Govt’s ACC spin working

32 comments on “Govt’s ACC spin working ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gingercrush 1

   5 December 2008 at 2:29 pm

   No what its shown is how awful the Labour-led government handled ACC as clearly evidenced by the blowing out of ACC accounts.
2. Steve Pierson 2

   5 December 2008 at 2:34 pm

   ginger. the Labour government had no control over either the financial crisus or the invstment decisions of the ACC fund. How exacty was it meant to stop ACC losing money from its reserves and, so, needing more cash from other spurces to keep providing full service?
3. Tim Ellis 3

   5 December 2008 at 2:39 pm

   SP, I recommend you read the previous ACC posts here at the Standard, where various spurious arguments, from the financial crisis being to blame, to the spectre of privatisation, are fairly considerably debunked. Otherwise, if you have read those arguments and failed to respond to them, it just looks like you’re repeating a line that you know isn’t sustainable.

   It simply isn’t true that the financial crisis or poor investment decisions are responsible for the massive funding shortfalls projected in the earners and non-earners accounts. They have a minor effect, probably around 20% of the total.
4. Steve Pierson 4

   5 December 2008 at 2:55 pm

   Tim. the ACC lost $600million from its funds.. it’s not like that money was just sittig round doing nothing.. that shortfall needs to be made up. as you point out, its not the only cause of the shortfalls, the others -higher compensation costs – have been explained to – how will privatisation solve any of them without cutting cover?
5. gingercrush 5

   5 December 2008 at 2:59 pm

   Thanks TE I suck at arguing so I would have ended up making up silly large post that lacks any relevancy.

   Anyway, sure there is spin. But one wouldn’t be able to spin ACC as much if Labour had better hold on the issue. Its not like Labour never used spin. The idea that finally the books were sound enough for tax cuts in the final budget before the election struck me very much as spin. How better to do tax cuts when treasury has advised them they can now. Even though treasury has always said there is/was room for tax cuts. Government and political parties exists primarily because of spin.

   Just as the media largely ignored spin working from the Labour-led government, so will they now that there is a National-led government.
6. leftrightout 6

   5 December 2008 at 3:19 pm

   “Colin’s a smart guy”

   Not really, hes just a mouth-piece for National Party spin like the other Espiner.
7. Greg 7

   5 December 2008 at 3:19 pm

   Here’s a crazy idea. Maybe…….. just maybe this actually is an example of why the private sector would do a better job? Maybe its not spin at all but merely the truth
8. Tim Ellis 8

   5 December 2008 at 3:19 pm

   SP, nobody in National is arguing privatisation of the scheme. Read the posts, particularly at http://www.thestandard.org.nz/spinbusting-the-anchor-story/#comment-108781 , http://www.thestandard.org.nz/spinbusting-the-anchor-story/#comment-108787 , http://www.thestandard.org.nz/spinbusting-the-anchor-story/#comment-108793 , and http://www.thestandard.org.nz/spinbusting-the-anchor-story/#comment-108834 for starters.

   As I’ve said several times SP it really is a mix of mischief and ignorance, the claim that National might “privatise” ACC. The only account that could feasibly be opened for competition and/or privatised is the Workers Account, which constitutes 15% of claims and 10% of claims liabilities. It is fully-funded, so it isn’t a liability on the taxpayer, and doesn’t cross-subsidise other accounts.

   The issues with ACC in the other accounts are two-fold: the move to fully-funded accounts (which are vital to ensure that future costs of current injuries aren’t passed on to future generations) has meant a steady increase in costs and levies paid; and whether the inevitable increase in costs is sustainable (i.e. whether citizens are prepared to pay for such a gold-plated scheme when its true costs are attributed rather than passed on to future generations, or whether they would be happier with reduced cover). The latter is the crux of the debate that needs to be had around ACC.

   Labour’s performance in ACC was just woeful. They deliberately came up with irrational arguments about privatisation as you have here, knowing that the non-earners, the earners, and the motor vehicle accounts, which represent the vast majority of claims and costs, just can’t be privatised and National has never pledged to do so. They did so to detract from the proper debate about whether ACC coverage in the gold-plated scheme that we have today is actually affordable. Instead of allowing the proper debate to be held, successive Labour ministers have delayed the transition to full-funding of accounts (dragging the liability and costs out to future generations).

