Labour don’t get it
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am by David FarrarLabour are squealing over the $1 billion ACC blowout that they kept secret. NZPA reports:
Labour’s ACC spokesman, David Parker, said today Mr Key’s assertions were wrong and the Government was trying to divert attention from its plans to privatise ACC.
You always know someone is cornered when they start trying to distract from the issue by raising the nasty bogeyman hiding under the bed of privatisation.
He said he had spoken to former ACC minister Maryan Street who denied knowing any details of the shortfall until October, when she immediately told former finance minister Michael Cullen and the Treasury.
Note her careful use of words – denied knowing the details. She was informed as far back as May of the blowout, just not the exact figure.
Mr Parker said officials told ministers at the time it would be improper for the extra money to be authorised during the election campaign.
And Parker also misses the point. Even if they did not authorise the extra money, they could have disclosed the blowout voluntarily. That is the point – they knew PREFU was lacking a very significant item. And it is not as if there is any choice about the bailout – the Government can’t simply chooise to stop paying out ACC claims. If the blowout had been in welfare, then the adjustment would have been automatically reflected in forecasts.
It is also debatable if it was improper for the Government to approve funding the shortfall. They approved $150 billion depost guarantee during the election, so what is $297 million compared to that? And again this wasn’t some sort of discretionary expenditure such as deciding to build a new road – it was an obligation.
“There’s some really alarmist language being used around this … it’s 6 per cent of the ACC budget, it’s been blown out of all proportion.”
And this shows why they are unfit to be given the fiscal pursestrings again. David Parker saying that $1 billion over three years is nothing to be alarmed about. Think about how many hip operations, how many exra nurses, how many more computers in schools that would buy?
And his 6% of ACC budget is misleading, as the blowout is in one fund and it is around a 25% blowout in that fund. But hey we now know Labour don’t think 25% blowouts to the tune of a million dollars are worth worrying about, let alone telling anyone about.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Wheres the $1 billion ?
Its just a made up number.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
The Public Finance Act (Section 26U for those interested in the fine details) requires the pre-election fiscal and economic update to include a statement of “all Government decisions and all other circumstances that may have a material effect on the fiscal and economic outlook”.
The statement (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/prefu08-pt6of9.pdf) includes pages and pages of specific fiscal risks, some quantified some not quantified, across a wide area of government.
Why wasn’t the ACC issue included?
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
David – remind me again why you ever thought Cullen was a good Finance Minister?
And also – I think Labour absolutely gets it. They are just corrupt.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
If they had won the election they would have mentioned it in the december mini budget as the reason they had to increase taxes for the “rich pricks” to pay the shortfall so “poor pricks” could be looked after properly.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
This is symptomatic of Labour, who will argue a legal technicality ie they didn’t know the exact amount until too close to the election, while ignoring their ethical obligations to an incoming National Govt as well as to the public. This classic Labour subtertfuge simply proves Labour is a morally bankrupt outfit. But, they are no longer in govt anymore, so while they may try their usual trick of deflecting on to the issue of privatisation of ACC, which is scaremongering and not actually National Party policy since there is a big difference between privatisation and opening up a state monopoly to competition, they cannot control the ministerial inquiry (like they did with Taito Phillip Field et al) and the chickens will come home to roost. So when Labour accuse National of borrowing more than they said they would through this term and closer to the next election, John Key can simply say only because the Labour govt left another big hole in the govt books and the economy in terrible shape to withstand the financial crisis. And people actually think Labour can win in 2011? They are a rudderless party which will pay the cost of their governance of the country in future elections.
And Jacob its $1B over 3 years you troll. Dont worry though leftie trolls, all will be revealed in detail from the inquiry.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
While they can probably justify not having the rough figures detailed as a line item in the PREFU…BUT.
There is a entire specific section entitled “SPECIFIC FINANCIAL RISKS” that has all sorts of unquantified risks ( both positive and negative) , and once the risk was known ( May, or June if you believe Parker) I would have expected that this ACC risk should have also been added, but It sounds like the then Ministers kept this little bomb, very Hush, Hush.
