Politicisation of ACC continues

Written By: - Date published: 12:15 pm, November 11th, 2009 - 4 comments
Categories: ACC, national/act government, spin - Tags:

Frogblog has another example of the continuing politicisation of the public service under National. I meant to post on this a while back, but you may have seen these ads in your local paper recently:

acclevyspin-small

Not only is the ACC’s message in this ad contrary to the Woodhouse principles it was founded on, but there’s barely two sentences in the whole thing about how the public can have its say. The rest of it, as Frog points out,

continues a disturbing trend under the National-led Government of using public service funding in this case your and my ACC levies to promote Government political spin.

It should come as no surprise that ACC is doing the Government’s dirty work on this issue. You’ll remember Nick Smith turfed out Ross Wilson because he knew Wilson was too committed to the principles of ACC and the people it’s supposed to protect to play along with National’s manufactured crisis.

That’s why Smith personally chose Business Rountable member John Judge as chair, and it’s why the ACC is every day looking more and more like an arm of the National Party’s media unit.

4 comments on “Politicisation of ACC continues ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BLiP 1
    11 November 2009 at 1:27 pm

    Classic National Ltd® – no money for health and rehabilitation but plenty of cash for advertising.

  3. Swampy 3
    11 November 2009 at 9:44 pm

    Hogwash. The government is doing what it is supposed to do, which is govern. That includes using government (i.e. public) money to promote government policy.

    Ross Wilson was a political appointee and as such could be expected to be vulnerable with a change of government. He was appointed as a payback for his union role with the Labour union affilation.

  4. Rob Carr 4
    12 November 2009 at 10:24 am

    What I love about this add is that they actually give the very figure to refute their own claim to need to increase the motorcycle levies. 60% full or partial responsibility. That means 40% of the time they have no responsibility at all for the accident and probably at least 10% of that 60% was cars were the primary cause. Therefore even under a fault based system cars are costing us more in damage to motorcyclists than motorcyclists are. They are in fact paying to be crashed into by idiots not looking where they are going. Even under a fault based system it isn’t fair.