Declare ACC to be in big financial trouble, even though it collects about $1 billion a year more in revenue than it pays out in claims. Rachet up the levies for everyone. Single out motorcyclists for an especially harsh increase. Then cut the cover for lots of things such as hearing loss. Make it really hard for the victims of sexual abuse.
Then quietly prepare part of the ACC scheme for privatisation, even though it is demonstrably the fairest and most cost-effective scheme in the world and the envy of many nations.
Loading ...
You just don’t do this very well do you? This post is one of the worst I have seen from labour MPs – but it is short on facts. The increase in levies is to future fund the committed claims and is actually an extension of what Labour were already doing – in fact Labour’s target was more ambitious than National’s Target which was extended. Motorcyclists — they are still not funding the cost of their accidents – they were being subsidised – and in fact they still are – so motorists such as myself still pay for their accidents.
Labour during their years extended the benefits offered by ACC to make it more of a welfare system rather that the acident insurance plan that was the original charter. National contnue to sirt out th mess that your lot left them.
Finally there is a big differece between privatisation and competition. The sooner ACC are forced to become efficient because of the prospect of competition the better.
Maybe if ACC had better controls they would not be paying double the rents in places like Nelson which was exposed by Nick Smith. ACC now have the SFO investigating their property deals – the lax controls are a sign of the poor management under the Labour Government. Thank God National are now sorting out the mess that ACC became under Labour’s administration.
Monty you infest this site but what makes you think any of the genuine posters here are remotely interested in your views on anything??
Who is Monty? What is he? That all his swains adore him?…
The rest of us? Pffft.
Same thing’s happening with the welfare system – we’ll shortly have all the TINA arguments spilling out from the media schills, much outrage from the public, an announcement that National Ltd™ has “listened” and will be proceeding with the privatisation of just the Unemployment Benefit via an insurance system – the infrastructure for which, of course, is already in place thanks to the ACC machinations.
@ dorothy – Many are interested in Monty and others views.
It is shallow thinking to believe that every idea labour has is good – national bad, although that seems to be the kind of thinking a lot of the left seem to have.
Do you want posters and comments on here – or perhaps just prefer mindless cheer-leading?
It’s political spin, they’re all guilty. Envy of the world, really? Who else is copying it? (Genuine question).
Aw Monty is just our pet tory, scratch him behind his ears and he soon calms down
Yes you do 
The dismantling of ACC is disgraceful, but the voters were warned!
While I don’t agree with their views, I give credit to Monty, Adolf Fink & others for playing their cards with an open hand.
How would NACT like it if the companies who financed them into power were declared abusive monopolies and anti-trusted?
@Simon: Aussie Liberal MP Joe Hockey, of all people, had a similar proposal not too long ago, in response to rising public liability litigation.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/VUWLRev/2003/19.html
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s484976.htm
Spud: Perhaps. But the electorate dosent seem to mind if polls are to be believed.
Spud – The fear that Labour ever might return to power fills me with dread – but then I reflect on Labour Policy and look at the polls and look at my ever increasing asset base and bank account balance and I calm down.
But what gets me is the mis-information of the left – where has National declared they will dismantle ACC? – Opening it to competition is not privatisation – nor it is dis-mantling it.
Arander – Monty – being me is a hard-working middle class father (or 3 primary school children) living in Central Wellington. I lost my job last year after being made redundant and I am currently contracting. I pay too much tax and I resent Labour who have built their support base by spending my hard-earned money on their socialist ideals. I come from a Irish Catholic hard drinking west-coast family – although I barely drink and am much more ambitious than my parents and Grandparents. I firmly believe Labour have mismanaged NZ for the past decade and the only good things they did were the Kiwisaver and getting rid of smoking in pubs.
I do not say who my real name is because working in Wellington, there are relationships with the Public Service. Under Labour I genuinely feared that if my real name was out there then that would disadvantage me.
Does that tell you who Monty is? just ask and I will tell you more – (if it does not get put into moderation and edited)
spud another scratch may be in order
Hilarious dorothy. “Don’t say those things Monty, they upset me. I don’t want to hear anything that conflicts with my view”
P S Monty, if you really don’t want Labour back in power all you have to do is assure the sheep that all their policies are great and the voters love them.
How is sexual abuse an accident?
How is sexual abuse an accident?
In exactly the same way as being run down by a drunk driver is an accident…
I think Monty quite accurately points out the National view on this issue…
I personally think a private insurance company in a competetive industry could offer slightly lower rates but the trade off would be the reallowance of litigation and all the costs and clogging of the courts associated with it…
I think the new CEO of ACC is doing a good job of getting the books in order, we should extend the period in which we have to have future liabilities funded and protect the public monopoly position of ACC…
ACC isn’t fundamentally broken it just needs some narrowing of claimants and lower payouts per claimant…
Yes Monty does point out National views nicely.
