8. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for ACC
Does he stand by his statement “This legislative reform is part of the Government’s objective to secure the long-term future of ACC as an efficient and fair 24/7, no-fault insurance scheme for all New Zealanders”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) Link to this
Yes. The legislation is needed to push out the full-funding date and reverse scheme extensions that were introduced by that member, Maryan Street, but never funded. The alternative was excessively high levy increases for workers, motorists, and business.
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
Which part of the accident compensation scheme bill is fair, when Te Puni Kōkiri advice is that it will have a disproportionate effect on Māori, who are frequently employed in more dangerous and lower-income occupations; and can he tell the House whether the Māori Party will vote for the bill?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
It is also important to recognise that Māori are levy payers. As a consequence of the quite reckless mismanagement of the accident compensation scheme, the levies on Māori—those low-income workers—who are struggling with families—
Hon Parekura HoromiaHon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Well, Mr Parekura Horomia’s mind obviously was not on that when he was in Government. Actually, Māori pay accident compensation levies—
Mr SPEAKERI apologise to the Minister, but this is getting very messy. What led to the messiness was that the Minister was asked whether he stood by a statement. He could have said yes, but he went on to give a lot more information, which the primary question did not ask for. It did not ask for a reason; it asked just whether he stood by his statement. I did not intervene then. The member then asked a supplementary question, which was not an unreasonable supplementary question. I believe that it did not deserve to be treated quite like that. I think the questioner should be treated with a little more respect.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The issue for Māori and the accident compensation scheme is that Māori are substantive payers of accident compensation levies. In fact, the accident compensation levy is quite regressive. It impacts on lower-income households more than it does on others. That is why the Māori Party’s concern has been as much about the viability of the scheme and the levies as it is about the claims from accident victims.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
What advice has the Minister received on the 12 extensions to the scheme’s entitlements introduced in October 2008, just 3 months after the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) declared its record $2.4 billion loss, and what funding was set aside to fund these additional benefits in areas like suicide, seasonal workers, and superannuitants?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Absolutely no funding was set aside for those extensions. It was, quite frankly, reckless, after ACC had declared a loss of $2.4 billion, for Labour, just prior to the election, to extend the scheme and, amazingly, also promise cuts in levies. It was reckless, it was irresponsible, and it is why some of the changes are required today.
Carol BeaumontHow can the Minister say his legislative reform is fair, when overwhelmingly submitters have said that the shutting out of those below an arbitrary hearing-loss threshold that particularly affects the elderly is “a breach of faith with older people.”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The 6 percent threshold for hearing loss is exactly equivalent to that in overseas schemes. For instance, in Australia, where they have 6 percent thresholds—
Hon Annette KingHon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Annette King says that it does not matter. Let me tell Annette King something: if our economy is smaller and less able to provide incomes, then the benefits—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Members opposite think they can afford a whole lot more social benefits, without the incomes. In my view, the huge increase that has occurred in the scheme’s hearing costs is part of the problem, and that is why to be fair to levy payers we need to get those cost increases under control.
Darien FentonHow can it possibly be fair to force injured workers to use holidays to recuperate in, and will he not even listen to Treasury, which raised concerns in one of his own Cabinet papers that that was unfair?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
It is a very simple principle. Should people be able to receive accident compensation simultaneously with holiday pay? My view is that our social services schemes were never meant to make people better off than they would be if they were working. This change was made only at the last moment by the previous Labour Government, after a $2.4 billion loss. Members on this side of the House say accident compensation was never about people being able to double-dip with both accident compensation and holiday pay simultaneously.
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
Does the Minister agree with consultant advice to ACC that it is “too customer focused” and that there is a need to “drain the swamp” to exclude people from cover; and does he think it is appropriate that ACC is being advised to view injured New Zealanders as swamp-dwellers?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Not at all. What I would say, though, is that over the last 5 years and during that Minister’s tenure, the scheme’s rehabilitation rates constantly declined. That had a huge negative impact on the scheme’s liabilities. Members on this side of the House make no apologies for wanting the scheme to improve its rehabilitation rates and, wherever possible, to get people back to work and independent again.
Hon Maryan Street Link to this
I seek leave to table the section from the Morrison Low report to ACC Cost Savings Review: July 2009, which recommends to the Government that it should “drain the swamp”.
I seek leave to table page 28 of the Cabinet paper to the social policy committee outlining the proposal for the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill, which contains the Treasury comment referred to in my supplementary question.