ACC reform
December 21st, 2010 at 3:33 pm by David FarrarYay – some very good announcements from Nick Smith:
Key decisions announced today include:
• No increase in workplace, motor vehicle or earner levies for 2011
• Introduction of experience rating in the Work Account
• Extension of the Accredited Employers’ Programme (AEP)
• Greater independence of the Disputes Resolution Service
• Decision in principle for introduction of choice in the Work Account
No increase in levies will be welcome, however the changes made by Labour added so much extra costs, further increases may be inevitable.
Experience rating is excellent. It rewards safer workplaces. It means employers get a carrot, not just a stick, to be safer.
But best of all is the decision in principle to restore choice for workplace accident insurance. This was flagged in the 2008 manifesto and it is not privatisation. It is allowing other providers of workplace insurance to compete with ACC.
National was looking hestitant on bringing back competition, but this is where it is useful to have ACT in Parliament. They put the pressure on for choice and competition to occur in the work account, as an unofficial quid pro quo for the previous levy increases.
Related posts:
- National’s ACC policy
- Competition for ACC?
- Reason #51 to change the Government
- Rewarding safe workplaces
December 21st, 2010 at 3:44 pm
You’re right DPF; it’s NOT privatisation. But that won’t stop Labour and the Greens screaming “privatisation by stealth” from the rooftops. As you rightly note it is something that National campaigned on in 2008, and will seek a mandate for in 2011. Let’s hope that people can see through the faux hysteria which is about to be generated.
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/12/acc-stocktake.html
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Great news!!!
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Yes, good news indeed.
Vote:I hope that this results in invoices from what ever workplace insurer I go with that are comprehensible. The ones I get from ACC are totaly incomprensible.
December 21st, 2010 at 3:58 pm
This was flagged in the 2008 manifesto and it is not privatisation. It is allowing other providers of workplace insurance to compete with ACC.
A lamentable admission on your part DPF. You have now become afraid of the P word as any other ordinary left-wing commentator.
You are showing the true face and colour of today’s National Party, not without reason known as Labour-lite.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Manolo speaks! From the safety of his 0.9% party vote. Reminds me of Simeon on the pole.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Under Labour and its minister, Maryan Street, ACC made losses of 2.4 billion in 2007 and 4.8 billion in 2008 – so, how Labour feels it can make credible protest about any aspect of ACC’s administration, or changes to it, is quite beyond me. In a sterner state, ministerial heads would have been expected to roll – but here, we all but countenance Labour’s proven bumbling and let their inept representatives continue to yap senselessly.
Oh, for just a couple of years of the sort of policies Lee Kuan Yew implemented when reconstructing Singapore. Labour’s entire parliamentary lot would all be facing the axe!
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Privatised profits, nationalised losses. *Sigh*
Stand back while private insurers cherry pick all the levies from the nice, safe work places, leaving ACC (aka muggins taxpayer) with all the high maintenance ones – only now, with less revenue left to manage them.
ACC is a compensation scheme, not an insurance one, people.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Employee: covered. Employer: covered. Insurer: laughing. Taxpayer: bankrupt.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Irrespective of whether this policy is “evil” or “saintly” I think the key point people should note is that the final decision will not occur until after the 2011 election.
So people will have an opportunity to vote the government out if they don’t want this policy to be implemented
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Interesting point Manolo.
DPF: “This was flagged in the 2008 manifesto and it is not privatisation.”
Why the defensive stance DPF? Shouldn’t you be rejoicing that we’re now one step away from privatisation? If not, why not?
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Why should ACC be any different to any other cover House Contents Life Vehicle.
It isnt in reality so why does the Gumint have a monopoly Why dont the Gunmint take over all the other covers Portia and others
ACC is a complete rort with many bludging and many not getting the contracted result
Reason Its run by pollies and civil servants
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Interesting example Portia.
Can someone tell me if it will be possible for this to happen?
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:11 pm
No plans to charge the heaviest road users of ACC their portion of the insurance.
Disgusting!
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Yes Portia. Let’s have the gummint run the whole god damned insurance industry. Life, disability, trauma, medical, house, contents, vehicle. Why, they could even take over commercial and farm insurance. (Trouble is, no respectable reinsurer would deal with them as they would not know how to properly assess and price risk. They would simply cover everyone, never mind that at least 33% of the population are derelict fuckwits who vote labour no matter what.