However the chairman of ACC did not share their views about unaffordability, (& silly enough to say so publicly) and got the boot for someone who would toe the party line. We know exactly what happened last time National was in power, and even through Labor some providers were allowed to operate in partnership with ACC. Our business uses WellNZ, and we have seen the effects. The claims take longer to settle, they employ more legal and admin staff than ACC and seem to save money, Hmmm. Our union has a seperate lawyer for the work based claim, it takes a lot more fighting (ACC was bad enough) until eventually we find out the claim was denied by someone with little or no medical training over ruling a doctor.
We are now seeing ACC deny claims (over ruling doctors) on flimsy grounds (usually preexisting condition) but no return of right to sue (National protecting business again?)
Monty shows the spin that the Nats use to justify their changes, because they keep referring to it as an accident insurance scheme, when it was originally envisioned as a social contract with NZ.
I and the Laborites here just do not see how adding Lawyers to the mix improves costs or outcomes?
Deleted. Sick of your trolling. Clare
Anyone who would willingly dismantle ACC needs a bullet.
Monty said:
Where are these inefficiencies? Identify them now and deal with them. Competition doesn’t help in this process, it ratchets costs up; good management amd good leadership is what is needed. Unless of course, ‘competition’ is the coded excuse for splitting off profitable parts of ACC’s business to the private sector, and NACT are incapable of providing either good management or good leadership.
Ah a respin of the old NACT spin line looking 9 years backwards. NACT require this spin because they have no forward vision, only respins of old plans from their day in the 90′s. How is spinning off profitable parts of ACC’s business to the private sector going to ‘sort’ anything out. (Apart from making a few private businesses richer, the catch cry of NACT).
Paranoid. NACT is far more lethal and odious with this. At least with the Left you get genuine beliefs about due process and diversity as opposed to the Right’s ‘elite born to rule’ mind set.
Michael Cullen put NZ on one of the most sound financial footings in the OECD. Shows how much you know about ‘good financial management’.
sweetd said:
Same way that being knifed in the guts qualifies you for ACC
@peter: Better than that, have them sued for occupational injury or their health insurance claim denied, then they’ll understand why ACC was formed in the first place.
Monty: “The fear that Labour ever might return to power fills me with dread”
Lol Don’t quite understand how someone with these views takes time out of his day to go on red alert and hear what Labour MPs has to say on the issues affecting NZers. Bit obessive for someone who loathes this party.
Don’t believe the spin Monty- ACC changes have been extremely harmful to many NZers who need it and has been one aspect of National that has been downright cruel for no reason.
I notice that no one has focused on the biggest error in the original post.
ACC is not being privatised – it is (hopefully) going to be opened to competition. Hugely different and extremely beneficial to people with the nous to take their own cover through other providers.
One of the many shames of the previous 9 years of Labour was the winding back of the previous scheme put in place in the late 1990′s. Had it been left alone we probably would not be having this debate.
“Do you want posters and comments on here – or perhaps just prefer mindless cheer-leading?”
Actually, speaking for myself here – I want to hear both sides of the ‘spin’ – but lets get real – the ‘mindless cheerleading’ comes from both sides – only, imo, when it comes from the right its more mindless ‘spinleading’ as opposed to ‘cheerleading’. Which, I think, for the most part, those of us who recognize it for what it is, realize its just desperate rhetoric aimed at perpetuating the same old myths and the same old lines – because as mentioned above, it seems the Nats cant come up with a vision for our future – only a draconian ‘has been’ approach that failed 20 years ago.
While sad, its going to leave us in a disastrous place as a country. We as a country are appalling at recalling the mess the Nats tend to leave us in – feel free to prove me wrong, but in my memory, there is very little I can recall worth thanking National for…and while Labour have not always gotten it right, at least their track record is more reliable.
A.K.A. the most profitable parts of ACC’s business will be carved out to private business with ACC having to carry the can for all the unprofitable areas.
Privatise profits, socialise losses. Another NACT catch cry.
“Declare ACC to be in big financial trouble, even though it collects about $1 billion a year more in revenue than it pays out in claims.”
I think Cullen would be ashamed of you for that comment, Pete. Although I disagreed with him on some points (partly his odd aversion to superior law, but hey), he was certainly a forward planner. By all means debate how ACC is best managed, but to deny that there’s a problem because the books balance this year, ir next, is just naive.
So is ACC collecting $1B more per year than it is paying out at the moment or not?
In fact doesn’t this
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3852037/ACC-on-track-for-2b-surplus
suggest that Pete is being conservative and that the surplus this year will be about $2B?
Factor in that world equity markets should be doing much better 1-2 years from now – the picture should get far rosier, right?
