Urgent Debates Declined — Accident Compensation Corporation—ACC167 Form and Operational Policy

I have received a letter from Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the final Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III Summary for Policymakers report and the implications of this report for New Zealand and the New Zealand Government. Although the release of the report is a recent occurrence, the Government is not responsible for it. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. For there to be a debate today there would need to be an announcement of significant new Government policy. The Minister for Climate Change Issues has indicated that New Zealand is on the right track. It is doing its fair share, making inroads that will gradually restrict emissions, but no new commitments have been signalled at this time by the Minister. On this basis, I cannot see that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today.

I have also received a letter from Iain Lees-Galloway seeking to debate ACC’s policy of cutting off accident claimants’ compensation if they refuse to complete a form that allows widespread information-gathering about them. The court’s decision that the practice is without basis and wrong in law is a case of recent occurrence and there is ministerial responsibility for the policy. ACC has taken on board the court’s ruling and is working to put in place a new consent form. The concerns of affected clients are being worked through. Although the public must have confidence that agencies such as ACC are working within the law, I am not convinced that the matter is one that would justify my setting aside the business of the House today. That application is therefore also declined.