7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for ACC
Does he stand by all his statements on ACC?
Does the Minister stand by his statement that proposes a $500 fee increase for motorbikes, and is this in accordance with the accident compensation scheme’s principle of fairness?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The proposal for the increase in motorcycle levies is one made by the Accident Compensation Corporation board. The board then comes back, after a process of public consultation, with recommendations to the Minister, which I expect to receive in December. Then they will go to Cabinet for a final decision. I do think the increases that are being proposed by the board are quite steep, and I was taken aback by the scale of those increases. I also have to say I was taken aback by just how expensive motorcycle accidents are for New Zealand.
Does the Minister stand by his statement that drivers of cars with a higher safety rating could pay lower accident compensation levies, while most Kiwis, who cannot afford the latest and safest cars, pay more?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Firstly, the operative word is “could”, and then the member has put his own interpretation on it. Let me make plain that it is my view that we need to provide—and it is in the bill I introduced to the House yesterday—stronger financial incentives for both employers and motorists to display safer behaviour. I make no apologies about this Government wanting to improve safety, and using incentives and no-claim bonuses as instruments for improving safety.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
Has the Minister received any reports of statements on accident compensation?
Mr SPEAKERI think it would be helpful—there was a fair bit of noise going on—if Michael Woodhouse would repeat the question. I ask the House to be a little quieter when a member is asking a question from the backbenches.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
Has the Minister received any reports of statements on accident compensation?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Yes, I have. Mr Goff said yesterday: “It was just not good enough that sexual abuse claimants had to show a mental illness to be eligible for ACC support.” That is surprising, because Labour’s 2001 Act requires just that, in section 27. It is not good enough that Mr Goff is misleading the public of New Zealand.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table section 27 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act, which was passed by the previous Government and requires just that.
This is a point of order, but I am again troubled by leave being sort to table something that is freely available to members of the House. I will be dealing with this matter in the future. I did not put leave for a Labour member yesterday when I thought the document was readily available to the House. To be even-handed, I am not going to put that leave, either.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I think that the Minister should be able to make that point of order. The House is free to decline leave.
I have ruled as Speaker. The member will resume his seat. The Minister sought leave to table some legislation that is freely available to all members of the House. There is absolutely no value, in terms of adding information for members of this House, in leave being sought for that purpose. I did not put leave for a Labour member who sought leave yesterday to table an answer to a written question, and I am not going to put this leave today. As I say, I will be dealing with the matter more fully in the future. I am not going to put leave today for a member seeking leave to table a piece of legislation that is freely available to members of this House.
Yes, it is—sorry, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I urge the Speaker to consider the knock-on effect that that will have if the Speaker takes a particular course of action. We have seen today that Metiria Turei, acting within the Standing Orders, was able to table a long list of documents, which delayed the House more than your letting the House flow with short points of order that sometimes have political connotations.
The member may recollect that the member Metiria Turei sought leave, if I recollect correctly, to table the entire document. That leave was denied by the House. She then sought leave to table graphs from—[ Interruption] Oh, I beg your pardon. They were from a different document. I beg your pardon; I am not correct on that. I hear what the member says, but the information that Metiria Turei was seeking leave to table was information that members would not automatically have available to them—
Hon Lianne DalzielOne member has the book, but the information was something that could inform the House. The Standing Order does not provide for the leave process to be used to make political points. Previous Speakers have pointed out that it does not provide for that, and it will not be used for that purpose in the future. It is to provide information that is not normally available to members of the House. Does the Hon David Parker have a further supplementary question?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for adding to something that you have ruled on, but my reading of those rulings from previous Speakers was that they were recommending to the House—that they were, if you like, editorialising, rather than refusing members’ right to seek leave. I think that is something quite important. The right to seek the leave of the House to do anything is something pretty well established right through the Westminster tradition. If one looks back to Erskine May, if one goes to the British House of Commons, one sees that unless there is a specific Standing Order that forbids the seeking of leave in a particular area, my view is that the Speaker has an obligation to put the leave. I do not think that is right; I—
I hear the point the member makes. There is a specific Standing Order that was recently introduced to cover the tabling of documents. It is Standing Order 368. There is also Standing Order 2, which gives the Speaker responsibility to handle questions that arise as to the interpretation or application of a Standing Order. That is up to the Speaker. I will be making some rulings in respect of the application of Standing Order 368.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just looked at Standing Order 200; it relates to select committees.
Is the Minister pleased with the decrease in workplace accidents in 2007 and 2008 as announced by Statistics New Zealand today, or will he be spinning it to assert mismanagement of accident compensation by the previous Government, to justify cuts to accident compensation cover, and to justify privatisation?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Of course. Every member of this House would be pleased with any reduction in accidents. The reality is—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The member asks where the case is for choice in competition—I think that is the term he should use. You see, for every single issue—it does not matter whether it is any sort of issue, or whether it is my colleague Anne Tolley or me—the only word Labour knows in opposition is “privatisation”, which is not on the Government’s agenda.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
What other reports has the Minister received of inaccurate statements on accident compensation?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Yesterday a press release claimed that the Government’s accident compensation reform bill repealed provisions in the scheme to provide assistance for superannuitants and for those who suffered a mental injury at work. Both these statements are wrong. There is no change in the bill to those provisions. Mr Parker should apologise for unnecessarily causing concern and unease to New Zealanders.
I seek leave to table a release from Statistics New Zealand showing a decline in work-related injury claims in 2007 and 2008.