Then all you’d have to do is change the name of the country to CUBA.
I suggest you permanently piss off there quick smart. You’ll be deliriously happy.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:23 pm
It is stupid and undermines a system that used to work until the centre right parties (National, Labour, United F, ACT, etc) started to believe it was part of the ‘market’ and not as it was designed as part of the social welfare system.
As for the extension Labour made they are sensible additions that add to the well-being of the population. By leaving ACC with this responsibility it lowers the expense to both Health and Social Welfare in the long-run (it is putting a fence at the top of the cliff instead of the ambulance at the bottom)
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:28 pm
The profits and losses made by ACC are very artificial. Various government and opposition parties can use the actuary figures to say whatever suits them on the day.
The levies in some parts like motorcycle accidents are charged to the wrong people. Car uses who more frequent cause motorcycle accidents should pay for the damage they do instead the system makes the victim pay which is very very stupid
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Turn it up. How long have the Nats been running the show now?
Free suggestion for ACC Minister:
Vote:Apparently there are 141,726 [2007 figures}rugger players registered with the NZ Rugger Union. Are they using private medical insurance or paying any sort of ACC levies? They should be, that is a crazy sport and it is responsible for a huge number of A&E visits every Saturday morning.
December 21st, 2010 at 5:40 pm
It will be a disaster, just as it was in 1999, with people being denied cover and entitlements as insurance companies minimise costs by using dodgy in-house doctors to deny claims and dump people onto lengthy waiting lists to get treatment through the public health system. Meanwhile, the sickness benefit numbers will blow out – the exact opposite of what Paula Bennett supposedly has concerns about.
The good news is that this will be an election issue – and a big one for the Greens!
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:43 pm
About time there was some competition BUT if you were an insurance company you would be hesitant after the last time when Labour were re elected and killed their business. Its not a good long term proposition.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:46 pm
So…
We don’t get privitisation we just get a bit of competition
But Labour and Greens will claim it is privatisation
The media will report it as privatisation
The general public will believe the media
National will lose some support
National should just privatise it. The opposition is going to shout and scream however moderate National’s policy is and they can’t shout any louder if you’re actually privatising it!
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Portio says
“Privatised profits, nationalised losses. *Sigh*
……..
ACC is a compensation scheme, not an insurance one, people.”
really? walks like a duck, sounds like a duck. …. ACC pretends to be an insurance scheme – it has levies supposedly based on cost, it runs a capital investment fund to pay off claims etc …
if you google ACC it comes up with
New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme provides 24-hour no-fault personal accident insurance cover” as a tag for the ACC help page
as a payer of ACC insurance as an employer and business owner I can say that the current scheme transfers my profits to companies that have greater risks and cause more accidents. Seems to be socialising my profits there. It is thus a tax in drag. Let’s keep our taxes explicit rather than hidden.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Hold up…
Strike out “insurance companies” and replace with “ACC case managers” and isn’t that exactly what the status quo is??!?
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Oh yeah, but its ok when the state does it RRM.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:58 pm
^I’m not saying that at all petermcc.
I can’t really tell whether you are trying to smear me, but FYI this leftie has no great ideological objection to private competition with ACC.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Fuck you ACC. Living standards have just gone up.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Portia: An excellent reason to get rid of the whole thing, don’t you think?
peteremcc (5:46): Exactly. Labour and the MSM cry wolf often enough, it’s about time the Nats give it to them!
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 6:42 pm
If employera get to opt out of the scheme why don’t employees?
ACC earner’s levies are just another tax to a slothful, inefficient, wasteful and incompetent bureaucracy, probably the worst in the public service, which is saying something.
Why am I not able to opt out and use the savings to fund my own income protection insurance?
Adolf (AKA the blogosphere’s most pathetic cheerleader) nails it in one: because National won’t because they lack any kind of political backbone.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 6:49 pm
I’m sorry, is it still a Labour government? Or are these changes irrevocable?
If there are further increases, shouldn’t we blame the people in power? Or do we just blame and name-call the other side?
Also, I don’t get this ideology about privatising everything. The only increased efficiency is in taking customer’s money and paying out as little as possible, maximising profit that goes overseas – that’s not really what we want efficiency in. And when the big businesses fail, they’re always “too big to fail”, and the tax payer bails them out!!
Universities are more privatised, but that makes them efficient in getting bums on seats and easy degrees to earn some cash, which is why they spent so much $$$ on marketing.
It’s blind ideology that “private enterprise does best” – because it’s been shown time and again to be wrong!
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Inky the red 5 28, Of course it is the cars parked in Fendalton road that cause all the single bike crashes we in Paradise pick up the pieces of, MUPPET.
Vote:Two last Saturday within an hour.
December 21st, 2010 at 6:58 pm
“The good news is that this will be an election issue – and a big one for the Greens!”
It may well be Toad, however even the mountain of lies the Greens will be telling come election time will not be enough to get them over the 5% mark.
4.5% and slipping…….
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 6:58 pm
That sounds like a lot of private companies to me! Just off the top of my head I can think of:
IRD
ACC
Local Government
NZTA
oh wait…….
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Simply it is a bad idea.
I dont think this is just a factual debate about the fact that premiums might go up or down, although I guess they will go up.
More importantly – In principle a government based manditory system is more efficient than a private based one. Simply you take the amount required to give the cover you want and you don’t have to spend on all those extra things that competition makes you spend on.
If it happens that the government system is not more efficient, then we should at first look into how we might fix it, rather than just giving up and handing it over to private insurers.
A Free market approach might be to maintain ACC’s monopoly but to seperate them from political involvement.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Toad, the greens will need an election issue as that global warming thing isnt working out too well for them at the moment.
Vote:Nick Smith while he is at it needs to stop providing cover for tourists, foriegn students etc.no other country in the world provides this sort of cover and no tourist would ever complain either, its as natural as buying an air fare or passport.
December 21st, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Portia – Privatised profits, nationalised losses. *Sigh*
You are aware that the government nationalises 1/3 of all profits from all companies right?
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Portia – fuck ACC and fuck your reasoning. I am self employed, had need of the bastards years ago and got screwed. The bastards can bill me for whatever the fuck they want and I can do NOTHING about it. Fuck them.
National – about fucking time. I will transfer at first opportunity. I am so pissed of by these parasites I will even pay more to move, just so I can move.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:22 pm
ACC sounds like a cunt to deal with at the best of times, but this sounds lik it is multiplied x1000 if you are self employed. My dad had to have an eye operation once when he got some metal shavings in an eye, and I remember it was an absolute nightmare trying to get compensation. I think he may have given up in then end, but because of the type of work he did he was bleeding money to them each year.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:24 pm
And by the way Dr Smith. This decision shows that you actually are capable of a common sense decision, now what about the other mammoth in the room, the ETS??? You know the one? You and John Key said 5 years ago it was a piece of shit and would cripple NZ but somehow you both got converted but never told anyone else about the amazing information you have that changed your mind????
Excerpt, Nick Smith
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/3/2/8/47HansD_20050510_00001115-Climate-Change-Response-Amendment-Bill-First.htm
Prophetic words.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I am beginning to think posting stuff like the above quote is a waste of time on this blog, kaya. You should start your own, I have always enjoyed your economic posts
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Nah Nickb not a complete waste of time, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:37 pm
What, the bloody minister was suggesting that workers comp in Aus is cheaper than here, what a load of shit.
Vote:Christ whats next, yep that will be coming, no longer patients but fucking customers, walk in the hospital with a fucking great for sale sign on it.
Only ACC ? whats the betting that some of these so called advisers are keen on moving to a yank insurance scheme for all.
Jesus, Nats, do you not remember the name Bradford ?
December 21st, 2010 at 7:42 pm
“Jesus, Nats, do you not remember the name Bradford ?”
Hey goh, how dare you put the name of Jesus and Bradford in the same sentence!! Go wash your keyboard fingers you silly old big blouse type!
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:46 pm
ACC are cunts, mabe so, but at least they never fucken turned me down using the so called pre existing condition after I returned to work a bit early as a bloody insurance company did.
Vote:Funny how the Nats are so keen on getting Australian insurance companies in, the Nats loyalty is to whom ?
December 21st, 2010 at 7:50 pm
To people who will have the freedom to choose not to use the useless thieving fools by the name of ACC.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:51 pm
That is all I want, choice.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Good on ya Kaya stick it up the two faced arsehole.
The socialists suffer pathological fear when ever their money stream is threatened. Screwed the thieving fucking ACC and their poxy promoters. It’s just another socialist sludge fund way past its shelf life. I despise it, its a rort, it’s a con and it doesn’t work.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:52 pm
dad4justice whoops, Bradford stll pisses me off, the power boards were working well and that fucking wanker had the ignorance to believe more outfits employing more wankers in suits was more efficient.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 7:56 pm
nickb you believe workers comp is cheaper in Australia ? do you believe in the bloody tooth fairy as well ?
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 8:00 pm
goh,I agree with stating the obvious that Bradford is a wanker who should be used as a permanent tunnel support. Electricity will be cheaper said the lying political scumbag. Hang the prick and all the other wankers that waste space in that cess pit beehive. Don’t worry the Nat’s got the Yanks running the prisons soon. Bring back Buck and not the red Huck with orrible teeth. Does ACC pay out for blog blues?
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Yeah, if only there was a way for the National Government to change things which Labour did. Ummmm. Nope. Can’t think of any way to do that.
Oh wait, this government could change things. Make new laws, scrap old ones, shake things up. Do something – anything – to turn NZ around.
Nope. Can’t do that.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Oh I dunno D4J, talking about Bradford and Jesus in the same sentence is kinda apt really.
Both built their careers on lies.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Go away big blouse or should I say MyNameIsClap. Get a life you obsessed queer ####!!!! You are far to disturbed to be on here. Do us a favour Farrar ban this sick twit. Go away you disgraceful low life creep. Man you are ONE FUCKED UP UNIT big blouse!
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Great news!
Should mean we can sack 99% of ACC’s policy advisors and corporate new-speak communication managers.
Save bloody millions it will.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 9:29 pm
nickb – “I am beginning to think posting stuff like the above quote is a waste of time on this blog, kaya.”
I agree totally, but I also believe that if I don’t vent somewhere I will explode in a nasty mess of blood and gristle. As we all know, ACC will classify that as a degenerating illness caused by years of frustration so I am better off to get it off my chest here…..
As for my own blog, got one up and running somewhere out there but have too much real life to get through to spend the required time updating regularly. (Currently doing everything I possibly can to withdraw from the machine so to speak).
Thanks for the compliment though. It’s hard sometimes ranting!!! All you hope is that every now and then someone follows a link and “gets it” and that enough of those people pass it on until enough people “get it” and some sort of critical mass is reached. Then who knows what the fuck will happen…….bit like a hadron collider really. Probably nothing lol
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Yeah, privatise the lot and make everybody insure themselves. I’m sick of paying for every tramper who twists their ankle or rubgy player who does their knee. Oh and compulsary third party insurance for motor vehicles.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Has any one else noticed Helen Kelly’s utter lies about the last experience? I was involved at the time and far from her revision of history, private insurers were keen to rehabilitate wokers to get them back to work, it was less expensive for them to do that. There were some instances where RSI for example could be tracked to private activity and not work.
She tried to fuck the Hobbit, she now wants to fuck a great move in worker rehabilitation. What a unionist.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 10:45 pm
What we need is to bring back the right to sue at the very least ofr gross negligence.
How much value is put on a human life? It do not sound like very much aside for one’s earning capacity judging on the figures I hear in relation to Pike River.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 11:13 pm
# GNZ2 (4) Says:
December 21st, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Simply it is a bad idea.
I dont think this is just a factual debate about the fact that premiums might go up or down, although I guess they will go up.
More importantly – In principle a government based manditory system is more efficient than a private based one. Simply you take the amount required to give the cover you want and you don’t have to spend on all those extra things that competition makes you spend on.
If it happens that the government system is not more efficient, then we should at first look into how we might fix it, rather than just giving up and handing it over to private insurers.
A Free market approach might be to maintain ACC’s monopoly but to seperate them from political involvement.
ROFL
ALMOST EVERY MONOPOLY is inefficient and overpriced whether government or corporate. There is a reason even those to the right want to regulate monopolies. ACC is a monopoly.
“A Free market approach is to maintain a monopoly” – by definition it’s not a free market when it’s a monopoly. It is a mandatory insurance scheme with a social cost chucked in on the side. I get a 60% no claims bonus as I don’t crash my car and my insurance is reasonably related to the costs so by driving a safe car my insurance is more under my control. ACC costs have no real relationship to the true cost of accidents caused by the industry I work in and there is not a single thing I can do about it. It’s either a tax or insurance. If it’s insurance allow some competition in. If ACC is really that good they can beat the commercial world… cue flying pigs.
Vote:December 22nd, 2010 at 7:35 am
kaya: All you hope is that every now and then someone follows a link and “gets it” and that enough of those people pass it on until enough people “get it”
There may well be quite a few quiet followers, like me at times. I’m interested in and aware of some the financial morass. I think sensible and interesting posts often just get read and maybe digested – nothing much need be added. Controversial posts get far more visible attention, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to the level of appreciation.
Vote:December 22nd, 2010 at 8:15 am
a few years ago, my son developed some sort of arm problem which lasted a year (heaps of tests and still no idea what the cause was). He had a nightmare with ACC and his so called case manager. It got so bad that I wrote to Ruth Dyson (well she was the ACC minister at the time, can’t remember if it was before or after she got done for DIC) and when I did get a reply, she thanked me for my letter, said she couldn’t help as he had to write to her himself, and then wished him well. hic
Vote:December 22nd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
slijmbal,
“Free market is good” and “monopolies are bad” are good heuristics. It is often true, but it is going to far to just blindly assume it is true in scenarios where we can actually determine if it is true with more exact analysis.
I think this is demonstrated by how you have unknowingly supported my argument with your own evidence.
My point is that ACC is currently inefficient – and yet it is cheaper or at least very competitive with private insurance (depending on how you do your comparison).
See below
” I get a 60% no claims bonus as I don’t crash my car and my insurance is reasonably related to the costs so by driving a safe car my insurance is more under my control. ACC costs have no real relationship to the true cost of accidents caused by the industry I work in and there is not a single thing I can do about it. ”
well this was exactly my point – if the problems with ACC are so easy to see that you can see them and point to them then why not jsut fix them? how much do you think fixing those problems would save us? If it is more than a trivial amount then it is going to be VERY hard for your solution to match the improved one that would be proposed.
I do realise that taking out political manipulation might be hard (but that is the core problem) but a performance measure along the lines of “did each segment* pay out about as much as they recieved”** would be easy to draw up and use for exec bonuses in the SOE or whatever no need to throw it out to the free market to bid on who is best at telling us that 1+1 =2.
* segments being defined in multiple ways
Vote:** plus overhead
December 22nd, 2010 at 8:43 pm
@GNZ2
Fundamentally monopolies do none of the measures you mention such as improving their efficiencies as they do not have to – they just don’t have the same pressure on them to improve their performance – if it was as simple as you say then monopolies would not be a problem as we would just fix them. It IS a great heuristic that monopolies are fat monsters because they almost always are. And I was around when we had private companies involved in ACC and my premiums were less and just as interestingly ACC behaved better in terms of service and offering when they had competition. No idea where you get the assertion that ACC is competitive with private insurance and if it is competitive then it can compete – no problem. Let it compete. You might want to read up on some basic stuff around how competition works based on your answers. One either agrees with the belief that competition increases efficiencies (in general) and lack of competition normally leads to ineffciencies or not, frankly. If you don’t then this is a wasted conversation as that’s the point of discussion.
Vote:December 23rd, 2010 at 7:08 am
slijmbal,
You are not arguing with a far left socialist here, I’m fine with all sorts of free market policies (and I know more than most about how it works and in what scenarios it would theoretically fail), Just on the facts of this particular case I don’t think this one is a good idea.
To show that they can fail (although I presume you already accept this)… I’m sure we could find examples of monopolies that are running fairly efficiently and individual companies that are running inefficiently. One example might be airline traffic in this area where we will allow the airlines to run integrated transtasman services so that they can fill their planes and drop costs, therefore drop fees and increase profits. Or situations like the military where full privitization and splitting up the monopoly would be a bad idea.
As to your premiums dropping I understand that currently ACC doesn’t operate optimally and it may well have over charged your company, or that the new insurance firm might have been doing a loss leading strategy.
For starters –
1) There is the hidden risk of insurer failure (ie to get the true cost the government would need to insure the insurers).
2) I understand from the news that NZ is cheaper than comparable countries, this may in part be that health care costs are lower here because wages are lower but I dont hear the fact itself being disputed so at very least ACC is close to the cost you would face with private insurance.
ACC meanwhile also at least attempts to provide wider benefits (whetherit should or not is another issue) like geting people back into work and advertising against drink driving etc. If it should not do these things then saving that money is an easy win.
Vote: