web analytics

RNZ reveals ACC privatisation agenda

Written By: - Date published: 9:03 am, April 23rd, 2010 - 71 comments
Categories: ACC, privatisation, same old national - Tags: ,

Last year, Nick Smith argued until he was red in the face that National was not moving to privatise ACC. You and I knew that was bollocks all along. After a year and a half of softening up the public, with Smith telling outright lies about the financial condition of ACC, the privatisation agenda is about to hit full swing.

Radio New Zealand
has got its hands on an interim copy of the Government-appointed ACC stocktake group. When this group was appointed, the Government said it would not be looking at privatisation. Another lie, of course. The members of the group were handpicked by Smith – neoliberal David Caygill, rightwing economist Neil Quigley, private insurance executive Gordon Smith, and Smith’s man in ACC John Judge. They’ve come up with exactly the conclusions they were employed to make.

As many people have been saying all along, National’s hysteria around ACC last year was focused on creating an air of crisis. Now they’re going to ‘do something’ (and be applauded by the kind of idiots who buy spin and see doing anything as a solution). That something is privatisation of ACC.

It won’t work. It has never worked.

The last time National privatised ACC it was a huge failure. Private providers behaved exactly as we would expect a self-interested company to rationally behave – they introduced loss-leading policies to win customers and they sought to pay out as little as possible. When Labour re-nationalised the scheme, things were already starting to go to hell – the courts were being bogged down with ACC cases as insurers, employers, and employees wasted resources on trying to assign blame, the loss-leading phase was ending, and the largest insurer, Aussie-owned HIH, collapsed only months later.

Privatisation will not save money. The costs of injuries will still exist. The question of insurance is who pays them, Privatisation will force more of the cost on to workers. And it will increase costs because private insurers spend a large portion of their outlay on trying to avoid making pay outs. Not to mention those profits, which have to come from somewhere. Last time, small businesses found that privatisation actually cost them money because they were forced to spend time and money choosing a provider (let alone the risk that their provider would collapse or raise its levies).

The PriceWaterhouseCooper report says that privatising ACC will deliver $200 million in profits to the principally Australian-owned private insurers. Why should we take $200 million out of our pockets and give it to foreign insurers?

ACC is very efficient. It made $3 billion in payouts, invested a billion for the future, and managed a portfolio of $14.5 billion at a cost of just $495 million last year. You find a private insurer that pays out 90% of its revenue on claims. It has enough money. Sure, when Smith was in the height of its hysterics, the value of the scheme’s reserves was down below $12 billion, it was the depth of the financial crisis, but since then it has made billions on the rising markets and Smith’s ‘crisis’ has evaporated.

National’s agenda is purely ideological. This is not about what is good for New Zealand it is about a blind view that private is best, whatever the facts say. Labour’s position here is simple – oppose this loud and proud every step of the way, expose National’s deceptions, stand beside the workers, and promise to re-nationalise ACC as soon as they get into power.

[I can’t be bothered linking all the links – go here for more]

71 comments on “RNZ reveals ACC privatisation agenda ”

  1. To all of the wingnuts who think that privatisation will deliver “efficiencies” and “improve services” in the Health sector can I ask them to ponder this:

    1. In the US 15% of GDP is spent on health. This provides a service that is full of holes and does not provide comprehensive cover although Obama’s recent reforms have improved things. It is a good system for lawyers, the insurance companies dispute as many cases as they can.

    2. In NZ under a “Socialist” system we spend 8% of our GDP and get far better service. Even with the decline of ACC under the current system cover is pretty comprehensive and predictable.

    When you think of the difference in GDP the contrast becomes monumental.

    • Marty G 1.1

      and we outscore the US on just about every health metric.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 1.2

      8% on health in NZ ?
      Thats only because certain items are covered under the health budget, such as aged care and disability that are not seen as ‘health’ dollars elsewhere.
      Even here Disability used to be under Social Welfare, until the political fraud under Ruth Richardson moved it into health – to show they were ‘boosting’ the health budget

  2. Jim Nald 2

    I have been chuckling to myself since last year about this … so must be the puppet-masters

    Pick extreme and zany instances
    Manufacture hysteria
    Write the script away from the public purview
    Set up an ‘independent group’
    Dish out the scripted lines
    Publicly present the report to oneself in public view
    Implement

    You might say watta scam and sham? Well, this is a winning formula

  3. tsmithfield 3

    The headline you point to doesn’t say ACC will be privatised. Just that it will be exposed to competition from the private sector.

    If competition from the private sector is such a bad idea then we should close down all other banks and give Kiwibank a monopoly.

    • Bright Red 3.1

      ACC the scheme is currently an entirely publicly-owned scheme run by the ACC corporation. Allowing private comapnies into the scheme is therefore privatising it.

      PWC said private competition would undermine the whole ACC system. Do you know better, ts?

      As for the banks, you won’t find much argument from me. The old saying is socialise the means of production, distribution, and exchange

    • chris 3.2

      if we had a govt. run bank that acted as a utility taking savings and making loans it might make lives easier and lead to a more stable economy. just ask moises naim or steve keen.

    • Craig Glen Eden 3.3

      The Banks example you give ts is ridiculous ts.The only reason the right wing have to privatize any thing is because some believe the private sector can do it better leaner cheap.

      The facts are they don’t in Health, never have done never will do. USA is the prime example thats why millions of Americans cant get health care. Surgeons and Insurance companies rip the patient with no regard what a disgrace.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1

        The only reason the right wing have to privatize any thing is because some believe the private sector can do it better leaner cheap.

        Oh, I’m sure if you dig deep enough you’ll find the real reason – control. The NACTs are a bunch of psychotic dictators and privatisation gives them the control and the income that they think that they deserve.

        • Rex Widerstrom 3.3.1.1

          I’d amend that to read “…most politicians are a bunch of psychotic dictators…”

          It’s not hard to go back through the history of any government (certainly the ones I’ve personally observed, from Muldoon on) and find myriad examples of petty despotism and arrogance.

          The only chance we have of reforming the system is if we can be multipartisan about it, otherwise we’re divided and they (the pollies) conquer.

          There’s plenty in National, for instance, not impressed with national voting down Private Members Bills before they even get to a Select Committee, even DPF, who posted yesterday:

          I’m really pissed off that they made it a party vote. National has had an authoritarian streak to it recently, where they are whittling down the number of issues MPs traditionally are not whipped on.

          There are some issues too important for partisanship. Genuine reform of a system which allows the party or parties in government absolite power to ride roughshod over the people is one of them.

    • Ianmac 3.4

      Yes please TS but leave Kiwibank, PSIS, and that other one to run free!

    • The Chairman 3.5

      The estimates in this paper suggest that the big four banks alone make underlying profits of around $35 billion before tax, of which some $20 billion per annum is likely to reflect the banks’ exploitation of their monopoly over the Australian payments system.

      http://www.apo.org.au/research/licence-print-money-bank-profits-australia

    • Draco T Bastard 3.6

      Yes, we should. They’re costing us $1.02b in dead weight loss every quarter.

    • Ari 3.7

      I have no objection to private competition to ACC, if they have to play by all the rules ACC itself currently does. The problem, of course, is that no insurer would want into a market where they aren’t allowed to reject customers, or hike premiums beyond centrally determined levels.

      The fact is, if we hold the competition to the same high standard as ACC, there is likely to be no competition, and even if there is, it is unlikely to be as efficient as ACC, yet alone gain us performance.

    • zonk 3.8

      “Let’s take ACC. The PriceWaterhouseCoopers report this year found that on virtually every measure it applied, ACC “adds considerable value to New Zealand society and economy and performs very well in comparison to alternative schemes in operation internationally.” It costs us less and delivers more. Depending on how you parse it, “opening ACC up to competition” as National proposes, is either a poor idea or a really rancid one. Seriously — there is simply no rational public interest case for privatising ACC.”

      Russell Brown a wee way back (2008)…seeing the PWC report isn’t on the net anymore
      http://publicaddress.net/default,5486.sm#post5486

      fuck off and go attempt to corner the market in expensive Aids drugs in Africa or something equally dubious…I want my country back

  4. Bill 4

    “The members of the group were handpicked by Smith neoliberal David Caygill…”

    Who apparently told Ross Wilson (from bloody excellent RNZ interview) that he had no evidence to back his opinion that private was better; that he simply believed it to be so.

    Great innit?

    Still think we need a witch hunt to smoke out Randists…wouldn’t allow a pack of paedophiles to run a creche after all…. so why allow Randists who are insanely anti-government to be in government?

    • Pascal's bookie 4.1

      “so why allow Randists who are insanely anti-government to be in government?”

      Zactly. God knows why anyone would for vote for someone who’s platform is that all govt is lies and theft and they’d like a job running it please.

      What the fuck do you expect them to do? They’ve givin ya fair warning.

    • felix 4.2

      Here’s the Ross Wilson interview mentioned by Bill above (direct link to streaming audio).

    • ghostwhowalksnz 4.3

      The evidence is that the places where private workplace insurance exists ( australaia) the % of premiums paid by employers is higher than in NZ.

      How come the workers dont get the right to sue in private schemes like they do in other countries?

      Now that would be a good trade off!!!

  5. Nick C 5

    “ACC looks set to get competition from private insurers”

    Errr, do you not know the difference between competition and privitisation?

    • felix 5.1

      The widely accepted and uncontroversial definition of privatisation is the transfer of assets and/or the provision of services from the state into private hands.

      So yep, I’d say Marty does know the difference and you don’t. Look it up. Edumicate yerself.

    • Bright Red 5.2

      at the moment, the whole industry is public owned. Letting in private insurers is privatising it.

      Just like having mercenaries fight alongside your army is privatising defence even though the army is still fully govt owned..

      i thought you righties were meant to understand stuff like this.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1

        They do but they prefer to use spin whenever possible to misdirect people away from the reality that doesn’t support their position.

      • Rex Widerstrom 5.2.2

        Righties do. They particularly admire the Bill Birch version of it, introduced in 1991, which abolished lump sum payments and established the earners account to shift the burden of non-work injuries from employers to employees. The ones I’ve spoken to, and consulted for, have spoken in universal admiration of that structure, which they see as virtually ideal.

        I first found out about this when I met one politician widely considered to be far right (by Australian standards) who asked in hushed tones “You’re from NZ? Did you ever meet…. Bill Birch?” (trust me, that wasn’t the name I was expecting).

        Many an Australian righty (or at least a fair number, it seems) would love to be able to introduce a Birch model ACC scheme into their state. It’s just that vested interests now make that pretty much impossible.

        They must be looking across the ditch at Key and Co and thinking “WTF?!”.

  6. ghostwhowalksnz 6

    Notice they like competition for the bosses paying the premiums but dont allow ‘competition’ for the workers , by letting them sue for their losses!!

  7. Ianmac 7

    Bill and Felix. Just to agree that Ross Wilson interview “bloody” good!
    Prime point is that Price Waterhouse review in 2008 could find no evidence that there was any better system than ACC in the World. And that point about Caygill that he had no evidence that Private was better. Just a belief. And that Private in Australia delivered badly.
    Bless all who sail in her!

  8. Olwyn 8

    “The only reason the right wing have to privatize any thing is because some believe the private sector can do it better leaner cheap.” From what I have seen so far the only reason the right wing privatise anything is so that their friends can get their hooks into some low-risk or no-risk going concern that is essential to the community, and call that “business” and themselves “businessmen,” without adding anything to the world that was not already in it. Unless you count as a plus the suffering that results from the shareholder being more important to them than the actual service they have bought into.

  9. This privatisation is going to cost more. More than just money. ACC would save more money if the government put some focus into injury prevention. We have some high hospitality rates and work injuries compared to other countries.

  10. tsmithfield 10

    Earlier I said:

    “The headline you point to doesn’t say ACC will be privatised. Just that it will be exposed to competition from the private sector.”

    Bright Red responded by claiming:

    “ACC the scheme is currently an entirely publicly-owned scheme run by the ACC corporation. Allowing private companies into the scheme is therefore privatising it.”

    It seems to me that lefties are so in love with public ownership of everything that they can’t even define “privatise” accurately.

    For Bright Red and the others, here is a little help with defining “privatise”.

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:privatize&ei=V-jQS5jGGY20sgO_poiACg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE

    See, heaps of definitions there, all supporting the way I define privatise.

    So, it is a nonsense to claim that ACC is to be privatised according the consensus of definitions above. Exposing it to private competition will only improve the existing organisation. That is what competition does. Think about it. What would the world 100m record be now if there was only ever one sprinter?

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      Exposing it to private competition will only improve the existing organisation.

      There’s no evidence of that and there is evidence that it will make the whole system far worse.

      • tsmithfield 10.1.1

        Draco,

        I have to disagree with you.

        Look at the recent Telecom fiasco. Now its competitors are milking this for all that its worth. Telecom have to lift their game or they will lose market share big time. If they were still a monopoly, they would have much less incentive to sort their shit out.

        Why should ACC be any different? I am sure the blow-torch of competition will make them lift their game as well.

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1

          The Telecom fiasco wouldn’t have happened if it had remained government owned. Simple logistics tells us that the competition is costing us more and more everyday. Which costs more? 1 network or two or more?

          Competition has it’s place but telecommunications and health are two places that competition makes worse as it pushes total cost up due to duplication and brings in misdirected cost cutting which results in an overall decrease in service.

    • Ari 10.2

      Given the ratio of overhead to payouts at every private insurer I’ve seen data for, we would literally have nothing to gain from this. Why would they even want in under a similar regime than we have now?

      The answer is that National would soften the regime to attract private competition, making our health system worse, and less comprehensive.

    • felix 10.3

      ts, if you’re going to link to a list of definitions and claim that they support your contention you really should try reading them.

      They don’t. Even in the one-line summaries on the results page there are several 180 degree contradictions of your assertion. If you click through and read the full texts you’ll find that most of them are saying exactly what BR and myself and others have said: That privatisation refers to the transfer of not only assets but also functions and service provision.

      Would you like me to link to some specific examples or are you happy to, um, actually read your own list? Let me know.

      • tsmithfield 10.3.1

        Sure Felix, and I stand by what I said. Here is one of the definitions from Wiki:

        “Privatization is the incidence or process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency or public service from the public sector (government) to the private sector (“business”). In a broader sense, privatization refers to transfer of any government function to the private sector – including governmental functions like revenue collection and law enforcement.”

        The key concept in this very good definition is transfer from to. To the extent that ACC functions have been transfered to a private provider, those functions have been privatised within the private organisation. However, those same functions still performed by ACC are still public as they are performed by the publicly owned organisation. So, ACC itself will not be privatised by the changes. This is where we disagree, as both BR and yourself seem to hold that ACC itself is privatised with the proposed changes, whereas I am arguing that the definition of privatisation does not imply this.

        I would agree that privatisation of ACC itself had occurred if ACC were sold to a private organisation. However, this is not proposed to happen.

        Part of the issue here is ambiguity in what BR actually said:

        “ACC the scheme is currently an entirely publicly-owned scheme run by the ACC corporation. Allowing private companies into the scheme is therefore privatising it”

        When he refers to “privatising it” he does not say whether he is refering to ACC or the scheme.

        • felix 10.3.1.1

          You’re splitting hairs to disagree there ts. ACC only exists to administer the scheme.

          It really doesn’t matter whether BR is refering to the scheme, the organization, or the building it is located in.

          Key said no privatisation whatsoever. Full or partial.

          • tsmithfield 10.3.1.1.1

            The article doesn’t actually help. Referring to privatising “ACC” is technically inaccurate because ACC stands for “Accident Compensation Corporation”; in other words the government entity. If you read the article again, I think you would have to agree that the corporation itself is being referred to. Therefore, both BR and yourself are departing from the thrust of the article by broadening its intention out to include the broader aspect of accident compensation services. The article should have referred to the privatising some accident compensation services or similar, rather than the corporation itself.

            It doesn’t really matter though. Whatever way we look at it, we are still probably going to disagree about the merits of bringing competition into provision of accident compensation services.

            The other point is that Key promised not to sell state assets. To that extent, he is keeping his promise with respect to ACC as the corporation will not be sold.

          • luva 10.3.1.1.2

            Key said no privatisation whatsoever. Full or partial

            citation please Felix

            [lprent: I seem to remember it as being “… in the first term”. So this is probably a good call. ]

            • lprent 10.3.1.1.2.1

              From the granny

              The paper follows a week of negotiations with the Act Party over ACC legislation that would push out the date from which ACC is to be fully funded from 2014 to 2019 and cut some entitlements.

              Act has pushed for National to commit to allowing competition into the work account in return for its support – a policy National had decided not to proceed with until 2011.

              A case of the minuscule tail wagging a rather large dog.

              I’d say that neither National or Key said that exact phrase – they seem to be adverse to the word ‘privatisation’ for some reason (even if every other commentator states it as what it effectively is). It was related to their plans to open up the ACC work account to competition in their policy briefing paper and initial policy, which during the long election campaign, they said they were not going to look at doing until after 2011 election.

              Search works great on this new system, fast as hell.

  11. Name 11

    This illustrates a political divide as fundamental, and irreconcilable, as any difference in religious belief.

    A. I am in an industry with low accident rates that are rarely serious and thus expensive. I don’t drink and drive, and I loath rugby. Why, therefore, should I pay premiums that include cover for miners and fishermen, idiots who get drunk and drive into lamp-posts or idiots who break their necks chasing a testicle-shaped ball around a muddy paddock? If they want the same cover as I they should pay the appropriate premium.

    B. I am a member of a society which includes paper-shufflers, miners and fishermen, people who stupidly get drunk and drive into lamp-posts and people who enjoy a little thuggery over a ball in the mud and who unfortunately sometimes get hurt. By paying a little extra I get cover and so does everyone else, and society is both richer and better.

    Neither A nor B is ‘right’. Whether you believe A or B depends on who you are and the way you were brought up, and discussing it is as useful as arguing the virginity of the Madonna with a Catholic.

    • Ari 11.1

      Except your examples are both wrong because overall we pay less under our system that is apparently for people who get drunk and crash into lamp-posts, so everyone’s premiums are lower. *rolls eyes*

      That’s not even mentioning the savings from avoiding the necessity of litigation that comes with private participation in such a scheme.

      • Rex Widerstrom 11.1.1

        What would be wrong with taking activities with clear and acknowledged risks (playing rugby, skiing etc) and shifting the burden onto those who choose to participate in such activities? After all, there’s a hefty ACC component to vehicle registration which acknowledges that if we choose to use a vehicle we’re placing ourselves (and possibly others) in more danger than if we don’t.

        There’s no litigation necessary, and those who don’t own a vehicle make an overall substantial saving, as they should.

        There’s a second category of risky behaviour that is already litigated anyway. If, for instance, you drive drunk and have an accident you either plead guilty to it or you are found guilty of it. Once your guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, civil liability (which requires a lesser standard of proof) could easily apply. The same could apply to any illegal activity in which a participant was injured.

        I support ACC, wholly and completely. But let’s not forget what the “A” stands for.

        • QoT 11.1.1.1

          But Rex! If we actually acknowledge that sports carry a risk of injury we’ll just turn into a nation of couchsurfing fatties!!!

          [Not sure how I actually feel on the subject, probably concerned about the danger of allowing governments involving ACT the ability to assess “risky behaviour” – just annoyed by the Obesity Epidemic!!!! moral panic.]

  12. Lew 12

    Well, here’s one topic upon which I can agree entirely with The Standardistas.

    Now seems another good time to link (again) to my original (and still unmet) challenge to those who think this isn’t a trojan horse for privatisation.

    L

    • Ari 12.1

      This is why I say we need to hold any privitisation to the current standards, practices, and doctrines of ACC- that is, they should have their maximum fees and minimum quality set by government, and not be able to turn down anyone who wishes to sign up to their scheme.

      Private competition just doesn’t look attractive under those terms, however- people only support it when it’s a way for them to exclude anyone they can successfully other.

      • Lew 12.1.1

        Precisely, Ari. If the purveyors of private cove are serious about cover being universal, better and cheaper then enforcing those things as a condition of entry should be a cinch. That it’s not tells you almost all you need to know.

        L

  13. Fisiani 13

    Before you know it National will also open the entire health sector up to competition.
    They will probably allow some GP’s to run their own businesses, let physios be private, podiatrists, chiropractors, dentists speech therapists, opticians. Even privately run hospitals for goodness sake. We have to stop such possible outrages. We cannot allow private enterprise. For in health and rehabilitation only a state monopoly possibly knows best and is automatically the cheapest, the best and the most efficient.

    • Pascal's bookie 13.1

      Fisiani, you could always try and respond to Lew’s linked argument.

      Or not.

      (I’m picking ‘not’).

      You too smitty.

      (I’m picking ‘will, but not in any meaningful manner’)

    • dave brown 13.2

      Except it is not competition. The public sector subsidises the private sector to meet the needs of those who can afford private health insurance. As a result the public sector gets starved and the majority suffer reduced health care. There is no market and no competition in any sector of the global economy. Capitalism is based on monopolies or cartels. Never heard of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Riotinto/BHP/Vale? The competion such as it is shifts from the so-called market and becomes a contest between the big powers whose states back their monpolies and bail them out with our money. They in turn speculate on the debts and currencies of vulnerable states, like NZ. Ask John Key.
      The NACTS are only interested in scavenging what public assets they can and opening up the farm and the quarry to big business so they get a kickback. They are parasites and they should be dumped out of office starting with the Supercity coup.

  14. Fisiani 14

    ACC is a Trojan horse for state control and monopoly in health.

    [lprent: I read that, and then I read that again. It still doesn’t make any particular sense. Perhaps you’d better expand your argument beyond a dumbarse slogan. ]

  15. Fisiani 15

    Try
    Lew 3.22
    and PB 3.58
    then reread and if need be read again

    [lprent: Perhaps you should reply to the aforementioned comments rather than just dropping a statement in the main line? Then it might make contextual sense in a subthread. After all that is why this overworked sysop put threaded comments in the system in the first place. /sarcasm ]

    • Pascal's bookie 15.1

      The argument in the link @ Lew 3.22 Fisiani.

      • burt 15.1.1

        Lew

        I think you make a fine argument about the race to bottom. To have good social policy we need to ensure that group has an acceptable standard of health care and rehabilitation, a safety net if you like. How we provide that standard and how we fund it do not need to be one and the same for everyone.

        How we apply user pays is quite perverse really. There are many thing we just accept without too much argument. We accept that different employers have different likelihoods of having work place accidents, we accept different occupations have different risks, we accept different classes of motor vehicles have different risks, we accept that bigger vehicles consume more fuel loading their share of the cost. We also accept that there is a chunk of taxpayers money in there as well. We accept this ‘tax’ is collected at every step in the food chain. We accept that alternate National and Labour govt’s mess with this political football costing us hundreds of millions reorganising it for the sake of ideology.

        The original ACC concept was copied from Bismark’s social policy in the early 1900’s.

        Bismarck’s program centered squarely on insurance programs designed to increase productivity, and focus the political attentions of German workers on supporting the Junker’s government. The program included Health Insurance; Accident Insurance (Workman’s Compensation); Disability Insurance; and an Old-age Retirement Pension, none of which were then currently in existence to any great degree.

        Germany’s workers compensation system has been taken as a model for many nations, I wonder how we would get on if we re-cast from the current German system and dropped our 110 years of unique adaptations which have not been copied by any other countries.

    • Lew 15.2

      So that’s a “no”, then. Fair enough; you don’t seem to be the sort to claim it won’t end up being privatised, so the challenge doesn’t really apply to you, only to those fools who claim as an initial position that “it’s not privatisation” and then “privatisation’s not so bad anyhow” as a fallback. You go straight to the fallback, which is convenient for both of us. Happily, I addressed this last time around. Three things: explain to me how a privatised system will be universal; how it will provide equivalent service; at the same or lower cost.

      Universality is a bottom line: it’s the only way to ensure everyone gets healthcare for accidents when they need it, and the only way to ensure that private providers don’t exploit the cross-subsidisation model and burden the public system with all the uneconomic cases and just skim the cream off the top. It’s the only way to ensure that those who suffer accidents don’t end up bankrupt and begging on the street with festering wounds or chronic disease. Because that’s what you get in otherwise-affluent countries without proper accident insurance: the USA and the Republic of Korea are examples.

      But there’s the rub — if you enforce universality, you deny providers the right to cherry-pick “safe” or desirable clients, which means their liability goes through the roof. There are two ways of mitigating this: limit cover or increase prices. If they do the former, people end up in the same case as above because whatever happened to them wasn’t covered. If they do the latter, it prices people out of the market, with the same ultimate effect. So for the system to have all three of those characteristics, you need to enforce them all.

      If the insurers are required to provide cover for all comers, and can’t limit the level of that cover or charge excessive premiums for that cover, they will struggle to make their actuarial models work, since those models rely on being able to price risk out of the market, or deny cover to revenue-negative clients (whom they will be forced to cover under a universal system). So the only way it works is if you enforce all three of those qualifications. But if you do that, there’s no business model. So how is it supposed to work?

      I honestly, truly want to know. But I want to know in some detail — not interested in “the market will provide” dogma. So, if you can — answer! How do you get all three of those things? Provide a compelling answer and I suspect you’ll convert a few people.

      L

  16. burt 16

    This is all a bit depressing really. Having spent thousands on my mountain bike and all the gear I need to ride it I’m now likely to need to actually take some financial responsibility for the risks I take. Not having the hard working folk from the chess club or the bridge club subsidise the cost of my ocassional injuries just isn’t fair. Why should I take responsibility for the risks I take ? Booo National – the bastards are going to make me stump up to cover some of the risks I enjoy taking…

    Booo… I’ll be in tears wanting back the one size fits all system where other people cover my risk for me because I can’t afford to cover my risk having spent all my money on the kit I use in my high risk pass times.

    • Descendant Of Smith 16.1

      In all insurance people cover others people’s risk. That’s how insurance works. That doesn’t matter whether it’s private or public. I’m not sure how you don’t understand that.

      If you solely had to cover your own risk there would be no point in insurance at all. It’s also worth pointing out that you do take some of the risk – 20% in relation to your earnings.

      It’s also not just about risk of injury or accident – you may have a lower accident rate but you might as an employer pay your staff a higher salary than other higher risk occupations. You should therefore in the type of model you seem to favour – unshared risk, pay higher premiums cause the potential liability is much higher. Just like the insurance on a $120,000 house is less than insurance on a million dollar house.

      To only consider the injury rate side is nonsense.

      The reason the risk is shared is because we as a NZ society have deemed that it is the most fair and reasonable way to treat people – sharing the risk and sharing the burden. Most of us aren’t selfish enough to begrudge that – though we all share a common concern that people don’t rip it off.

