Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11820] 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Is he satisfied with the 4-week hearing loss regulations consultation time frame? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 There was a legal requirement for a 28-day consultation period in the accident compensation legislation but that was repealed by the previous Government of which the member was a Minister in 2008. The then Government argued that 28 days or 4 weeks was too long and that a lesser period should be allowed. The Government has chosen not to take advantage of this law change. The proposals on how to apportion industrial and age-related hearing loss claim costs were released on 24 May and given the quite narrow issues involved I am quite satisfied that 4 weeks is sufficient time for organisations and individuals to have a fair say on them. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister not see that his consultation period which the media is reporting as being inadequate could lead to the same sort of shambles and injustices that his changes to counselling for sexual abuse victims have caused? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I remind the member opposite that in 2008 his Government repealed the requirement for a 28-day period and argued in this very Parliament that 28 days was excessive. We do not take that view; we are providing for a period of 4 weeks in which people can give proper consideration to and submissions on these particular changes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Minister keep insisting that the current rules for workplace hearing loss cannot be afforded by employers when it is proven that accident compensation levies for New Zealand employers are already lower per $100 of earnings than similar levies in Australia so their levels should not be used to justify cuts to worker entitlements? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: During the time of the previous Government hearing loss claim costs grew hugely such that we have a projected liability around hearing loss claim costs of $1.3 billion. I think it is fair to say to employers that they must meet the full cost of hearing loss that is work induced but I do not think it is fair to say the costs for age-related hearing loss should fall on employers. I do not think that that is a fair approach; that is why the apportionment approach is recommended in these regulations. The only issue in the regulations is whether the apportionment should be an individual percentage or be in bands. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Given the cost pressures the Minister has described that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is under over hearing loss claims does he have any examples of wastage in this area? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The cost for hearing claims has increased from about $20 million per year to nearly $80 million per year. An example of the sort of practical waste in this area is over hearing aid batteries. Those used to be sent out automatically and their cost was simply billed by audiologists to ACC. I have dozens of examples of constituents who have built up batteries galore. This sensible Government has changed the system by providing batteries on request and that has reduced costs in that one area by more than 45 percent. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister accept what health professionals are saying such as this statement from the New Zealand Audiological Society: “Those less able to afford these co-payments such as older people and those from lower socio-economic groups would simply not be able to get hearing aids and would simply go without.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I do not. In fact the bulk of people are receiving hearing aid support for non - work induced—age-related—hearing loss. They are able to receive support through Judith Collins and her ministry for veterans’ affairs which has grants available and from the Ministry of Health which provides support. The key issue here is the principle—and I am not surprised by Labour’s approach—that the cost of age-related hearing loss should somehow be dumped on to employers. I do not think that is fair and that is why we are making the change. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Has he sought advice from the Minister for Disability Issues as to whether his proposed changes breach New Zealand’s commitment under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to promote assistive technologies and make them available at an affordable cost? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The key word there is “affordable”. I do not think that an increase from about $20 million a year to $80 million a year is fair on those who pay the accident compensation levies. I note that members opposite have raised concern about the extent to which the accident compensation levies have increased. It is this Government’s view that ACC has a very important responsibility to meet the costs of those persons who have work-induced hearing loss. For those where it is age-related then that is properly dealt with by the other agencies such as the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Social Development and in the case of veterans Veterans Affairs. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether he had sought advice on this matter from the Minister for Disability Issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member’s question did not just ask that; it went on to other matters. I seem to remember it related to UN conventions etc. The Minister picked up on the latter part of the question and answered it I believe. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the letter from the Audiological Society to the Prime Minister which made the comments that I referred to earlier and called these cuts “unfair and unscientific”. 
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.