Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘ACC’

Will the Maori Party support ACC cuts too?

Posted by Darien Fenton on February 12th, 2010

The report from the Transport & Industrial Relations Select Committee on the government’s ACC bill was tabled in the House today.  This is the bill that slashes ACC entitlements.  I blogged on just one of the provisions recently, and Labour’s media release outlines the other changes.

The protests will continue.  The bikers have joined ACC Futures Coalition and will rally outside parliament next Tuesday.   Labour and the Greens will fight the bill throughout all parliamentary stages, because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Maori Party have a call to make on this one.  Remember, they agreed to support the ACC bill when ACT was refusing to. which gave the numbers to get the bill through first reading.  ACT later came to the party, agreeing to support the bill through all stages with a deal to open up ACC’s work account to competition (in other words, privatisation).

The Maori Party said they wanted to let the people to have a say on the bill, and they would listen to the submissions and decide on whether they continued their support.

Rahui Katene said during the first reading that :

“……..We agreed to support the introduction of the bill and its referral to a select committee so that people can express their views. We want to hear about people’s experience with the scheme. Among others, we want to hear from workers and their whānau who have suffered an injury, health workers, and providers of rehabilitation services. We do this so that the accident compensation scheme can once again be a world leader; so that it can be affordable, fair, and culturally competent; and so that it can remember always to focus on the best interests of the community.”

Unfortunately, no MP from the Maori Party was at any of the Select Committee hearings to listen to the people, including those representing the 400,000 seasonal and casual workers, many of whom are Maori and the large number of Maori who work in primary industries, where injury rates are high – who will lose big time from this bill.

However, it seems that the Maori Party might have other interests. Katene said during the first reading that :

“There is another dimension to our decision to vote for this bill’s being referred to select committee to let the people have a say on accident compensation, and that is the potential for Māori entrepreneurship and enterprise to rise to the opportunity for innovation. In 2007 ACC undertook a risk-profile review with groups within the Ngāi Tahu umbrella, resulting in a considerable annual levy reduction. The Federation of Māori Authorities has also been interested in pursuing dialogue around levy rates and the possibility of a Māori consortium leading a corporate arrangement with ACC, possibly focusing initially on specific industry sectors such as forestry, fishing, construction, and farming.”

Another big call for the Maori Party.   I wonder if this one is a deal-breaker – or indeed if anything is?

Tags:
Filed under: ACC, Māori

TAXI FARE

Posted by Chris Carter on February 12th, 2010

Last night Lianne Dalziel and I shared a cab from Parliament to Wellington airport. Nice driver, Chinese migrant and keen to talk about politics.

He told us he voted National last time, but he and his wife are returning to Labour next time! Why? “ACC, growing unemployment and crime.”

Lianne asked him why he changed his vote in 2008 and he said he bought into the idea of ‘It’s time for a change.’ “Big mistake!” His words.

When I arrived in Auckland I asked my Punjabi migrant driver the same question, “Who was he doing to vote for at the next election?”

“Labour!” he said.

Actually he fessed up to always being a Labour voter, but said that many of his fellow Punjabi drivers had changed their vote in 2008, and now were going back to Labour. Again, ACC charges and disillusionment with the current Government.

I know that two taxi drivers is only a very small sample, but I would urge readers to question their driver when they’re next in a taxi to see where the political wind is blowing.

P.S. A message to Cameron Slater. Cameron, you seem to think that as Foreign Affairs Spokesperson I’m “silent” on international issues. I suggest you check my website at carter.org.nz to read some of my releases. My full report on the St Kitts and Nevis general election will be online soon.


Health System on its Head

Posted by Iain Lees-Galloway on February 8th, 2010

Last month when Rahui Katene suggested more public money be put into providing stomach stapling operations as an answer to obesity-related health complications I knew in my gut that it was the wrong message and needed to be challenged.

But I also know a couple of people for whom this type of operation has been extremely beneficial and has extended their life expectancy immensely. As a final option – when all other avenues have been explored – it should be considered.

Today, however, the completely arse-about-face approach to healthcare the National / Act / Maori Party government take has taken a step into the ludicrous.

Reports this morning bemoaning the additional costs to ACC of dancing-related accidents typify the thinking:

Prevention = Bad, Cure = Good
                             or
 Long term plans = Bad, Short-term stats in time for the election = Good

Should we discourage kids from playing sport because they might get injured? Should we not go to the gym because we might pull a muscle? Should we all sit on the couch and watch TV or play Playstation rather than go for a walk as a family?

And having lived that type of lifestyle, will the Government then pick the tab on surgery to make it all OK?

There is no sense whatsoever in taking away the services that teach people to take responsibility for their own health and assist people to make early interventions and then putting more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff.


National’s ACC and Super scaremongering exposed

Posted by Chris Hipkins on December 6th, 2009

Earlier in the year John Key sent a letter to every senior citizen in my electorate reiterating his promise to resign if the National-led government cut the rate of superannuation or raised the retirement age. It was a hollow promise. Key knows it’s a promise he will never need to keep because he will be long gone by the time the crunch comes. It will be at least 10-15 years before the real pinch starts, and about 25 years before we feel the full effects of the “baby boomer” retirement. Key’s promise is all the more hollow because he, along with Bill English and the rest of the Cabinet, have cut savings to pay for future superannuation entitlements.

Under Labour, Michael Cullen set up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and set aside some of the money that we’ll need in the future to pay for Super. Cutting contributions to the fund was one of Bill English’s first moves as Finance Minister. It was a stupid decision. Latest Treasury figures show the fund with higher than forecast returns of the $1.3 billion for the four months to 31 October. That return would have no doubt been higher if more money had been paid into the fund. National argued the cut was necessary due to the recession, ignoring that the best time to invest is when prices are low.

National’s scaremongering over ACC has a similar hollow ring to it. John Key and Nick Smith used the lower returns from the ACC investment funds to justify huge levy hikes and cutting of entitlements. But ACC’s investment funds had returns of $600 million in the four months to 31 October, which like the NZ Super Fund were higher than expected. Week by week, the National Party’s economic track record is looking all the more superficial and lightweight.


(Raymond Huo ACC Part One) 危机”解疑 – 霍建强议员答东方周刊

Posted by Raymond Huo on November 16th, 2009

问:这一阵子大热的话题是ACC撑不下去了。ACC存在一个大漏洞,政府提供的是一个惊人的亏损数字,然后是现在说要修改政策、要加税或减服务。但工党的说法及数字与政府的差异很大。到底哪一边有道理?ACC是怎么了?ACC的未来何去何从?大家为此感到不安而不解。请霍议员就此问题谈谈你的意见。霍:谈这个热腾腾的话题之前,我想有必要给我们来新西兰不久的华人朋友介绍一下有关ACC的背景。就是在1980年到1990年之间,国家党已经做了很多私有或半私有化的动作。所以这个话题,尤其是ACC部长Nick Smith目前的做法,全是重复老套路,不是新鲜的。唯一的区别就是他跟1992年当时的国家党财政部长Bill Birch 比起来,效果还不如当时那么耸动。

所谓的耸动效果有几个方面:第一,就是先造势说现在ACC不行啦、快要垮掉了;再一个就是我要狠加ACC收上来的levies,便是税;第三,我不但要把税给加重,还要取消或是削减享受到ACC服务的人群的权益。导致的结局呢,就是逼民众不胜其烦,不得不说,好吧,随便你怎么弄吧 。最后就是ACC私有化或半私有化。

目前ACC的主席John Judge 本身是个会计师。我在10月14号惠灵顿的报纸上看到这样一条报道,很具参考价值:报道说John Judge,这位主席,他说liability -即指ACC的赔偿责任今年达到了48亿。但我们要想想看,今年ACC全年征收的不过42亿,加上110亿的投资回报,怎么可能有个48亿的漏洞呢?