   They then hid the impact of those cost increases before the election. Instead of painting the true picture about rising costs for levy-payers and tax-payers alike, Labour cynically went around the country promising “lower levies” for ACC and “better coverage”, knowing that the only way to do so was to deliberately under-fund the scheme. Labour then had the temerity to claim that only they would protect ACC. They didn’t protect it SP. They ripped the carpet out from underneath it.

   Debates will need to be had on whether economic efficiencies can be gained from opening the Work account to competition. The other accounts need to move to full funding. Debate needs to be had in that environment whether the level of coverage in a fully-funded environment is sustainable, and the public need certainty about what coverage they can expect from the system.
9. MikeE 9

   5 December 2008 at 3:21 pm

   Could it possibly be working, because … shock, horror, it isn’t spin?
10. Tane 10

    5 December 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Merrill Lynch itself described ‘opening up the work account to competition’ as privatisation. They recognised that moving the functions of ACC to the private sector is in fact privatisation of the scheme.
11. Quoth the Raven 11

    5 December 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Colin’s a smart guy

    That’s open to argument. I don’t read his blog anymore and I implore others to do the same. I think he is totally incapable of critical thinking and does absolutely no research. The argument he had with Idiot/Savant about security of energy supply is a case in point as it demonstrated that Colin had done absolutely no research and was just spouting National party lines. That is exactly what he is doing again. All throughout the election his blog entries would go something like this “I followed Key around all day today he is a nice guy.” Then there was his the Maori party will never go into coalition with National thing where he had to eat his own words literally. I think it showed that he didn’t have any grasp of the situation. He would be better suited to writing about celebrities not politicians.
12. ghostwhowalks 12

    5 December 2008 at 4:17 pm

    This bit was interesting from Espiner

    ..But for my money (lots of it – well over $1000 a year in levies plus the $200-odd for a motor vehicle.

    Well over a $1000 a year in levyies seems to indicate hes on $90-110,000 pa
13. ghostwhowalks 13

    5 December 2008 at 4:23 pm

    From the IRD website the earners levy has been gradually increasing since 2003 when it was 1.2%. The 1.3% in 2006 and then raised in April 2008 to 1.4%

    So in reality Labour has been responsible in raising the amount to meet increase in Costs and claims from an aging population

    And it seems a small increase would have been due next year or the year after

    The financial meltdown has thrown the investments out of kilter but that should only be a temporary measure not to scream the sky has fallen
14. Lew 14

    5 December 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Tim: You still haven’t taken up my challenge. I presume, then, that you concur with my (and Merrill Lynch’s, and plenty of others’) assessment that the workers account will end up being privatised despite National’s insistence that it won’t. That being so, upon what basis would you presume to claim that the other accounts won’t be similarly treated once the workers account has gone that way? As I’ve said elsewhere (and you’ve also neglected to engage with that) people don’t conceive of ACC as separate accounts – they conceive of it as an overall scheme.

    L
15. Lew 15

    5 December 2008 at 5:35 pm

    GWW: $100k a year as the political editor for the country’s third-largest circulation daily really seems to underscore the oft-made point that journalists, even if you frequently disagree with them, are terribly underpaid.

    L
16. sweeetdisorder 16

    5 December 2008 at 5:41 pm

    Lew

    underpaid by whom? They are paid market rates. If you think they are worth more, you pay them then. Typical socialists, always think they are worth more. If you were, you would be earning that. The fact you are not, suggests you are earning what is correct for the market place.
17. Lew 17

    5 December 2008 at 6:35 pm

    SD: Ah, the capitalist’s Nuremberg Defence – `we’re just paying market rates’. I concede that journalism in NZ isn’t quite the sweatshops of Southeast Asia, but I’m making a normative, not a descriptive statement. I’m not a socialist (typical reactionaries, calling anyone with whom they might disagree a socialist) – but I work in the media (analysis, not editorial) and I know the work these guys do and the importance of the public information service the media provide. They have a lot of responsibility for not very much money, and that’s dangerous.

    L
18. Nickc 18

    5 December 2008 at 8:12 pm

    Question: What do you think is undermining ACC more: The 2.5billion dollars worth of undeclared debt or a few press conferences and media releases from the National Party?
19. Tim Ellis 19

    5 December 2008 at 9:07 pm

    Lew wrote:

    Tim: You still haven’t taken up my challenge. I presume, then, that you concur with my (and Merrill Lynch’s, and plenty of others’) assessment that the workers account will end up being privatised despite National’s insistence that it won’t.

