Street Maryan: General Debate 
Street Maryan: General Debate 
[Volume:646;Page:15725] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Is it not interesting—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Colleagues there are 402 Standing Orders that give us good grace and good order and an opportunity for all members to make a commanding contribution. I am sure there will be some commanding contributions today. In the meantime let us have some order. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: It is interesting is it not that every time Mr English is accused of anything to do with  
The 
Hollow Men 
 we never get a denial—we never get a denial. 
I will talk today about accident compensation and about the fact that we have a world-class no-fault system. I ask the National members opposite whether accident compensation is another of their items on the menu for melting down the family silver. Is this another thing on their privatisation agenda—whether they do it by stealth or in an obvious way in front of the public of New Zealand? The public of New Zealand needs to know. Privatisation can occur in a number of ways and the National Party has been particularly slippery over this asset. Most recently it has taken its accident compensation policy down off its website. Previously the party has said that it is in favour of choice for accident compensation and would be interested in exploring some competition in some accounts. I want to know whether that is something like a partial float. Is it a partial float that the National Party has in mind for accident compensation? I make the point that Mr Key has tried in fact to inoculate himself over asset sales but he and his party have been silent over privatisation and competition when applied to our accident compensation system. 
I will explore for a moment just who stands to gain out of privatisation. There is in fact $2.6 billion worth of levies up for grabs if National privatises all the accounts except the non-earners account. Let us say that National is not going to get rid of the whole thing but will privatise just some of the accounts. Well there is about $2.6 billion in levies up for grabs there. 
I wonder whether members remember the leaked Insurance Council memo during the 2005 election. The memo stated in relation to National’s accident compensation policy announcement: “This is a very positive announcement for the industry particularly the scope of the competition across all accounts.” The memo also stated: “The details of the policy have been deliberately kept out of the announcement after consultation with the Insurance Council.” That was a memo from the Insurance Council of New Zealand dated 21 August 2005. 
Mr Murray McCully said in 1998: “Creating a competitive environment is a vital part of the reforms. Insurers like everyone are in business to make a buck.” That was from the 
 Southland Times 
 in 1998. Let me just go back a little further to 1993 when an article written by Brent Edwards for the  
Evening Post 
 was headlined: “ ‘ACC not for sale’ say Bolger and Birch”. Let me go beyond that to talk about another article in 1993: “Privatisation plan denied”. We cannot even get National members to deny a privatisation plan because we can remember that last time they denied a privatisation plan they went ahead and did it. They denied it; they said it was not going to happen. They said that the accident compensation scheme would be safe and that there was no intention of taking things away. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was Labour that sold all the State assets. It was Clark and Cullen that sold them. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: It was the National Government. There were absolutely cast-iron guarantees from the Minister for ACC and the Prime Minister at the time that the National Government would not sell and would not privatise accident compensation but it went ahead and did that very thing. The policy was not to do a sale not to privatise but that is what the National Government did. That is what it did in opening up the scheme for private competition; that is exactly the same thing. 
Now we are hearing the same slippery arguments coming across the House. We are hearing the same slipperiness around the definition of privatisation. We might as well add accident compensation to National’s list of items to be sold or privatised.