      As someone who has had experience of a private insurer last time when my wife had suffered a preventable work related injury we had the following issues:

      1. Efforts to deny rehabilitation because working part-time was a lifestyle choice. My wife worked part-time because we had children with disabilities that needed caring for including through periods of intensive care and hospitilisation.
      2. Over that hurdle they argued they didn’t have to rehabilitate to any capacity beyond 8 hours per week because she was working part-time when she had the accident.
      3. The small payments she was entitled to ( less than $40-00 per week ) were usually late and often a month late while they sat in their bank accounts earning interest
      4. This was true of the small quarterly payments for permanent disability which were up to 3 months late. These payments we found out later were also supposed to increase annually in line with inflation. Th employer was paying the increase we found out later but this wasn’t being passed on. Once the file was paid to ACC the taxpayer had to front up with the arrears because the firm was no longer doing this work.
      5. The specialist who carried out the assessment for return to work when we were asking for rehabilitation assessed her range of movement as normal even though a bone fusion to her limb restricted her movement permanently, disregarded any issues of ongoing pain, ignored three previous assessments of range of movement that had assessed her as having a permanent disability and told her that if she was his patient he wouldn’t advise that she go back to work but that he was not there for that reason and would be recommending that she return to work – which he duly did.
      6. The work trial that we desired and agreed to ( despite working up to full time for an employer for only $40-00 per week ) to see what she was capable of was supposed to step up her hours and have an OT assessment carried out as the weeks went on so as to not do further injury. She turned up on the day and the employer had been told that she was coming to start full-time work and they knew nothing about a trial or any sort of OT assessing of either her or the workplace.
      7. Information was posted to us that not only included my wife’s information but information on other people’s wages, injuries and treatments – including sadly people we personally knew and had no idea about their mental health issues.

      That’s a short list of crappy service and an unwillingness to take seriously any effort to get someone rehabilitated, in any meaningful way, who wanted to get back into work.

      ACC on the other hand once the file went to them after this failed experiment were positive and helpful and paid every payment on time.

      I certainly know who provided the better more efficient service and it wasn’t private enterprise.

    • burt 16.2

      Of course insurance is about spreading risk, but unless I missed something the premiums that you pay are adjusted to cater for individual circumstances. But hey you might think it is unfair, for example, that smokers pay higher life insurance premiums than non-smokers..

      I have no issues with having insurance premiums adjusted to match the relative risk because I live in the real world and don’t think the ease of administration should be the primary driver for social policy or that policies should be first and foremost popular with voters.

      • Draco T Bastard 16.2.1

        burt, you missed a hell of a lot. All indications are that you missed most of the 1980s, the 1990s and all of this century. All the stuff that proved that private enterprise isn’t manna from heaven and in fact cost us a hell of a lot more than it should have.

      • Ari 16.2.2

        ACC already does this to an extent by levying dangerous activities. (like licensing vehicles) There’s an argument that there should be more levies, but I would have figured you would be against that as it’s effectively a targeted tax increase. (Which if you think about it, is actually a fairer way of managing risk than demographics)

        I have to disagree with you on policies being first and foremost popular. I think they should be good, (ie. functional) THEN be popular. 🙂

  17. Descendant Of Smith 17

    Didn’t say administration is the the primary driver but the argument here isn’t about how you spread the cost.

    It’s about whether private enterprise is more efficient and provides a better level of service through competition.

    On all those counts they failed and caused much time wasting and distress to someone who wanted to get back to work.

    I also think there is a world of difference between paying out when someone dies, or when your house burns down than there is about helping someone get back on their feet after an accident.

  18. zonk 18

    we spent the best part of two decades getting the loonies away from the wheel of the ship. how did they get back again?

    • Draco T Bastard 18.1

      they convinced people that we needed a “change”. They just didn’t say what the change would be.

      • QoT 18.1.1

        Well, Draco, they promised it wouldn’t really be much of a change, you’d just getting That Nice Mr Key smiling and waving on the telly instead of mean old Helen who wants to tell you you can’t use your cellphone while driving. [Wait, no, oh sh-]

        Captcha: “ordering”.

        • Pascal's bookie 18.1.1.1

          I’m not sweatin it. I’m pretty sure there is basically some 4chan shit going on.

          budget will read.

          ‘Successful troll is successful’

          and it all be revealed as some crazy lulz.

  19. feijoa 19

    Regarding ACC privatisation, does anyone know how much money the Insurance Council donated to the National Party? The Hollow Men suggests $1 million, but could not confirm it. THAT’S why ACC is being privatised.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • NZ economy’s strong momentum will support rebound from Delta outbreak; COVID fund replenished
    The economy showed strong momentum in the period leading up to the recent Delta COVID-19 outbreak, which bodes well for a solid economic rebound, Grant Robertson said. GDP rose 2.8 percent in the June quarter, following on from a 1.4 percent increase in the previous March quarter. This was a ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    19 hours ago
  • Projects create benefits into the future
    Making a well-known lake swimmable and helping to halt the decline of the endangered hoiho/yellow-eyed penguins are among a suite of new projects being supported by the Government’s Jobs for Nature programme across the southern South Island, Conservation Minister Kiri Allan says. “It’s no secret that many of our most ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    21 hours ago
  • New members appointed to Kāpuia
    The Government is adding four additional members to Kāpuia, the Ministerial Advisory Group on the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch mosques. “I’m looking forward to having Pamela MacNeill, Huia Bramley, Melani Anae and Katherine Dedo  join Kāpuia and contribute to this group’s ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Timeline confirmed for Emissions Reductions Plan
    Cabinet has agreed to begin consulting on the Emissions Reduction Plan in early October and require that the final plan be released by the end of May next year in line with the 2022 Budget, the Minister of Climate Change, James Shaw confirmed today. “Cabinet’s decision allows organisations and communities ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Pay parity pathway for early learning teachers confirmed
    Pay parity conditions and higher funding rates for education and care services will come into force on 1 January, 2022, Minister of Education Chris Hipkins confirmed today. The Government signalled this work in Budget 2021. “From 1 January, 2022, centres opting into the scheme will receive government funding and be ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Speech to the New Zealand Nurses Organisation Conference 2021
    Kia Ora tatau katoa.   Ka tuku mihi ki nga nēhi, He pou Hauora o Aotearoa, E ora ai tatou.   Whakatau mai  I runga i te kaupapa o te ra Te NZNO conference.   Tena koutou tena koutou Tena tatou katoa   Good morning, and thank you inviting me ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government investment in farmer-led catchment groups sweeps past 150 mark
    171 catchment groups have now been invested in by the Government 31 catchment groups in the Lower North Island are receiving new support More than 5,000 farmers are focussed on restoring freshwater within a generation through involvement in catchment groups  Government investment in on-the-ground efforts by farmers to improve land ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Fight to protect kauri on track
    The Government is pitching in to help vital work to protect nationally significant kauri forests in Auckland, Minister of Conservation Kiri Allan says. “Ensuring the survival of these iconic trees for future generations means doing everything we can to prevent the potential spread of kauri dieback disease,” Kiri Allan said. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Joint statement of Mr Bernard Monk; Hon Andrew Little, Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry,...
    [Note: The Parties have agreed on terms to fully and finally settle the proceeding and will jointly issue the below statement.] At the heart of this litigation are the lives of the 29 men tragically lost at the Pike River mine on 19 November 2010 and to whom we pay ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • More financial support for businesses
    Today’s decision to keep Auckland in a higher COVID Alert Level triggers a third round of the Wage Subsidy Scheme which will open for applications at 9am this Friday. “The revenue test period for this payment will be the 14th to the 27th of September. A reminder that this is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Aotearoa New Zealand provides further humanitarian support for Afghanistan
    Aotearoa New Zealand is providing a further $3 million in humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta announced today.  “There is significant humanitarian need in Afghanistan, with the crisis disproportionately affecting women and girls,” said Nanaia Mahuta. The UN has estimated that 80% of the quarter of a million ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Innovative te reo prediction tool announced in Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori
    A new Māori language prediction tool will play a key role in tracking our te reo Māori revitalisation efforts, Minister for Māori Development Willie Jackson announced today. He Ara Poutama mō te reo Māori (He Ara Poutama) can forecast the number of conversational and fluent speakers of te reo Māori ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Further Government support for people to access food and essential items
    The Government is responding to need for support in Auckland and has committed a further $10 million to help people access ongoing food and other essential items, Minister for Social Development Carmel Sepuloni announced today. This latest tranche is targeted at the Auckland region, helping providers and organisations to distribute ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Half a million Pfizer vaccines from Denmark
    The Government has secured an extra half a million doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines from Denmark that will start arriving in New Zealand within days, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced today. “This is the second and larger agreement the Government has entered into to purchase additional vaccines to meet the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Inland Revenue providing essential COVID support for businesses
    Inland Revenue is seeing increased demand for Resurgence Support Payments and other assistance schemes that it administers, but is processing applications quickly, Revenue Minister David Parker said today. David Parker said the Resurgence Support Payment, the Small Business Cashflow (loan) Scheme and the Wage Subsidy are available at the same ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New Zealand marks 20th anniversary of 9/11 attacks
    New Zealand is expressing unity with all victims, families and loved ones affected by the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks, and all terrorist attacks around the world since, including in New Zealand. “Saturday marks twenty years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, which killed nearly 3,000 people ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to SPREP Environment Ministers
    Talofa Honourable Ulu of Tokelau Faipule Kelihiano Kalolo Tēnā koutou katoa and warm Pacific greetings from Aotearoa to your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. The new science released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on 8 August paints an alarming picture of the projected impacts of climate change on the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Additional Resurgence Support Payments to support business
    Businesses affected by higher Alert Levels will be able to apply for further Resurgence Support Payments (RSP). “The Government’s RSP was initially intended as a one-off payment to help businesses with their fixed costs, such as rent. Ministers have agreed to provide additional payments to recognise the effects of an ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • More Dawn Raids scholarships announced
    Details of the ‘Manaaki New Zealand Short Term Training Scholarships’, a goodwill gesture that follows the Government’s apology for the Dawn Raids of the 1970s, were released today by Pacific Peoples Minister Aupito William Sio. “These scholarships that are targeted to the Pacific will support the kaupapa of the Dawn Raids’ ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • One-way quarantine-free travel for RSE workers starting in October
      One-way quarantine-free travel for Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers from Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu starts in October New requirement for RSE workers to have received their first vaccination pre-departure, undertake Day 0 and Day 5 tests, and complete a self-isolation period of seven days, pending a negative Day 5 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Govt boosts Pacific suicide prevention support
    Applications have opened for the Pacific Suicide Prevention Community Fund as the Government acts to boost support amid the COVID delta outbreak. “We know strong and connected families and communities are the most important protective factor against suicide and this $900,000 fund will help to support this work,” Health Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Govt parks the expiry of licenses, WoFs and regos
    As a result of the Delta outbreak, driver licences, Warrants of Fitness (WoFs), Certificates of Fitness (CoFs), vehicle licences (‘regos’) and licence endorsements that expired on or after 21 July 2021 will be valid until 30 November 2021, Transport Minister Michael Wood has announced today. “While this extension won’t officially ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • COVID-19 community fund to provide support for vulnerable women and girls
    Minister for Women Jan Tinetti today announced a $2 million community fund that will provide support for women and girls adversely affected by COVID-19. “We know that women, particularly those who are already vulnerable, are disproportionally affected by the kind of economic disruption caused by COVID-19,” Jan Tinetti said. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Next phase of support for Fiji’s COVID-19 response announced
    A further NZ$12 million of support for Fiji’s COVID-19 response has been announced by Foreign Minister Hon Nanaia Mahuta today. The package builds on previous tranches of assistance Aotearoa New Zealand has provided to Fiji, totalling over NZ$50 million. “Fiji remains in a very challenging position in their response to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Robotic asparagus harvester aimed at addressing industry challenges
    The Government is backing a $5 million project to develop a commercial-scale autonomous robotic asparagus harvester, Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor announced today. The Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund (SFF Futures) is contributing $2.6 million to the project. Project partner Robotics Plus Limited (RPL) will build on a prototype asparagus ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Additional Pfizer vaccines to arrive tomorrow
    More than a quarter of a million additional doses of the Pfizer vaccine are on their way from Spain to New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced today. The additional doses will arrive in Auckland on Friday morning to help meet the current surge in demand for vaccination. “It’s been ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Young people to have their voices heard in Youth Parliament 2022
    The dates and details for Youth Parliament 2022 have been announced today by Minister for Youth Priyanca Radhakrishnan, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Youth Parliament is an opportunity for 141 young people from across Aotearoa New Zealand to experience the political process and learn how government works. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Boosting support for tertiary students affected by COVID-19
    Students facing a hard time as a result of COVID-19 restrictions will continue to be supported,” Education Minister Chris Hipkins confirmed today. The Government is putting a further $20 million into the Hardship Fund for Learners, which will help around 15,000 students to stay connected to their studies and learning. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • COVID-19: Immediate relief available for Māori and iwi organisations
    The Government has reprioritised up to $5 million to provide immediate relief to vulnerable whānau Māori and communities during the current COVID-19 outbreak Minister for Māori Development Willie Jackson announced today. The COVID-19 2021 Whānau Recovery Fund will support community-driven, local responses to gaps in access and provision of critical ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New beef genetics programme to deliver cows with smaller environmental hoof-print
    The Government is backing a genetics programme to lower the beef sector’s greenhouse gas emissions by delivering cows with a smaller environmental hoof-print, Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor announced today. Informing New Zealand Beef is a seven-year partnership with Beef + Lamb New Zealand that is expected to result in more ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Appointments to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority
    Education Minister Chris Hipkins today announced new appointments to the board of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA). Former Associate Minister of Education, Hon Tracey Martin, has been appointed as the new Chair for NZQA, replacing the outgoing Acting and Deputy Chair Professor Neil Quigley after an 11-year tenure on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Govt supports residential house building by allowing manufacture of building supplies
    The Government has agreed to allow some building product manufacturing to take place in Auckland during Covid lockdown to support continued residential construction activity across New Zealand. “There are supply chain issues that arise from Alert Level 4 as building products that are manufactured domestically are mostly manufactured in Auckland. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government invests in scientific research to boost economy, address climate change and enhance wellb...
    Research, Science and Innovation Minister Hon Dr Megan Woods has today announced the recipients of this year’s Endeavour Fund to help tackle the big issues that New Zealanders care about, like boosting economic performance, climate change, transport infrastructure and wellbeing. In total, 69 new scientific research projects were awarded over ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Transport to drive economic recovery
    The Government is investing a record amount in transport services and infrastructure to get New Zealand moving, reduce emissions and support the economic recovery, Transport Minister Michael Wood announced today. The 2021-24 National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) was released today which outlines the planned investments Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government congratulates NZ Paralympic team
    The Government has congratulated New Zealand’s Paralympic Team following an outstanding showing at the Tokyo Paralympic Games. “Our New Zealand Paralympian athletes have once again shown incredible talent, tenacity and determination at the Tokyo Paralympic Games winning 12 medals, with every athlete who represented New Zealand making us so proud,” ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Aotearoa mourns passing of creative icon Billy Apple
    Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Carmel Sepuloni has expressed her condolences at the passing of Billy Apple, one of New Zealand’s most influential artists. “Today we’ve lost a giant of New Zealand art. Billy was a creative visionary, an inspiration and a friend to so many,” Carmel Sepuloni said. “Billy ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government attempted to deport terrorist
    The lifting of final suppression orders relating to the Auckland terrorist shows Immigration New Zealand had been attempting for years to deport him and also sought to detain him while deportation was considered in order to keep him out of the community. “The individual arrived in New Zealand in October ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Prime Minister’s update on the 3 September Auckland terrorist attack
    ***Check against delivery*** I want to begin with an update on the status of our victims from yesterday’s attack. We’re aware now that there were a total of seven people injured. There are five people in hospital, three are in a critical condition. The remaining victims have been treated and are ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Tonga’s language week goes virtual 
    This year’s Tonga Language week is going to be a virtual affair because of the nationwide lockdowns for Covid 19, said the Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio. “We have been working closely with the Tongan community ahead of Uike Lea Faka-Tonga, and they have selected the theme Fakakoloa ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Resurgence Support Payment amended to include new businesses
    The Government’s Resurgence Support Payment (RSP) has been updated to better support newly established businesses. The RSP is a one-off payment that helps businesses with costs like rent or fixed costs during higher alert levels. When this COVID-19 response scheme was first established last year the criteria was included that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago