Estimates Debate — Vote ACC

I wanted to take a call on the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) estimates explicitly because the National Party was not going to. It made me wonder why National members would not take a call on the ACC estimates. There are obviously two reasons. The first is that they do not understand the accident compensation scheme, and the second is that they are clearly not prepared to defend their policy on accident compensation, which was released recently in the last adjournment.

Not only does John Key clearly not understand Working for Families, as is evidenced by a statement from his own deputy, but also it is very clear from interviews done on the accident compensation policy National released recently that National does not understand the accident compensation scheme either, and that Mr Key in particular does not understand the scheme. Mr Key told the public that the privatisation of accident compensation will result in safer workplaces for workers—wrong. The facts show that New Zealand workplace injury rates are significantly lower than those of Australia, where there is a large amount of privatisation. As everybody now knows, of course, Australian insurers would be running the show under National.

Mr Key told Radio Live that “in Australia … their rehabilitation rate has been much quicker”—wrong. The fact is that New Zealand workers return to work faster than their Australian counterparts. The latest figures show that 39 percent of injured workers in Australia receive compensation for 6 weeks or longer, compared with just 31 percent in New Zealand.

Mr Key said that the Accredited Employers Programme, which allows some employers to self-insure, enabled them to use private insurers—wrong. The facts are that these employers are explicitly prohibited from using private insurers. Mr Key claimed that 500 employers were on the scheme—wrong. There are, in fact, 145 Accredited Employers Programme contracts.

Mr Key told Radio Live that he believed there should be an independent ombudsman to investigate accident compensation claims. The facts are that there are already significant review rights and a further right of appeal through the courts, and that the ombudsman is already used in some accident compensation disputes. Mr Key also claimed that approval ratings for ACC were only 50 percent—wrong. The facts are that client satisfaction ratings are between 80 and 86 percent.

But then there is Mr Key’s apparent unfamiliarity with the fundamental principles that underpin the accident compensation scheme. On Radio Live he described the principles as “no fault, 24 hour, no fault, blah, blah, blah.” He is not only wrong but also appallingly naive about, and ignorant of, the principles.

The principles underpinning accident compensation are as good today as they were 40 years ago when Sir Owen Woodhouse spelt them out. For Mr Key’s benefit, I say that they are comprehensive entitlement, community responsibility, complete rehabilitation, administrative efficiency, and real compensation. It would not have taken Mr Key long to swot up those principles and find out what they were before releasing the National Party’s policy.

Clearly Mr Key does not understand the accident compensation scheme, in the same way that he does not understand Working for Families. The National Party policy was to introduce competition “in the Work Account”, which is what the policy as originally released stated. But then he went on to say that, perhaps, it most likely, probably, could be applied to the earners account and to the motor vehicle account well.

The attack on the accident compensation scheme is, in the first instance, unnecessary, because nobody among all the partners who contribute to the scheme considers it to be broken. Therefore, it is not in need of fixing. That attack, right through to the proposed solutions, has caused outrage amongst employers, employees, and medical practitioners. Mr Key could not have been more wrong.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Housing