago that this afternoon the website of iPredict—the predictive market—crashed. It reported that one of the reasons it crashed was all the insider trading on the future of ACC and the scandal within ACC. I understand that in addition to that—this is where it gets really interesting—there has been a run on shares in John Key’s leadership because people now know that he is on the way out because he is not going to stick around when the going starts to get tough. In fact the insiders in the National Party know it so much that they crashed the website. They were dumping all their shares in John Key; they could not get rid of them fast enough. They could not get rid of them fast enough and they crashed the whole website and they were so keen to buy up shares in the demise of the people involved in this ACC saga. I tell you what they were not buying though. They were not buying shares in Nick Smith becoming a Minister again because all of this flows back to Nick Smith.  
Nick Smith was the guy who thought that it was OK for him as a Minister for ACC—as a Minister for ACC—to write a letter on ministerial letterhead endorsing the claim of an individual ACC claimant who by the way also happens to be a close associate and a member of the National Party. Nick Smith thought that was an OK thing to do. What is more John Key thought that was an OK thing for him to do as well and continued to defend him. What did John Key say at the time? I think we will go back and find this quote because it is a goody. John Key said: “If you are going to sack Ministers for what I think he would accept as an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one you’d be sacking a lot of ministers.” Gosh he has got a lot of faith in his own Cabinet; he seems to think that if they were going to sack Ministers for errors of judgment there would not be many Ministers left in John Key’s Cabinet. But actually given the evidence of the last few weeks he was probably right in that particular regard.  
All of this—all of this—flows back to Nick Smith. This is the mess that Nick Smith created with the manufactured crisis and with his total lack of judgment in handling the ACC portfolio. He was more interested in how he could carve up ACC and carve it off to the private sector to the Aussie insurance companies than he was in ensuring that New Zealanders get the cover that they are entitled to under ACC. Nick Smith did not care about that; he cared about the profits of the Australian insurance companies. He cared about supporting his mates rather than the people who do not have friends in high places. This all goes back to Nick Smith. This is his mess he has the responsibility and he should never be a Minister again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a thoughtful contribution to this important debate and to correct a number of very basic facts. The very first is that the speaker who has just resumed his seat Chris Hipkins has said that the financial difficulties in ACC were a manufactured crisis. Let the record be very clear. In the 2007-08 financial year—and I have a copy of the annual report right here—ACC declared a loss of $2.4 billion. That annual report was signed off by Maryan Street. Then with exactly the same group of actuaries and exactly the same audit office in the following financial year ACC declared a loss of $4.8 billion. Together those two sums add up to $7.2 billion—more than all the losses of all the finance companies. And have we seen a single—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The senior Opposition whip made a very unparliamentary comment and I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Challenging members to tell the truth is something that is used regularly in the House. It is different from saying that they are lying or that they are not telling the truth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well it is actually very close to saying that someone is untruthful. [ 
Interruption 
] No it is not acceptable. “Untruthful” is not acceptable. I ask the member to desist. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is important and I can see that quite a lot of discussion is going to happen on this. Asking someone to tell the truth is prospective; it is not retrospective. It is not looking back at what they had said; it is looking forward and inviting them to obey the rules of the House. It is in fact not a breach of the Standing Orders and members should not be asked to desist from doing that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just tell members that this has actually happened before. I referred to the issue of “untruthful” which means given to lying. It also means diverging from the truth. A generalised charge that a member is untruthful cannot be permitted but a particular reference to an occasion on which a member has admittedly diverged from the truth in a certain statement is not unparliamentary. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 42/4 from Gerry Wall. I am asking members to be careful with their use of interjections across the House because they can lead to disorder and that is not what we want. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the spirit of referring to Speakers’ rulings can I also ask members perhaps to read Speaker’s ruling 42/3 from Speaker Wilson who did rule the term “Tell the truth!” as an unparliamentary term as it is a phrase that creates disorder in the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member whose statement you have not asked to refrain has alleged that I was not telling the truth in respect of the figures I quoted of a $2.4 billion loss at ACC for the 2007-08 year and a $4.8 billion loss for the 2008-09 year. I seek leave of the House to table the Auditor-General’s signed-off accounts showing that those two figures are correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No he’s not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s already been tabled—for goodness’ sake Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The House is the master of its own destiny. Any member in this place is entitled to seek leave of the House to table something. Members can say no. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will be aware that the Speaker Lockwood Smith has ruled that we cannot seek leave to table documents that have already been tabled in the House and are already available. That is exactly what Nick Smith was just trying to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The document is already available?  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yes of course it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The document is already available. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I want to speak to Mr Hipkins’ point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have been in the House a number of years and I have heard Dr Lockwood Smith say that if documents are freely available then they are not to be tabled in the House because it is seen as a waste of parliamentary time. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just by way of clarification what Mr Hipkins said was that the document had already been tabled in the House and that is not accurate in so far as it is tabled on the Table. It has been received and I would suggest that because the document that Dr Smith was referring to is now nearly 5 years old in fact it would be in the public interest to seek to table it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised that the document has to be publicly available and it is publicly available. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Those same financial accounts show that in the period 2005 to 2008 ACC claims expenditure grew from $2 billion a year to $3 billion a year. That is an extra billion dollars in a period of just 3 years. It was financially reckless. It was not sustainable. That is why for me as the incoming Minister for ACC significant changes were required. There is a very important balance required in ACC between ensuring that claimants who have accidents receive the entitlements they should receive but equally so there is a very important obligation to ensure that the levies are affordable and that they do not rise as rates that are not sustainable for households and businesses.  
I also want to put on record that one of the first issues I had to deal with in ACC was genuine corruption—a senior property manager within ACC during the time when Mr Peters was a Minister. And there is a person—not some made-up claim—who lodged a complaint with the police and a prosecution— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote the Pullar letter and why? Talk about corruption! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Mallard that there was a conviction for corruption in a court of law in New Zealand in respect of the property dealings of ACC that was brought forward by me as Minister. I do find that over the 3 preceding years huge improvements have been made in ACC’s finances. In the last year in which I was Minister ACC was able to deliver a substantive surplus and that has enabled levies for both employers and households that are struggling to be substantially reduced. I want to put on public record thanks to John Judge the former chief executive Jan White and Ralph Stewart and the team for the very effective job they have done in correcting the finances and those difficulties that were a very serious threat to New Zealand.  
In respect of the issues over which I chose to resign I also wish to make some comments. It has been alleged in the media and repeatedly by people opposite that I waded into the case of Bronwyn Pullar.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Ah yes you did. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well actually the record shows Mr Peters that I wrote four letters in respect of Bronwyn Pullar. Every one of those letters involved me saying that she was a friend and that it would be inappropriate for me to interfere in her ACC case. I did make an error in putting on record the fact that I knew Bronwyn prior to her accident and that she was well prior to that date. I regret that. In my view it created a perception that somehow if a person is a friend of a Minister they might be treated differently from others. That was never my intent but I do stand very strongly by the principle that this Parliament and New Zealand must have which is that all people must be treated equally—thus my decision to tender my resignation.  
I now want to say that it is somewhat ironic that the Opposition is contradictory in its views of Bronwyn Pullar and so too are the media. When this debate erupted 2 months ago members opposite said she was a villain and that she was a taker. Now we are presented with the case that somehow Bronwyn is a hero. In fact neither of those things is true. Bronwyn is a sad case of a very capable person who has had an accident and it actually well illustrates the dilemma for many New Zealanders involved with ACC as to what is the appropriate time for rehabilitation. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Just following on from that speech from Nick Smith I think we need to look at what ACC is there for. It is actually there for people in need. It can happen to anybody at any time of their life that something can go wrong and there can be an accident and you need that support from the Government to be there in that time. Nobody would wish on any person that they have to go into a situation where they need ACC’s support. ACC has been a flagship for the New Zealand economy and for our Government over many years in terms of how we deal with these issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who wrote this? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Who wrote this speech? That is a typical line from New Zealand First. We always get that. That is Winston Peters’ interruption line is it not? We are looking forward to some better lines as we go through the speech. ACC is there for a genuine purpose. It is to deal with a genuine issue that can happen to anybody.  