It was probably the reason the the Universal student Allowance got binned early in the campaign , as it is roughly that figure they would have to find in future years.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
In the US it is said they have a black budget where countless billions of dollars are sucked out of the economy and no one is held to account. Here in good old NZ we have the ACC corporation that acts like a black hole sucking up every dollar this parasitic department can get it’s greedy hands on. Why is it whenever ACC is mentioned the socialist suckholes appear to have epileptic fits and start frothing at the mouth. It’s not the privatisation that scares them it’s the very real worry that this good little money laundering system could get held to account. How many bloody billions does this organisation have hiding in overseas accounts and why should this be so?. I say open the fucking books and explain to the the people of New Zealand why we pay copious amounts of cash into an organisation that sends most of this cash out of the country. Why the hell are Kiwi’s still getting screwing over by these thieving fucks and where has all the money gone. I suspect the real answer will lie in the self interest of politicians who are quick to speak of a fair system for all while at the same time building up that nest egg for “government programs”, namely the advancement of socailism.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Labour’s response to this (raising what is perceived as the “bogeyman of privatisation”) is a demonstration of how they seek to capitalize on a weakness within National, and that is the Nat’s inability to present a coherent and logical case for Privatisation. They have allowed the left to set the agenda on this issue, and the Nats have painted themselves into a corner by so meekly conceding what should be their heartland philosophical territory.
Its why the left have to be confronted on every idea. If they are not, they will use your failure to resist as a means of gaining more ground. The Nats have to develop valid and believable counter points to these common leftist smears, and not only articulate these counterpoints well, but confront Labour’s media toadies when they misreport on the issue, as they so often do.
Choose the issue, argue coherently and articulately for it, and slap down Labour’s media acolytes with healthy doses of contempt and derision. That is the strategy the Nats need to embrace.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
That is why Cullen’s purchase of a railway was so reckless
The average family wouldn’t go out and buy a new car, when they couldn’t
pay bills they already had, but the former finance minister thought nothing of spending
money on a trainset.
1 Billion dollars = the amount of money ACC should have had in their account.
All so Clark and co could put up their patsy little billboards
Kiwi Rail
Kiwi Bank
Kiwi Saver
Ask those who rely on ACC whether they would like a ride
on a train, or money to feed their families over Xmas
Thank goodness we now have a government in place who
Vote:understand the value of money
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
All these matters are now on the desk of Hon Anne Tolley Minister of Education to action. Iwould hope she draws the matter to the attention of Our Prime minister John Key
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
The question that should be asked has the money just been stolen by Micky or have the board of ACC lost it by making wise investments in the finance markets. When the outfit is governed by failed trade unionists that could be a distinct possiblity. Perhaps they should all just resign now and save themselves further embarrassment.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
What is the point of disclosing public accounts before an election if billion dollar holes can be swept under the rug just because they don’t know the exact dollar shortfall?
Labour would have know in general that hundreds of millions were needed.
Perhaps the law needs changing to force ‘heads-up’ for items of concern to be included in the opening of accounts.
Labour have shown once again their nasty vindictive little selves. I truly believe Clark/Cullen and Co tried to deceive the National (and the country by default).
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
The posting by jacob van hartog at the beginning of this thread is one of the most stupid inane statements I have ever seen.
Look fella, when you’re caught by your wife commiting adultory its not overly bright to pretend to be your twin brother.
And for the dis(Hon) Parker to try and muddy the waters by refusing to acknowledge that Section 26U of the Public Finance Act requires Government to make the disclosure in the PREFU is another example of the contempt that Labour (and you Jacob) have for the law.
I suspect there are going to be a number of these bombshells in the next few months including the yet to be fully told story of the Project Protector debacle … and just who is Goff going to blame for that?
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
What is the penalty for breaching Section 26U of the act?
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Parker was on TV last night saying that Treasury didn’t disclose the blowout. I’m not sure how Treasury’s lack of disclosure absolves Parker and his mates. Or maybe he’s saying that if it was good enough for Treasury, it’s good enough for him.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
This is all a beat-up. Sure, the previous Government didn’t handle it well, but the urgent press conference, the Ministerial inquiry and the rhetoric are all totally OTT.
As I’ve blogged on g.blog, this is all part of neutralising public opposition to privatising the earners’ account by depicting ACC as a dysfunctional organisation. The fact that the shortfall is in the non-earner’s account and the two issues are in reality unrelated doesn’t matter, it is the public perception that counts.
BTW, I’ve never worked out why treatment injury (and this seems to be a significant contributor to the shortfall) costs are funded from the non-earner’s account rather than levies on health professionals. Surely a levy on those providing medical treatment would be the best way of reducing the instance of treatment injury.
[DPF: If you don't think there is genuine anger over a $1 billion shortfall, then you are reading things very wrong]
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
LUCY
This is NZ and we are talking about politicians – no penalty. They are never held to account and this is why corrupt people get to stay in govt.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Start with an OIA for the Treasury report to Ministers on the specific fiscal risks – ask for all communication including emails, aide memoires and oral briefings. What is possible is that it was an unquantified risk in one of the early briefings, but other officials (ACC or ministers office) didn’t want it in the report arguing it is a forecasting problem due to losses in investments which may reverse – but then the world tanked post May and it just got worse.
Private companies have this issue with fair value calculations in disclosure documents, but at least have to make the calculation even if a forecast loss this year change to a gain next year. However the incoming government should have had this information disclosed in the PREFU regardless.
Alternatively Treasury was simply not informed by ACC that they had discussed this with their Minister. The PREFU only needs for an issue to be raised with the Minister – the letter in May qualifies even if quantum is uncertain for it to be required in the PREFU. – a note in PREFU could have simply said “its big large and scarey and coming soon” and theres no upside.
My big concerns is that there appears to be a sizeable enough culture of public servants that have lost ability to provide information free of favour, or are too scared to publish bad news. What is even worse than bad news, is not being told bad news that you could then have done something about.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
toad
Just what part of a new standard of openness and accountability did the PM and her corrupt muppets not understand when they made that promise?
The election was about trust…. ha ha ha.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
toad
If you want to work out why something was done one way and not another, and you are talking about socialists then simply look for what was easier to administer. That’s all their is to it when self serving corrupt people are involved…. look for what was easier for them.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“All so Clark and co could put up their patsy little billboards
Kiwi Rail
Kiwi Bank
Kiwi Saver”
Kiwi Broke.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“Kiwi we-will-never-stop-hating-Liarbore”???
Didn’t Goff say on the TV1 Breakfast show this morning that in fact it was all declared in some official report or another?
What’s up with that?
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Toad
You are way better than that, shame on you.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
burt and big bruv – I’m not defending Labour’s failure to address this pre-election. I think they were very wrong in that. But it doesn’t justify the huge over-reaction and dog-whistles by Key upon learning of it, which I can assume is only to undemine public confidence in ACC in an attempt to make National’s privatisation policy less unpalatable.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Lucy – offences are in section 76 of the PFA and penalties are section 77. Not huge but generally a significant name and shame aspect and the likelihood you will never be allowed near any financial responsibilties ever again. If an ex-Minister was convicted and possibly could be charged under section 76 obstruction, then there would be an interesting credibility issue for that members party.
PS Toad is either being nearly deliberately ignorant (willfully blind) about ACC given past statements about being knowledge about ACC or has limited ability in understand the how government works – again a worry for someone senior in a political party, or is just trying a diversion in the classic mould of Yes Minister.
See below for section 77 Penalties
77 Penalties for offences(1) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) of section 76 of this Act is liable on summary conviction,—
(a) In the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $2,000:
(b) In the case of a person or organisation other than an individual, to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
(2) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (2) of section 76 of this Act is liable on summary conviction,—
(a) In the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding $5,000:
(b) In the case of a person or organisation other than an individual, to a fine not exceeding $15,000.
Compare: 1977 No 65 s 110
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Toad
What part of 1 Billion dollars do you not get? and by the way you ARE defending Labour’s lies and deceit.
You might also consider that the public are not worried about the PARTIAL privatization of the ACC, see unlike the Greens Key was open and honest about what he is planning to do, the public do not find the prospect unpalatable at all,
Vote:the public heard it and they voted for him.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Good to see you sticking to your position toad.
Once labours bitch, always labours bitch.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Silly me. I forgot that the Fiscal Responsibility Act is for politicians and not us plebs so of course there arent penalties for breaking it.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Toad, any issue you have with National’s ACC policy or some “hidden agenda” to privatise ACC (which is obviously your view) is irrelevant to the issue we are concerned with here. It does not matter where the $1B non-disclosure was found whether it be Health, Education or ACC, National is right to be mighty angry about Labour’s deceit, especially in tight financial times such as these. National now either has to cut back on its election policies or borrow more or impose an ACC levy to fund this $1B hole. Its also a bit rough to be pre-judging the inquiry as some excuse to privatise based on pure left wing speculation. What is National supposed to do, not get to the bottom of this mess? Where is the accountability otherwise as it sure cant be at election 08 can it!
Vote:If National ever starts to use this as an eg of why privatisation is needed, then that is when your comment is fair. Not now.
Your post is another example of the Greens failure to play fair regarding National and Labour.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Labour lied in Government. Labour lies outside Government. Labour shouldn’t ever be in Government, or even in Parliament for that matter.
The cover-up of the deficiency in the ACC accounts is par for the course.
Cover-ups have occured in the Education, Health, Police, Immigration, Law and Order, Prisons Ministries etc and Hon Anne Tolley, Hon Tony Ryall, Hon Judith Collins are aware of cover-ups by their previous Ministries, and it will be interesting to see what action they take.
Hon Anne Tolley, Minister of Education must ask why the previous Minister of Education Hon Chris Carter, delayed Official Imformation Act 1982 requests until after the election, the rip-off of International Students at Wanganui City College, (part of the $1 1/2 cash cow industry in New Zealand provided by Asian Students)?
She must also ask why the Ministry of Education failed to investigate the rip-off of International Students at Wanganui City College, ( This is reported in the Trustees Board Meeting on 20 May 2008 as a phone call ‘to say the matter wouldn’t be taken any further”. So how far did they investigate it?
Hon Tony Ryall must ask why some patients at the Whanganui District Hospital are denied all human rights?
Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Police must ask why Wanganui City College failed to report to the police the assault on the Deputy Principal by a 14 year old girl?
She must also question why the Area Commander Inspector D A McLeod failed to investigate my complaint September 6 2008 on this same matter?
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Newstalk ZB was carrying news reports this morning featuring “ACC lawyer John Miller” criticising the Government’s reaction to the shortfall in ACC’s non-earners’ account as “over the top”. While I don’t hold a transcript, I recall that he considered the Government’s agenda was to bring in private insurers. He also felt that there should be no funded account in the first place – liabilities should be funded annually by government on a pay-as-you-go basis.
My first reaction was to ask myself who is “ACC lawyer John Miller”? Is he an independent legal practitioner who represents ACC in litigation or disputes resolution? If so, what is the propriety of his commenting publicly on an unrelated aspect of his client’s business but identifying himself with the Corporation? (… unless, of course, he is being put forward as a convenient stool pigeon – complete with “lawyer” tag – to front ACC’s apologetics.)
Or is he an ACC in-house lawyer? I can’t find him on ACC’s website; he’s not listed, for example, as a member of ACC’s Board or 9-strong Executive Leadership Team in the 2008 Annual Report. But if he is a commonal garden in-house staff member, what is he doing making statements on ACC’s behalf rather than the Chair or the Chief Executive? And why are his comments so transparently political in tone and content? Is this the standard of political neutrality by public officials and employees that the country has inherited from the Helen Clark regime?
The matter deserves attention as a small part of the Ministerial inquiry initiated by the Prime Minister.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
John Miller Law, Wgtn based, specialises in ACC matters
http://www.jmlaw.co.nz/about.htm
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
toad
I have done a few google searches and I can’t find any reference that suggests the role of an incomming govt is to protect the reputation of the outgoing govt when the outgoing govt did self serving things to improve their chances of being re-elected.
I may not have used optimum search words, perhaps you could suggest a few I could use becasue clearly you think the public should remain misinformed to protect Labour’s best interests.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
In the news Hon Nick Smith stated that an investigation would be held into ACC to find out who is accountable?
A test of John Keys integrity is whether any culprit will be charged under sections 99 to 116 of the Crimes Act 1961-ribery and Corruption?
So the Big Question. Did Hon Marion Street, in the Service of the Crown ,seek to advantage Labour during the election run-up by failing to disclose the deficiencies in ACC’s accounts?
I am of the conclusion that she did
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Frank
So no retrospective validations this time ?
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
im in the hawkes bay at the moment.. not my usual turf.. spoke to a bunch of people today… they all basically said this..
“how can they be short a billion dollars? they charge me plenty!!!”
toad – its a billion dollars man! people are ANGRY!
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
llew: “John Miller Law, Wgtn based, specialises in ACC matters”
Well, he obviously has his snout donkey-deep in the trough. For him to support a shake-up of ACC would be akin to a turkey voting for Christmas!!
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
What would Hayek say
“My big concerns is that there appears to be a sizeable enough culture of public servants that have lost ability to provide information free of favour, or are too scared to publish bad news. What is even worse than bad news, is not being told bad news that you could then have done something about”.
How many terms of national will that take to re-inculcate, or is it a case of Labourites growing into the job?
Do we go the American system and sack them every change of government, which seems a bit daft with only 4 million people.
either way 1 billion NZdollars is a large sum of money not to notify.
Vote:I’d like to see an ex Labour minister pinged in court.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Turpin yes, yes, yes lets go with the yanks and arse all these losers or better still take the billion out of their golden handshakes and salaries, perhaps this would jolt them into the real world.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
John Miller lawyer is the nemesis of ACC and the scourge of right and left govts where the ACC has fucked up through arrogance, stupidity or wrong in law. If there’s such a thing as a White Knight.. that’s him. He’s taken dozens of cases against ACC and won many where ordinary people have been done over by the corporation.
I’ve no doubt he’s a lefty, but he’s one who cares passionately about getting justice for deserving cases and causes. He’s done plenty of pro bono work as well. He believes strongly in the concept of ACC and is determined to see it works as intended for accident victims.
We need guys like him, whatever their political beliefs, to hold the ACC and Govt’s feet to the fire. Check him out.. he’s one of the good guys.
JC
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
JC
Vote:If he is one of the good guys he is hiding it well.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I know some good lefties. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Beria, Yagoda, Mao, Ho, Giap, Etc. They all have one thing in common.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
JC
If he is one of the good guys than why is he still in “defend Labour” mode?
Do you think he is so blinkered into thinking that ACC is good, not because his own personal income depends on it but because it’s OK in his mind for a govt monopoly provider to run out of money without the public knowing just before an election?
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Do trading while insolvent laws apply to ACC ?
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
burt – great idea! You could prosecute ACC, find them guilty, and issue a huge fine to…… oh wait – yourself, the taxpayer.
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Frank asks: So the Big Question. Did Hon Marion Street, in the Service of the Crown ,seek to advantage Labour during the election run-up by failing to disclose the deficiencies in ACC’s accounts?
According to TV news tonight, Street knew the detail of the blowout in mid-october. Yet on the 28th of October, she made a media release criticising National for what it might do to NZ’s apparently very successful ACC scheme. “The recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report found ACC to be a world-leading scheme…” she said. Nowhere does she mention any problems, yet they had been very clearly notified to her almost two weeks earlier!
The election was all about trust, according to Labour. It’s a good thing that NZ voted appropriately then…
Source:
Vote:http://www.labour.org.nz/our_mps/maryan_street/news/28102008_labour_will_keep_acc_in_kiwi_hands_maryan_street.html
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
“I know some good lefties. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Beria, Yagoda, Mao, Ho, Giap, Etc. They all have one thing in common.”
You forgot Ed Hillary.
JC
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Gary2,
The ACC report specifically says Street was informed in May this year.
Note also that the Dept of Labour’s audit of 2007 also flagged the problem and estimated a $1.2 billion blowout.
JC
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
jacob van hartog said (at 11.49am) “Wheres the $1 billion ?
Its just a made up number.”
jacob – do you practce being a dipshit, or does it come naturally?
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
“John Miller Law, Wgtn based, specialises in ACC matters”
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“John Miller Law, Wgtn based, specialises in ACC matters”
Thanks, llew, and thanks also for your explanatory comments @ 5:29pm, JC.
It seems clear now that John Miller is not an “ACC lawyer” at all, rather one that works for private clients on ACC matters. I withdraw my earlier comments, having been taken in by yet another example of sloppy language and ambiguity in MSM reporting.
Mr Miller is therefore entitled to his political opinions. But I hope that, as a lawyer, he will steer clear of that Opposition cant about “ACC privatisation”. He knows that there is no intention of privatising ACC. It will remain a government entity, but is likely to lose its full monopoly and have to face competition from private insurers in some of its activities. To call that “privatisation” is to distort the accepted political meaning of the word. (And lawyers never distort words, do they?)
Vote:December 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
If I ran ACC, for a start, Foreigners would not qualify. Foreigners must obtain private insurance or too bad.
Vote: