Hague Kevin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8214. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10.  
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by all his statements in the House on ACC? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. 
Kevin Hague 
: Why did he claim on 5 March in this House that Treasury had not been involved in the review of the accident compensation scheme when in fact he had received a stream of advice that highlighted Treasury’s involvement in the review? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Treasury had provided advice to me about the accident compensation scheme. I have to say that the advice has been very concerning. It is that the scheme’s financial position is unsustainable and that significant change is required through having either large levy increases or a pull-back on entitlements. The Government has been working through those difficult issues very responsibly. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question related to the fact that the Minister claimed to stand by all of his statements. One of his statements was that Treasury had not been involved and clearly it had. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not clear on what that point of order was. 
Kevin Hague 
: Sorry Mr Speaker. What I am saying is that the Minister’s answer to my supplementary question is entirely unresponsive to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I will do—[ 
Interruption 
] I will ask the House to please be a little more respectful of question time. Because it has been a very noisy day it has been very difficult for me to hear. I invite the member to repeat his question and I would like the House to please be reasonably quiet so that I can hear the question and the answer. 
Kevin Hague 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Perhaps I should stress the critical words. Why then did he claim on 5 March in this House that Treasury had not been involved in the review of the accident compensation scheme when in fact he had received a stream of advice that highlighted Treasury’s involvement in the review? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member set down a written question that is very very general. There are a number of reviews of ACC. If the member had specific information about a particular review or the like in order for me to be able to specifically reply on which review and on which statements the member should have set that information down in his primary question. 
Kevin Hague 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need further assistance on this matter. If the Minister answered along those lines then it would be a perfectly fair answer because the point he makes is absolutely correct. Where a very general primary question is laid down members cannot necessarily expect a Minister to have the information required to answer a specific supplementary question. I invite the Hon Dr Nick Smith to answer the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The situation with the accident compensation scheme has been quite serious such that there have been a number of reviews. Some of those have involved Treasury; some have not. The member will need to be more specific in order for me to be able to provide an answer. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My supplementary question highlights the Minister’s answer to my primary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot litigate an answer in that way by using a point of order. The member asked a question. I gave him the chance to repeat it. I listened very carefully and the Minister gave a perfectly reasonable answer given that very very imprecise and bland primary question. I think that the member has had a perfectly good answer from the Minister. 
Kevin Hague 
: I seek leave to table some documents. The first of these is a Department of Labour accident compensation briefing to the Minister of 23 December which states: “Treasury are still considering the scope of the review.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Kevin Hague 
: The second document is a briefing on accident compensation of 20 February from the Department of Labour developed in consultation with Treasury in which the Minister has noted the involvement of Treasury. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Kevin Hague 
: Perhaps I should seek your advice on the third document to be tabled. It is the  
Hansard 
 of Dr Smith’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not be seeking leave for the tabling of a recent  
Hansard 
. I take it it is a reasonably recent  
Hansard 
? 
Kevin Hague 
: It is his answer from 5 March so it is not very recent. It is the answer in which he states that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that it is from  
Hansard 
 this year and the House already has that readily available to it. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Does he stand by his promise of 24/7 cover for all New Zealanders or will his new legislation leave out some New Zealanders who do not meet a 6 percent hearing loss threshold which according to hearing experts was plucked from thin air? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No the assertion from the member is incorrect. The 6 percent hearing loss threshold is standard in Australia and in other parts of the world. There are a number of thresholds in other parts of the accident compensation Act some of which were put in place by the previous Government. This Government does stand by having a 24/7 no-fault accident insurance scheme. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Does he accept that “operational improvements” to the accident compensation scheme like the voluntary accord with the hearing industry that has saved $10 million in the last 18 months are threatened by the complete lack of consultation on proposed changes to the work-related hearing loss provisions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister to answer the question did that supplementary question relate to a statement the Minister had made? 
Carol Beaumont 
: Yes it did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I ask the member to repeat her question so that she makes the statement very clear to me. The primary question is about statements the Minister has made in this House. It asks: “Does he stand by all his statements in the House on ACC?” so the supplementary question must relate to any statements he has made in this House. I invite the member to repeat her question. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Does he accept that “operational improvements” to the accident compensation scheme like the voluntary accord with the hearing industry that has saved $10 million in the last 18 months are threatened by the complete lack of consultation on proposed changes to the work-related hearing loss provisions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can confirm to the member that the cost of the hearing loss compensation part of the scheme’s cover has grown very substantially each and every single year such that it is one of the areas where if we are to ensure accident compensation is sustainable into the long term we cannot sustain the level of increase in expenses which has been way over the rate of inflation. The corporation ran a deficit of $4.8 billion this year and that means we need to make changes. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will he listen to the select committee as he promised in the House yesterday and will he listen to the Rail and Maritime Transport Union which appeared before the select committee today and which says its injured workers who may be forced to work in non-related jobs for 40 hours a week without adequate rehabilitation will call for the right to sue employers who have caused their injuries? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes the Government and particularly Government members who are very capable are listening carefully to the submissions. But I do say that the status quo for accident compensation is not sustainable. Most of the changes are reversals of unfunded changes made by the previous Government. If that Government had actually budgeted for some of the extra entitlements that it offered and promised we would not be in this situation.