When we came into Government there was a world recession. What was there in the world recession? There was a loss on a lot of sharemarkets around the world. And what does ACC invest a lot of its funds in? Sharemarkets around the world. The previous Minister for ACC Nick Smith was quite right in detailing those figures of the losses because they reflected two major things. First the world sharemarket had declined. The US market for example was nearly half its value from its peak a year before that. That value loss was directly going through into the ACC books and there was a major loss that we encountered in ACC when we took over that institution. Nobody could have predicted how that would have returned or what would have happened but we need to get it back on track.  
The second thing was that under previous administrations ACC had changed from its fundamental purpose. The Woodhouse principles were still enshrined but they had been developed to take into account political payments for vestiges that the previous Government had found in its political mandate. It went out there and offered a lot of services that were beyond the original ACC scheme. So we had two things that we encountered when we took over ACC. It had losses from its share investments and it was spending things that were outside the original principles of what ACC was set up for. We had to change those and get them right. That was important. It was very important—when you sat in this House when you sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and you looked at ACC. The National Party and the Labour Party had agreement. The only party that was here that was not in agreement necessarily was the Green Party. Everybody else saw the need to get ACC fully funded so that it could survive by itself in the future. That deadline of 2017 was approaching very quickly and if we had not made those changes then that possibility of a self-funding approach to ACC could have been missed.  
The Greens did not want to do that. The Greens did not want to have a self-funding ACC; they wanted an ACC where you just tax people and pay for it over time. They did not care about the losses that were growing; they just saw it as something in the future. The New Zealand First Party bless its soul was not even here at that time. I do not know why. [ 
Interruption 
] Tell us why? I think it had something to do with an election did it not? Its members did not even have a voice at the table let alone being able to say what they thought. But the Labour Party and the National Party both agreed that we could see the future for ACC but it was a future where we had to see it funded in a way that was good. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I think there has been a Speaker’s ruling in the past—it might have been before the last election—about the inappropriateness of members moving around the Chamber to follow the camera. I think it was in relation to Hekia Parata. I note that Maggie Barry is doing that today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no that is a frivolous interjection. It can lead to disorder and the member knows it. He is a most experienced member of Parliament and a stickler for the Standing Orders. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I say to that member over there that the only day the cameras are going to go on him is if he makes a point of order. We have got lovely members over here and the cameras follow our members because they are much more lovely than what we have over there. They have to fall off a bike or do something like that to get the cameras on them. Trevor Mallard did not want to hear the words: “Labour agreed with National on the future of ACC.” That is why he brought up that point of order. He knew that Labour agreed with us. They are very quiet now. They are very quiet because they know in their hearts that they wanted the same things. They saw the future of ACC because when we go back to it ACC is there for the benefit of New Zealanders and that is what we are delivering with a strong ACC. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 New Zealanders should be proud of ACC. New Zealanders should be proud of a scheme that has lasted over decades. I want to say this too: Sir Owen Woodhouse is a great New Zealander a fantastic New Zealander. National Party members were the people he had to really convince about establishing ACC. He had some alignment with them I think at the time but they are the persons who had to be convinced about having the scheme. New Zealanders should be incredibly proud of a 24/7 no-fault scheme—the scheme that is the envy of the world. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report that came out said that this scheme is the envy of the world. And yet this Government has systematically trashed the reputation of ACC. From the moment it got into office it has systematically trashed the reputation of ACC. 
We have been over it once already in this debate but we need to go over it again. What the Government did on first coming into office was to manufacture a crisis in ACC. That is what it did when it first came in. And the Hon Nick Smith stands up in the House and reads out the numbers that were going on in ACC’s accounts at the time conveniently forgetting something that Mr English likes to bring up from time to time—a little matter called the global financial crisis. And what was happening—[ 
Interruption 
] The GFC which is not to be confused with  
The GC 
 Mr Mallard. That is Mr Mallard’s favourite show. The global financial crisis is what actually caused those problems for ACC. But Dr Smith does not want to hear about that. Dr Smith wants only to hear about the fact that he cannot be held responsible or that he cannot take any of the blame for what happened in ACC. But the truth is that a financial crisis was manufactured in ACC and the people who bore the brunt of that were the levy payers right across this country—the employees and the employers right across this country. They are the people who bore the brunt of Nick Smith’s manufactured crisis. 
In the meantime he sacked the board of ACC that he inherited and began the planning for privatisation. Let us not forget—hearing David Bennett stand up and tell us what National cares about with regard to ACC—that the plan of the National Party is to privatise ACC. That is the plan of the National Party. For once that is actually what the National Party went to the country and said before the election. It has done it once before Mr Bennett. The track record from the 1990s is there. We had to come in and reverse it. National was planning it again. The privatisation agenda is what Nick Smith was setting up. He manufactured the crisis he sacked the board and he began bringing in people who would implement the privatisation agenda. 
Every electorate MP in this House knows what happened after the 2008 election: the number of ACC cases went up. And the reason those cases kept coming in the door of MPs’ offices is because the National Government’s agenda for ACC the privatisation agenda was put in play. So we had the assessments that began to talk about the existing injuries that people had—no matter that they had nothing to do with the new injuries that people had—and people were turned down. I went with constituents as a constituent MP to help them prepare their cases because there was nobody out there who could do it for them. These were people who were genuinely injured. Constituent MPs right across this Parliament know what happened there. 
Then we had the disgraceful cases of people who had been victims of sexual abuse who had their counselling support taken away. It was a disgraceful situation that this National Government—and Nick Smith as well—has never fully taken responsibility for. We have also seen it with hearing impairment. Disentitlement is the legacy of this Government when it comes to ACC. It is not something that the other side of the House can be proud of. It is disentitlement—taking away from people what they were entitled to taking away what New Zealanders were entitled to when we gave up the right to sue when we said we will have this scheme that will protect us all 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This Government comes along with its agenda to privatise and takes away entitlements from people. It is a disgrace. 
But then it carried on from there under this Government. It moved on from the privatisation agenda to undermining ACC itself—cutting staff. Then we had the situation with Nick Smith and his letters on behalf of Bronwyn Pullar. Let us be absolutely clear. What that looked like was that if you knew someone in the National Party you would get treated differently by ACC. That is what it looked like and that is the perception that New Zealanders have: if you knew someone in the National Party things would be different for you in ACC. A Minister wrote letters on ministerial letterhead that endorsed a claimant and talked about the ability of a claimant to return to work. What is one of ACC’s main issues and interests? The ability of someone to return to work. And that is what Nick Smith wrote about. For Nick Smith to stand up in the House today and refuse again to accept responsibility for what he did shows that he should not return to Cabinet because he clearly has not learnt the lesson of what happened there. 
The saddest thing of all of this is that this Government is so totally distracted by scandals and mismanagement and cronyism that it is letting go of one of the great things that New Zealand has ACC—let alone the fact that it is not at all focused on trying to grow the economy or any small matters like that. The Government is so focused on its own mismanagement and its own cronyism within the organisation that it is completely distracted and ACC is in trouble as a result. 
The Minister for ACC spoke of the need for a culture change within ACC. There are many of us on this side of the House who would agree that there are aspects of the way things have gone in ACC that we would like to see changed. But the Minister’s idea of a culture change and our idea on this side of the House of a culture change are very different things. The culture change that the Minister is talking about is a culture change towards more privatisation. That is the culture change the Minister means. She does not mean a culture change where we get back to the default assumption being that somebody who comes before ACC is a New Zealand citizen who has a right to the entitlements that ACC offers. Yes there will be people who try to rip the system off and we should root out those people and make sure that they do not get their claims fulfilled. But the vast majority of New Zealanders who come before ACC come because they have been hurt or injured and they expect ACC to be able to provide the support and the services that they need. The culture change this Minister wants is to take more entitlements away and to have a greater role for the Australian insurance companies which benefited the last time when National wanted to privatise ACC. They are what will benefit. The interests here are not those New Zealanders who get hurt or injured or their families. The interests being perpetuated by National are the Australian insurance companies which will benefit from privatisation. 
So the culture change that this Government wants is not the same culture change that we want. We want a culture change that sees ACC back to its core principles back to the Woodhouse principles the things that make New Zealanders proud. But you know what? We know where this culture change is heading because of who the Government has decided to put in place to run ACC now and that is Paula Rebstock—Paula Rebstock the go-to person for the National Party the person whom the National Party is turning to as it looks at its agenda of welfare reform as it looks at its agenda of undermining social security in this country. It is bringing her in as well to look at ACC. It brings her in to oversee what is happening at ACC—further proof that the culture of change that this Government is looking for is a culture of change that is around putting privatisation in place. 
This is a distracted out-of-touch Government. These are people who no longer understand why they were elected—to promote ACC and to promote the well-being of New Zealanders. They have got themselves so mired in scandal and cronyism. We have now a Minister for ACC who is incapable of dragging ACC back to where it should be. This Government needs to get New Zealanders in a position where they can be proud of ACC again. At the moment they cannot be because this Government has mismanaged ACC it has manufactured a crisis and it has introduced cronyism into one of the most important institutions in our land. Those members should be ashamed of themselves. ACC is in a shambles and it is this Government’s fault. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will accept that this is not ACC’s finest hour and the disclosure of private information in any situation must be an extremely stressful experience for the 7000 people who were on that spreadsheet. But I will not accept criticism from that party over there under whose watch over 9 years ACC was led into financial and operational disarray. The member Mr Grant Robertson can talk about a manufactured crisis but I remind that member of the sorts of things that the Minister for ACC in December 2008 faced when the phone rang in Dr Smith’s office in December 2008 and on the other end of the line was the Chair of ACC Board Ross Wilson saying “I know we’ve just written this really good briefing to the incoming Minister but we forgot to mention the small matter of the fact that the non-earners account is basically insolvent and can we have a cheque please for $305654000?” which was just to sustain the non-earners account for the following 6 months. He wanted another $1.5 billion in cash to sustain it over the next 3 years. That led to the sacking of the chair and rightly so and it also led to an inquiry which found that the Minister of Finance Dr Michael Cullen deliberately excluded that information from the pre-election fiscal update in breach of the Public Finance Act. And do you know what he did? Do you know what Dr Cullen did? He blamed Treasury. He blamed the officials. He said it was not Labour’s fault—$305654000—and then said that he did not put it to Cabinet because it was not subject to sufficient detailed scrutiny. He had assessed it down to the last dollar and it still was not good enough for the Labour Government.  
Well I know what I think about that. I think there was a little bit of stuff being shoved under the carpet a little bit of “nothing to see here everything is fine at ACC”. But we know it was not. We know it was not because Maryan Street signed an agreement that presided over a $2.4 billion loss followed by a $4.8 billion loss. And do you know what Labour said? “Accounting sophistry”—accounting sophistry! We had Andrew Little—whatever he was in charge of the Service and Food Workers Union—saying it was a deliberate hatchet job. He accused the auditors the actuaries the Minister himself of generating a false crisis. I tell you what was not false—the levies. The levies went up by billions and here is why. There was a $7.2 billion deficit to recover and assets of $10 billion and liabilities of $24 billion. I am an accountant. I am a chartered accountant right so I kind of get this stuff. But it is really only simple maths. Listen up it is really important. Ten billion dollars $24 billion—what is the difference? It is called $14 billion and it is a serious crisis and it is real. The levy increases were real and the actions that Dr Smith took as the Minister for ACC— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the traditions of this House is that when members leave especially when asked to by members of the Government the fact that they are leaving is not drawn to the attention of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member is absolutely right. I did not actually hear that someone was mentioning that the member was leaving but can I say to members on the Government side that everybody has to leave this Chamber at some time or another. It can be for any reason. I would urge members to abide by the Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders that mention that no mention whatsoever must be made of members leaving the House.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: What an excellent bit of interference I must say. Where was I? Fourteen billion dollars I think. It was the simple maths was it not? Ten billion dollars $24 billion—it is not that difficult. It might be an accounting number but it is pretty real. Let us just say this. If we were to shut down ACC tomorrow—and that will not happen—what would we need to do? The Government would need to write a cheque for $14 billion. The member should try going to his bank manager and saying “Look my business is in really good shape. I’ve got $10 in the bank but I owe $24 and everything is going to be fine.” You multiply that out by billions and it is a very serious problem.  
Here is why it occurred. It occurred because Labour had a come-one come-all approach to ACC. We warned Labour when it wanted to change medical misadventure to treatment injury and have all sorts of medical complications that that would be a Pandora’s box it should not open. It was costed by the Department of Labour at $8.7 million. I was the president of the Private Hospitals Association. I said that that number was a nonsense and so it proved to be because that change cost $87 million a new cost on the taxpayer. We warned Labour when it proposed to remove the co-payments from physiotherapy consultations that it would not cost anything like the $50 billion it was prepared to invest. It cost $250 billion. Let me tell you about elective surgery because an interesting thing was happening. Private medical insurers were making sure that claimants got a “no” letter from ACC before organisations like Southern Cross would approve private surgery. So I can tell you that applications to ACC were put in by surgeons that said “This is not an accident. Do not approve this claim. All we want is a letter.” and ACC would approve it. So let us just talk about a culture of disentitlement because what ACC is having to do under this administration is reverse the nonsense that took place over 9 years and that has cost the levy payers into that scheme and of this country billions and billions of dollars. It is not accounting sophistry. It is simply not. It was a real problem and I congratulate both Dr Smith and the current Minister Judith Collins on turning it round.  
I want to touch on the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ comments about it not being an insurance scheme. He is quite right on one level. The architect of the royal commission report Sir Owen Woodhouse was at pains to point out that this should not be an insurance scheme like other insurance schemes but he did acknowledge that when one creates an incident-based event where payment or rehabilitation follows an accident through no fault and that the levies are subject to the experience of how many claims and the claims’ duration that is by any measure an insurance scheme. What he did say in the report though and I think it is very important is that it should not be risk rated. In fact no party perhaps with the exception of the Greens now believes that the scheme should not be risk rated. What that means is that the forestry worker pays the same premium as the office worker in our out-of-Parliament offices. Simple nonsense. So the levy differentials are about 10 times. Sir Owen did not say that that was a good idea. There is no one in this House who would now agree with him. He made no reference—in fact he made passing reference—to women. He said that housewives should possibly get some cover after about 4 weeks of suffering an injury because the times did not have women at work. It certainly was not written for the very modern multicultural multi-gender work environment that we now have. This is very important because the royal commission report has been around for 42 years and the five principles that underpin the ACC scheme are still real and enduring and this Government subscribes to them. But the report itself is not a sacred cow. It must move with the times. We are in a very very different environment from the one in 1967 when that report was written. I think the changes that are being made are very sensible and necessary. Heaven help us if Labour and the Greens ever get back to the Treasury benches and soften and just leave the scheme to its own devices and bring back a come-one come-all scheme. The simple fact is that some things are caused by an accident some things are medical and some things can be both and there will always be people who are disappointed not to have their claims accepted.  
The last thing I want to say is directed at the staff of ACC. Mr Little has said in the media that this is the worst crisis in 38 years of ACC and some of the senior members of ACC would probably chuckle at that. It is not—it has actually been through the mill on two or three occasions. I was a member of the staff at ACC in 1997 during the last pretty big crisis and they got over it and they improved it and they made the scheme better than it ever was. So I say to the members of ACC the 2500-odd staff right around the country: “We back you. We back the things that you do for the 1.7 million claimants.” The vast majority of them get excellent service and are compensated and rehabilitated in a fair and timely manner even when sometimes a little bit of tough love is involved in getting people back to work on a part-time or graduated basis—things that I know some but not all of the unions would agree with. So I say to them: “Hang in there. You are doing a fantastic job and keep up the good work.” 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.