(more…)

Tags:
Filed under: ACC, asian, ethnic

National’s not so secret privatisation agenda for ACC

Posted by Lianne Dalziel on November 15th, 2009

Ruth, Lianne, Rob and the Harley Nightrod SpecialLike many colleagues Ruth Dyson and I spoke to a biker’s rally yesterday about the proposed hike in ACC levies that single out motorcyclists for “special treatment” by way of an exhorbitant increase in levies.  It was interesting that Ruth and I had both independently come to the conclusion that the government would back down on the proposal – and would announce that they had listened to the people; reducing the ACC proposal by anything from 25-75%, depending on what they thought they could get away with.  All the bikers’ clubs would be able to say that they had won the campaign, but the government’s campaign would only have just begun.  There is nothing of value to privatise unless the insurers are able to price risk and maximise returns to their shareholders – ACC is not an insurance scheme and does not operate on these principles.

So how will the government deliver on the promise it has made to the insurance industry at the same time as meeting its commitment not to privatise anything in their first term in government?  One word – confidence.  ACC is under direct attack by this government with measures designed to undermine confidence in the scheme and what better way than to hike up the levies.

Have you ever wondered why other countries have not taken up ACC if it really is so good?  The answer is that powerful business interests, insurance companies (and their shareholders) and of course the legal profession, that is the guaranteed winner in a right-to-sue environment, combine to prevent any other government from daring to challenge their status quo – look how hard Obama has had to fight for health reform in the US – his strongest opponents are the insurers.  We must not buy into this debate – the underlying principle of our no-fault scheme is being challenged.  The government has chosen motorcyclists – to get people pointing to other claimants – what about the cars that cause the accidents; what about cyclists who pay nothing on top of their earner’s levy; what about sports injuries; what about skiers?  Pointing to the individual and the risk of being injured undermines the no-fault principle that underpins the most cost-effective scheme in the world.  Remember it was a National government that brought in these separate accounts in the first place.  Vehicles can be charged a levy because there is a registration fee paid.  The only way they could charge for sports injuries would be by charging clubs.  The bikers are at the vanguard of a bigger campaign and we must back them.

Our messages yesterday were ACC is not broke and does not need fixing.  Competition is code for privatisation and must be resisted.  International insurers want a piece of the NZ action and we must say no.  We are better off because we have 24 hour no-fault cover and it costs less than the private insurance industry because it doesn’t have to cream off profits.  ACC is the most cost-effective scheme in the world and we must not let our confidence in the no-fault principle be undermined by this government’s not so secret agenda.


Avoiding a threadjack

Posted by Trevor Mallard on November 3rd, 2009

I’ve been moderating the Nikki accident post pretty heavily to avoid the ACC debate becoming personalised. However I think it is worth sharing the standard nat email response so people can see it. With a comment from P Jones:

Just as well Ms Kaye was riding a bicycle and not a motorcycle. The following is the standard National response to questions about the proposed motorcycle levy increase. I would like to hear Ms Kayes response about the cost to ACC of bicycle accidents – given that cyclist pay NOTHING toward the cost of their claims. (Incidentally every one of the purported “facts*” in the following can be shown, using ACCs own figures, to be false):

Thank you for your email regarding changes to ACC, specifically your concerns regarding how this will affect Motorcycle users. The National-led Government is determined to preserve and protect our 24/7, no-fault accident insurance programme.

ACC is facing some real challenges. Its liabilities have ballooned to almost $24 billion – $13 billion more than its assets. This is unsustainable and unaffordable.*

In 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.*

The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.*

To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.*

We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from somewhere else.

The proposed increases are currently open to public consultation. We encourage motorcyclists and other motorists to have their say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November.

Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from the ACC Board and make a final decision.

I would like to encourage you to have your say on the proposals, via this link: http://www.acc.co.nz/consultation

Thank you once again for letting me know your views


ACC and the bikers

Posted by Chris Hipkins on October 18th, 2009

Like most MPs I’ve been getting heaps of emails from angry motorbike riders about the National government’s massive ACC levy hikes. Yesterday I even had people come to talk to me about it at my regular constituency clinics.

Rick Barker put out a great statement last week which I’m sure reflects the views of bikers everywhere. Rick points out that the cut-off points in terms of cc ratings don’t take into account the relative power of motorcycles. He also points out that many bikers will own several bikes but they can only ride one at a time:

“I have friends who own up to seven bikes, each for different purposes: off-road, trail, touring and collectables – and they could end up paying about $5000 just to ride their bikes. They can only ride one at a time.

Rick also argues that many motorcycle accidents are actually caused by car drivers, not the biker:

“How is it fair that a motorcyclist is knocked off their bike by a car and then charged much higher levies for the experience? This means the victim pays.

Of course motorbikes are also better for the planet because they use less fuel, not to mention they take up less space in the carpark.

I suspect the National government are secretly quite happy that people are getting angry about ACC. They’ll then use that anger to justify their privatisation agenda. How cynical.


ACC figures nonsense

Posted by Trevor Mallard on October 10th, 2009

When Nick Smith told a pack of lies around the appointment of John Judge as ACC Board chair, including to the Select Committee I sat on, the Labour Party focussed on Smith because Judge had a good reputation for commercial nous and had done a good job as Te Papa Board chair.

His statements yesterday are a real worry. 

He is working on the false assumption that money for all the future payments for past injuries has to be collected this (or last) year. That is just nonsense.

Our government took a decision to collect a bit more each year to shift the scheme from one that was “pay as you go” to one where the future costs of this years accidents were collected this year and a bit of the future costs of previous years accidents was also collected.

Levy levels depend on how many years are taken to do the catch up. To characterise it as a scheme at risk of falling over reflects badly on Mr Judge.


So What if Workers Die

Posted by Trevor Mallard on July 14th, 2009

NOHSAC (National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee) is to be abolished.

So what I here the voices cry. Well because it is a small useful group doing good work helping set priorities for research and commissioning some that is designed to reduce what has been a shocking record when compared to like nations.

It was set up in 2003 and gave independent academic and evidence based  advice to the Minister of Labour.

In my brief term I found the work they did in the area of occupational illness fascinating – it certainly raised some real issues around the health/ACC interface/boundary that we need to look at seriously at some stage – both for our long term health as well as for equity reasons.

At the same time the Nact government has taken the slasher to health and safety training both in institutions and workplaces.

What does not surprise me is that neither Kate Wilkinson nor Anne Tolley had the backbone to issue a media statement announcing the cuts or thanking people for a lot of mainly voluntary work well done.

It is like they just don’t care if more working people die.


Just a simple word to say…

Posted by Grant Robertson on June 3rd, 2009

I spent a bit of question time today trying to get Nick Smith to say sorry to the staff at ACC.  This might seem like a minor thing, but bear with me here. The story is this.  In the financial review debate in Parliament on Tuesday last week Nick Smith blurted out that ACC was going to announce redundancies in the corporate office.  The problem was staff had not been told.  The Chief Executive was forced to issue an apology to staff that they had found out this way, and that her plan had been for people to be treated with respect and dignity.

Nick Smith’s response has been to say he has nothing to apologise for.  He had thought it was being announced Tuesday, when it was Wednesday.   I find this a breathtaking display of disrespect and arrogance.  His lack of empathy for the workers involved speaks volumes to me.

 I get a lot of tips and information about likely job cuts in the public sector but I always try to ensure that any public comment comes only after the affected have been informed.  It is common courtesy.  Just as is apologising when your mistake causes concern and insecurity for hard-working people.  Nick Smith’s pre-emptive announcement did just that.   Staff at ACC now know how little their Minister thinks of them.   He could make up a little for that with an apology. It really is an easy word to say.