    Lew if we go back to the 1998 reforms, the workers account was opened to competition. A number of players entered the market. @work was set up by the government, effectively as the default insurer. This would be a new state asset. National has made it clear that it won’t sell state assets. I suspect that if National did choose to open the Work account up to competition, it would follow the same path. Many employers would opt for separate insurance cover, with a minimum state-sanctioned level of coverage for all workers. I don’t agree that this amounts to “privatisation”, since privatisation involves the sale of a state asset. I don’t mean to play with semantics, but I don’t believe that work insurance in a competitive environment does amount to privatisation. That aside, yes clearly National envisages in a competitive environment, many work accidents would be covered by private insurers. If you want to call that privatisation, then fine.

    That being so, upon what basis would you presume to claim that the other accounts won’t be similarly treated once the workers account has gone that way?

    Quite simply, privatisation would involve the sale of an account to a private entity. I just don’t see it possible that the Earners’ Account, the non-Earners’, and the Motor Vehicle account could be opened up to a competitive insurance market. With the Earners’ account, the contracts for insurance cover would be between individual workers and an insurance company. It’s almost impossible to guarantee universal cover through such a system. Employers with 500 staff can do it–but it just isn’t viable for individual workers. It isn’t comparable with the fire and general insurance market, because there isn’t compulsory cover. It’s even less likely with non-Earners (who don’t pay the premiums in the first place), and the Motor Vehicle Account, where levies are collected through vehicle registration and fuel excise. How would you map fuel excise payments by individual motorists with their insurance levies? It’s just not possible, in my view.

    National has made it clear that it will maintain cover, in a no-fault, universal system.

    There are three core aspects of ACC’s operations. Funding through levies, claims management, and treatment. With the exception of the Work account, there just isn’t a suitable alternative levy payment structure for the other accounts.

    Claims management in other accounts, I suppose could be partly tendered out, but there is no benefit to individual claimants by being able to choose to claim through Claims Management Company X, versus ACC, for individual claimants.

    Treatment provision already uses a range of public and private sector entities to deliver treatment: if you smash your knee playing rugby, you are likely to receive treatment from the local hospital, a private hospital for the knee operation, and private physiotherapists for rehabilitation. There is an element of efficiency that a monopoly ACC provider has with bulk-buying power, but this would not be significantly reduced if merely the Work Account was carved out of the system, especially if health insurers formed a key part of the treatment provision for work accidents.

    As I’ve said elsewhere (and you’ve also neglected to engage with that) people don’t conceive of ACC as separate accounts – they conceive of it as an overall scheme.

    I agree that the ACC scheme is complex to many people, and the only experience that the vast majority of New Zealanders have with the system is when they personally suffer an accident. As I see it, the key elements of the accident compensation scheme are levies paid by a range of sources according to where the accident takes place and where the liability for the accident lies, entitlements determined by the State, no-fault and universal coverage. I just don’t see a publicly-owned monopoly of work cover as fundamental to ensuring that those core elements are provided.
20. Lew 20

    5 December 2008 at 9:42 pm

    Tim:

    National has made it clear that it won’t sell state assets

    In the first term. Come off it. This more or less nukes your whole line of argument.

    I don’t believe that work insurance in a competitive environment does amount to privatisation.

    You STILL haven’t addressed my six-point schema. Until you do you’re not credible on this point. You try to accuse me of playing semantics, but I’m not; if you’d even read all the threads you link to above you’d realise that.

    I just don’t see it possible that the Earners’ Account, the non-Earners’, and the Motor Vehicle account could be opened up to a competitive insurance market.

    Why on earth not? Because they wouldn’t want to participate? Get off the proverbial grass.

    National has made it clear that it will maintain cover, in a no-fault, universal system.

    But they haven’t demonstrated how they intend to do this in a competitive environment, I accept that they will mandate minimum levels of cover. But will they force insurers to insure all comers? Will they cap premiums so insurers can’t price undesirables out of the market? If not, retaining universal cover would necessitate an insurer of last resort, who got everyone the private cherry-pickers didn’t want. That’s my point – it’d quickly become moribund and then the only rational thing to do would be to sell it off. Nobody could blame them for doing so.

    L
21. Lew 21

    5 December 2008 at 9:46 pm

    NickC: False dichotomy. One being bad doesn’t make the other any less bad; this isn’t about scoring partisan points. Both the previous and current government are in the wrong. The question is – what do do about it?

    L
22. Tim Ellis 22

    5 December 2008 at 10:07 pm

    You STILL haven’t addressed my six-point schema. Until you do you’re not credible on this point. You try to accuse me of playing semantics, but I’m not; if you’d even read all the threads you link to above you’d realise that.

    No, Lew, I wasn’t accusing you of playing semantics. I qualified that I wasn’t playing semantics, in case it looked as if I was by my definition of “privatisation”. I didn’t intend not to address your six-point schema. It was a while back, I didn’t recognise it as a challenge to be addressed, and if you could put it again I’ll happily deal with it.

    Why on earth not? Because they wouldn’t want to participate? Get off the proverbial grass.

    No, because in my view there is a clear distinction between the contractual relationships between employers seeking cover for 10, 20, 50, or 500 workers, where there is an incentive to shop around and seek the best deal for mandated cover, and what is possible in the other accounts. Non-earners don’t pay levies. There are no competitive pressures. Earners pay levies, and might shop around, but the systems you would have to put in place to guarantee universal cover in my view make it too complex to put in place. Levies from motor vehicle users are even more difficult to channel to individual insurers to both guarantee universal cover and form viable contractual relationships with levy-payers.

    But they haven’t demonstrated how they intend to do this in a competitive environment, I accept that they will mandate minimum levels of cover. But will they force insurers to insure all comers? Will they cap premiums so insurers can’t price undesirables out of the market? If not, retaining universal cover would necessitate an insurer of last resort, who got everyone the private cherry-pickers didn’t want.

    On the first point, of course they haven’t demonstrated it yet because they haven’t even considered whether to proceed with a competitive scheme for the Work Account, and if so, what the design of that scheme might be. If we take the 1998 scheme as a guide, however, individual employers could contract with private insurers. Those who didn’t paid levies to a default state-owned insurer, @work.

    As for cherry-picking and “pricing out undesirables”, the nature of actuarial risk profiling within the current Work Account means that those with higher risk already pay higher levies. Forestry companies pay more in levies to insure forestry workers than banks do to insure clerical folk like me. I’m not an actuary, but right now in the present scheme, low-risk employers shouldn’t be cross-subsidising high-risk employers. The cherry-picking argument just doesn’t seem to understand what actuarial risk involves.

    In my view the “insurer of last resort” with a default insurer a la @work is less likely to be about insuring expensive, high-risk industries (who pay the higher levies anyway), but insuring much smaller employers that don’t have the time to shop around for accident insurance. Yes, I agree there would need to be a default insurer. I don’t see a problem with that insurer being state-owned.
23. Lew 23

    5 December 2008 at 10:39 pm

    Tim:

    No, Lew, I wasn’t accusing you of playing semantics. I qualified that I wasn’t playing semantics, in case it looked as if I was by my definition of “privatisation’.

    I therefore withdraw and apologise.

    I didn’t intend not to address your six-point schema. It was a while back, I didn’t recognise it as a challenge to be addressed, and if you could put it again I’ll happily deal with it.

    It’s six months but still nobody’s actually made any sort of case as to why it wouldn’t be so. As I imply to Nickc above, it’s not a matter of ideology – I’m not committed to it being true, but I am convinced of its validity, so if anyone can prove it invalid I’ll be grateful. The two pertinent links are in http://www.thestandard.org.nz/spinbusting-the-anchor-story/#comment-108829

    As to the distinctions between accounts, I think you’re a bit narrow-minded about the opportunities insurers will create for themselves given half a chance.

    Non-earners don’t pay levies. There are no competitive pressures.

    They don’t pay levies but levies of some sort can be paid on their behalf, and profiling, declarations, etc. enable risk management between clients. This can be privatised too – just because the insured themselves aren’t paying for cover doesn’t mean that, under a universal system, their cover is not being paid for.

    Earners pay levies, and might shop around, but the systems you would have to put in place to guarantee universal cover in my view make it too complex to put in place.

    Here’s an interesting but. It’s too complicated, so it’ll never happen. Give over.

    Levies from motor vehicle users are even more difficult to channel to individual insurers to both guarantee universal cover and form viable contractual relationships with levy-payers.

    You’d think no other country in the world would have mandatory driver insurance, if it’s that hard. But most of the civilised ones do, and I can tell you from experience – they tend to be a damned sight more expensive and less comprehensive than ACC.