Are you really sure you’re not the one being financially naive, because even while ACC has to manage the numbers fairly carefully for the next few years, the term ‘crisis’ as NACT is using it looks like total political BS.
“Are you really sure you’re not the one being financially naive, because even while ACC has to manage the numbers fairly carefully for the next few years, the term ‘crisis’ as NACT is using it looks like total political BS.”
Crisis or not, it was Labour who planned to fully fund ACC in the first place, back in ’99. So they obviously realized (correctly) that you can’t look at the numbers on a yearly basis, which is what Pete seems to be doing.
Clare… that is very naughty to say I was trolling when I merely (and have saved my comment to prove it) commenting on the PREFU and ACC. What is bad about that?
You are warned. Clare
Pete’s been in the game long enough to be able to look out further than his nose.
I welcome views from everyone who puts them without hyperbole, vitriol or name calling. For what it’s worth.
Monty your opening post did skirt one issue, the alleged indebtedness of ACC from which ALL debate on this stemmed. You accuse Labour of misinformation but this one item is a pretty bad example of misinformation. Secondly the pricewaterhouse report of 2008 was pretty clear on a number of points, some of which are being addressed by national in some ways but mostly not. I have read the document several times and it makes a very sound case for ACC staying as it is with tweaking. All things require tweaking with time.
Please elt’s not make this a Labour did this so it excuses that or whatever. National promised change, to be different from the other guys…
Remember when key said the gap in wages between Oz and NZ had closed under national because it was lower than in 2005. YES it’s lower than 2005, but higher than 2008, THAT is misinformation and pretty important coming out of the mouth of a PM about a key election platform.
I don’t consider National all bad. I wont be voting for them next year, but you already know that.
I struggle to see, for example, how we are going to get even 20% of current beneficiaries off welfare when only an arguable 27,000 jobs are currently being advertised? Clamping down on the benefit alone wont create the jobs for these people to go into.
That money we borrow, $250m each week, Australia did a similar thing but used it differently, it’s not just minerals that they have which we don’t, its an active government not a reactive one.
If people think it’s hard to get money for claims from ACC now, wait til it’s privatised. My understanding is that ACC at inception had a number of goals and one of them was social.
I cut my teeth as a baby lawyer on Insurance company work, they aint in it to pay out on claims. So, those refused, go into queues in the public health system? Or dont’ do anything and continue with a limp, constant pain or whatever. UP go the sick leave rates at work, up go the numbers on sickness benefits, up go the pressures on public health system and so on. I want to see this stuff addressed first, not a jump from problems with what we have to, give it to private insurers as an alleged panacea. We WILL never know the full truth on this issue, there i too much at stake for many involved to allow stupid voters to make the decision, clearly we are not capable of such thinking so give us the spin please. I just dont see how this is any different to when national railed at Clark for thinking she knew what was best for us…
Supercity
Canterbury water
employment law changes (including fundamental principle of natural justice)
ACC
Joyce not releasing info cos we wont understand and will misconstrue..
I think the reason we dont see a very proactive govt right now is because fundamentally privatisation is their panacea and they said they would do that til their second term… so we are getting it by stealth. Misinformation, bait and then the election, they will regard that win (yes I think they will win) as a mandate for everything they were champing at the bit to do now.
They dont feel they can privatised now so they tinker at the edges. Law and order reforms they know are useless but will be lapped up by people who think getting toguher will reduce crime, it wont. Whittle away at beneficiaries even though if they all wanted to work tomorrow less than 10% would get a job, tinker with education by focusing on alleged bad teaching, talk about rugby and rugby whenever you can and get chummy with them. I think it will work because I think the ABs will win next year.
@cabbage – I don’t care what the polls say a bone headed idea spun and served as pate is still a bone headed idea!
“I come from a Irish Catholic hard drinking west-coast family – although I barely drink” Oh man, not even on St Paddy’s?
“do not say who my real name is because working in Wellington, there are relationships with the Public Service” – don’t worry, we already know you’re a Nat staffer
@bryce LOL
@ 3.05pm – good point!
@Paul and Tracey – agreed
So good to be back after my night in A and E
Mr Hodgson, didn’t Labour introduce the full funding model you now attack in this post?
ACC my precious !
Warned about what Clare? I have re-read my comment, based on 100% fact (which others can see on my blog) and there was nothing wrong with it. I can rephrase it if it will please you? Why isn’t Pete himself answering these?
What is silly about this Pete? National was given the best possible excuse to meddle with ACC when Labour left it in deficit and failed to disclose it in the PREFU – which was confirmed by an independent body. If it wasn’t in such rude health, do you think National would have the free run to make as many changes as they are planning?
Haha gitmo
@Tracey 27,000 jobs are currently being advertised?
Monty
You are suffering from a dreaded malady – misplaced belief.
ACC levies are a tax to support ACC costs.
NACT ignore that to have perverted the publics understanding parroting on about self funding.
ACC doesn’t need self funding except to make a nest egg for private profit takers – Insurance peddlers and allied parasites.
When Cullen’s fund promotes a partly self funded solution to future superannuation NACT block that as nothing is going to the profit takers in a direst shift of public money. Nact plainly don’t believe in self funding.
Funding investment for future demographics is entirely different to full funding for private insurance profit when privatising.
Why doesn’t the press rip into the NACT strategy with ACC.
The press is NACT’s greatest ally next to those with aspirations to join the tiny group accumulating massive wealth from wealth diversion from the many in the form of taxation increases for services that are effectively decreased.
Clare… you can’t delete a message completely. What’s your problem with the truth?
Clint this is your last warning. Clare
Ummmmm… what I can’t understand is that many of these decisions have been made by the managers of ACC not by the government. Are you saying that you think Government should dictate general operational decisions rather than just set a broad strategy and guidelines? Maybe you would like the Minister of SOE or perhaps Transport to set the airfares Air NZ charges.
ACC was not set up as a social welfare system but as a government run insurance scheme. As such it needs to run on a similar basis to how other insurance schemes run.
If you want to turn it into a social welfare scheme then might I suggest that the Labour party is honest with the electorate and start funding it out of general taxtation directly rather than via the levy.
Does this mean that it is now Labour party policy now to review every decision made by ACC regarding setting of the levy for particular groups and make a call whether or not that levy is suitable for that group?
If not then why are you so concerned about the increased levy for motorcyclists?
If it is then, when you next get back into office can you make it a priority to review the levy for IT contractors as I’m preety sure I’m paying far too much (however I might have stopped working by the time you are in a position to do so;)).
Gosman
Before ACC existed, if you fell over and broke a leg the health system fixed you up out of taxes.
Vehicle accident victims likewise out of taxes.
ACC now includes these and many other health system services as it has gained invasion of such by stealth.
Insurance was not the mantra of ACC when set up.
The argument of insurance is a distortion of what we have in ACC.
The iteration of Insurance by one sector incessantly when ACC is debated does indicate where this is all going.
The health system and health insurance similarly are being edged toward the grossly inefficient and selective system that denies a growing section of the community what they previously had.
We don’t want embedded Health Insurance a la USA.
The health system is not a social service but a core Govt function that we pay for in taxation.
You question the ACC levy on IT workers yet this is not consistent with your comment about the grossly punative ACC on some classes of vehicles regardless whether they do 1 or 100,00kms a year or just catagorised on stats rather than drivers record.
ACC is a tax based system independent of any insurance unless a right wing bunch of lackies to multinational insurance companies distort its function to become a revenue source for multinational profit at our expense.
We do not need even more inequity and all that goes with it.
I note that in the last day ACC have done a mea culpa on the sexual abuse claims and reversed their position. One wonders how many folk have suffered in the meantime, all as a result of a political beatup by their Minister. Like him I have been a constituency MP for 20 years; he will know that these cases can be amongst the most harrowing. Shameful.
@John W & Gosman: Also, if the accident was at work, negligence litigation was common, adversarial and often financially ruinous.
DeepRed
Acknowledged. Compo was often constrained by lawyers and the worker was usually the looser. Unions had a vital role in that respect.
With ACC the built in tax gave more certainty to the employer.
Any victim in employment related injury has minimal compensation if any at all.
Metered treatment is rationed often based on targeted rehabilitation if that is a possibility.
Lets not get sidetracked though on the inclusion of health system treatment of a non industrial caused injury now being under ACC.
Ok, let me try this again..
Don’t you think that National had an “easier” run with making changes to ACC considering that it was left with a deficit that wasn’t disclosed in the PREFU?
Does that work for you Clare?
That’s better and you don’t have to be sarcastic. Clare
@ John W
You can claim ACC is something more from what it is but it doesn’t take away from the fact that it is essentially a compulsory insurance based system. That is why it sets levies for particular activities, which is assigning a cost to risk – the job of insurers.
There may well be a case to be made for cross subsidisation between the different risk areas but if you take the position that ACC should be stand alone and self funding, (i.e. without recourse to general taxation revenue), then it has to be run on a semi-commercial basis with minimal input from Government at the operational level.
If Labour wants to move away from this model then by all means publish what the alternative will be rather than simply attacking anything that the managers of ACC decide to do.
“most cost-effective scheme in the world and the envy of many nations.”
This is the biggest load of bollocks I have seen in a long time. If it so cost effective and the envy of the world then why has no other country copied it. If the whole world is envious, name one country that has said it wants a scheme like ACC.