ODT on ACC
Today’s ODT editorial:
There is no doubt the Accident Compensation Corporation faces considerable funding challenges, but such is the intemperate tenor of ACC Minister Dr Nick Smith’s pronouncements and actions – the latest being his unheralded and reportedly overbearing appearance at the transport and industrial relations select committee last Thursday – the suspicion arises he is unduly trying to “soften up” the public for as yet unannounced and radical changes to the scheme.
I doubt there will be radical change. For the most part the Government is doing what Labour would do – increasing levies and delaying the date we move to full funding. But there may be some pruning of the scheme – but this would merely take it back to where it was a few years ago – hardly a radical change.
Even the possible competition in workplace insurance cover is far from radical, and was explicitly mentioned in the pre-election policy.
Dr Smith and, to a lesser extent, Treasurer Bill English, have been right to draw attention to the problems at ACC.
Former finance minister Michael Cullen and ACC minister Maryann Street were technically exonerated in a report released last week of obscuring the corporation’s true financial position for the pre-election financial update, but National may have genuine cause for alarm at the “hospital pass” it has received over the state of ACC’s finances.
However, Dr Smith is almost certainly incorrect when he says ACC is “technically insolvent” and with his more extravagant pronouncements appears to be gilding the lily.
With a new chairman and board appointed, he needs to tone down the rhetoric and get on with sorting out the problems – in a calmer and more confidence-inspiring manner than he has done to date.
The status quo of $47 a week levy increases for the average household is clearly unacceptable.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
So the ACC won’t let me be
or let me be free from more levies.
They’ll try to shut it down, says the ODT,
but it feels so empty without fees.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Isn’t the $47 that DPF keeps hammering the Labour Department’s recommended increase to achieve full funding by 2014 that nobody is seriously considering.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
As Ive posted before we MUST get back to the principles set out in the Woodhouse Report.
Over the past 35 years this creature like all government creatures has been allowed to grow many heads at the expense of the long suffering taxpayer.
It has been manipulated out of all proportion to the original concept.
It has become a plaything for politicans civil servants and the medical profession all with huge self interest and NONE caring what the customer/taxpayer wants.
It has like all things central and local government NO concept of serving the customer It is a monopoly and like all monopolies public or private it abuses its powers.
Until it faces competition and it realises it has customers who have a chioce it will never ever deliver effective and efficent value for money service.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
why make radical changes to save cash when you can increase levies and not have to change a thing?
March 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Maybe Smith is softening us up for radical changes, so when he does make moderate changes we all think that’s not a bad thing after all?
GG – I hope you’re being ironic, increasing levies for what is already a crap service that you can’t opt out of is hardly the solution. I broke my arm two months ago and was astounded at the stupid things I can get assistance for, but appalled at what ACC will not help with. My experience is that the only thing that worked well is the income protection scheme.