    On the first point, of course they haven’t demonstrated it yet because they haven’t even considered whether to proceed with a competitive scheme for the Work Account, and if so, what the design of that scheme might be.

    The word `publicly’ could stand to be inserted here but your point stands. In my view it’s incumbent upon them to give at least some hints as to how it’s done before doing it. However the electorate thinks otherwise.

    As for cherry-picking and “pricing out undesirables’, the nature of actuarial risk profiling within the current Work Account means that those with higher risk already pay higher levies. Forestry companies pay more in levies to insure forestry workers than banks do to insure clerical folk like me.

    Quite right, they pay higher levies – but not higher enough for their risk. I’m not an actuary risk expert either, but under practically all systems of which I’m aware, high volumes of low-risk workers cross-subsidise low volumes of high-risk workers. This is especially true in NZ’s primary-led economy where low-risk occupations like yours and mine (I work in a fucking office tower too, though it wasn’t always so) are reliant upon those who work in dangerous occupations like forestry, dairy, fisheries and so on for our way of life. You can argue for those industries to carry the full cost of their liability if you like – but beware of parallels with the emissions trading scheme moral hazard problem.

    In my view the “insurer of last resort’ with a default insurer a la @work is less likely to be about insuring expensive, high-risk industries (who pay the higher levies anyway), but insuring much smaller employers that don’t have the time to shop around for accident insurance.

    In my view, this demonstrates a blissfully naïve view of insurance. Come on, it strains credibility.

    L
24. Draco T Bastard 24

    5 December 2008 at 11:02 pm

    Greg
    December 5, 2008 at 3:19 pm
    

    Here’s a crazy idea. Maybe .. just maybe this actually is an example of why the private sector would do a better job? Maybe its not spin at all but merely the truth

    You’re right Greg – that is a crazy idea. We’ve seen just what privatisation can do over the last 20 years and the end result is that it costs far more.

    [lprent: gotta get that blockquote working across the browsers…]
25. Tim Ellis 25

    6 December 2008 at 1:01 am

    Lew,

    It took a while but I finally found the links, with the six points. I don’t have a lot of commentary on them for the reason that I agree that there are some valid arguments there, but I simply do not agree with the premise that opening the Work account up to competition will see other accounts follow suit. I just do not believe that this move is, as you describe it, a “trojan horse” for privatisation across other areas.

    They don’t pay levies but levies of some sort can be paid on their behalf, and profiling, declarations, etc. enable risk management between clients. This can be privatised too – just because the insured themselves aren’t paying for cover doesn’t mean that, under a universal system, their cover is not being paid for.

    Yes, that is possible. Claims management could be privatised and be made competitive. But it is logistically difficult to do. Further to that, despite many of the claims of the Left, there simply isn’t a privatisation zeal from this National government. National has pledged not to sell any assets in its first term. As much as John Key might think it makes good economic sense to sell assets (or as others have termed it, he wants to make his friends richer), he knows that the public antipathy towards asset sales means that selling assets destroys political capital.

    If there were moves to privatise state assets, then it certainly wouldn’t be the Earners’ Account, or the Non-Earners’ Account, or the Motor Vehicle Account. He’d sell Genesis. Or Kiwirail. Or Kiwibank. You know, things that are already traded in a competitive market and provided by the private sector. He wouldn’t come up with a complex scheme to unbundle the diverse funding strands of a complex accident compensation regime to deliver it.

    You’d think no other country in the world would have mandatory driver insurance, if it’s that hard. But most of the civilised ones do, and I can tell you from experience – they tend to be a damned sight more expensive and less comprehensive than ACC.

    I don’t know of any other regimes that have compulsory personal injury insurance as driver insurance. I am familiar with the European Green Card, which is third party vehicle insurance. It isn’t personal injury cover.

    Quite right, they pay higher levies – but not higher enough for their risk. I’m not an actuary risk expert either, but under practically all systems of which I’m aware, high volumes of low-risk workers cross-subsidise low volumes of high-risk workers.

    There isn’t widespread denials of insurance cover in New Zealand as far as I’m aware, or pricing people out of the market. Nor was there evidence of this taking place in the competitive scheme in 1998. We already have defacto opt-out provisions through the Accredited Employer Scheme, where large companies can assume some of the risk themselves for lower premiums.
26. Lew 26

    6 December 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Tim: I simply do not agree with the premise that opening the Work account up to competition will see other accounts follow suit.

    You still haven’t really explained upon what grounds you believe

    I just do not believe […]

    This is what it always boils down to – a matter of belief. I’m not appealing to belief, I’m appealing to what we know about the insurance industry, economic theory and the actions of NZ governments elected on a mandate for change.

    As much as John Key might think it makes good economic sense to sell assets (or as others have termed it, he wants to make his friends richer), he knows that the public antipathy towards asset sales means that selling assets destroys political capital.

    And here you’ve hit on the nub of the `secret agenda’ argument you so commonly deride. With this statement you tacitly agree that National’s job in government is to change the public discourse about privatisation from `greed’ to `efficiency’, and once they do so there will be no electoral barrier to wholesale privatisation of state assets. Thatcher and Reagan and perhaps Clark’s greatest achievements were in moving the political centre, and Key’s National party would be fools to look to a short-term Lange/Douglas-like agenda – they’re looking to a long-term agenda of strategic change and ACC is shaping up to be their banner project.

    I don’t know of any other regimes that have compulsory personal injury insurance as driver insurance.

    I’m referring mostly to liability insurance, which is what ACC sort-of provides.

    There isn’t widespread denials of insurance cover in New Zealand as far as I’m aware, or pricing people out of the market.

    You can’t simply draw parallels between property insurance and accident insurance; there’s a qualitative difference because one protects stuff and one protects life and health. However, even in property insurance we see that the bottom of the market effectively opts out, not taking even third-party vehicle insurance. That’s how markets work – by settling at an equilibrium point where participants can maximise their profits, some people are almost always excluded. Normatively speaking, exclusion may be acceptable in property insurance where the adverse outcome is debt or bankruptcy, but not in private accident insurance where the outcome could be poor or incomplete medical care, ongoing lack of support for injury or disability, or premature death.

    L
27. Madeleine 27

    6 December 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Only the left could find a way of blaming Labour’s $2+Billion screwup on National.

    Have you learned nothing? The public are sick of this tactic. What is wrong with “we messed up, sorry?” The public are far more likely to forgive if you front up and fess and far less likely if you deny, dodge and blameshift.

    Frankly I would love it if National privatised ACC, it might run efficiently and actually provide 100% cover if they did, but I doubt they will because they are so centrist, mores the pity.
28. Lew 28

    6 December 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Madeleine: To whom do you address your `you’?

    L
29. Paul Robeson 29

    6 December 2008 at 7:56 pm

    So the Sell New Zealand Made campaign has started again?
30. NickC 30

    6 December 2008 at 10:08 pm

    Lew:

    “False dichotomy. One being bad doesn’t make the other any less bad”

    I understand how it could be seen that way however my question is very legitimate in the context of this post, which effectivly seeks to blame the undermining of ACC confidence of government spin and completely ignores the fact that the previous government ran up 2.5 billion in debt. So i was trying to put this so called spin into perspective.

    “The question is – what do do about it?”

    That should be the question, I agree however this post is just so bad that it completely evades that question and seeks to merely accuse National of a smear campaign with the goal to undermine ACC. That ACC should never be privitized/opened up to competition is a premise of this post, not something it is trying to argue.

    That just shows how arrogantly the left is behaving on this matter, not prepared to accept any blame, only to attack.
31. Rodel 31

    6 December 2008 at 10:08 pm

    Espiner ‘smart’ ?
    That’s like one of his own fabrications.Shame on you Standard!
32. Rob 32

    9 December 2008 at 1:23 pm

    This Email on another Blog shows why you should never let a Trade unionist make Financial predictions . Talk about incompetence.
    n July 2008 the chair of ACC, Mr Ross Wilson claimed that ACC was in “great shape’ and was “on track to become self-funding by 2014′.
    Here we are just a few months later and the story is completely different. So what the blazes has been going on sat ACC?

    Was Mr Wilson:

    A) Insane?
    B) Stupid?
    C) Lying?
    D) On drugs?
    E) Wasn’t taking his pills that day?
    F) Telling his masters what they wanted to hear?
    G) “I’m sorry but I have been misquoted’
    H) “When said self funding what I actually meant was .’

    [lprent: Oh hell. Rob has more than served out his two month ban. Lets hope he has rehabilitated himself and isn’t going to piss me off with unfounded attacks against this site again. ]

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS