Woodhouse Michael: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19330] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 One of the things that perplex me is that if Labour is so comfortable with its performance in its term in Government is so relaxed that there was no problem with the Accident Compensation Corporation as Mr Hipkins claims and that everything was all right despite these so-called paper losses why does the member who was responsible for the debacle that was accident compensation under Labour get so excited every time we point out those shortcomings? 
In the interests of reinforcing those shortcomings I will reiterate what the Minister in the chair the Minister for ACC has said. In August 2008 the Labour Cabinet had every opportunity to include in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update the $305168000 that ACC and the Department of Labour had told the Labour Government was required in the non-earners account. The Labour Government chose not to act on the basis that the matter had not been subject to sufficient detailed scrutiny. How on earth can one get more detailed scrutiny than down to the nearest dollar? 
The report into that matter showed unequivocally that choosing not to act was in breach of the Public Finance Act. Labour’s response was to hang Treasury out to dry. So much for loyalty to the Government department that stood by the Labour Government! That was very disloyal in my view. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: That is quite wrong. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Amongst all that we have not just the $2.4 billion that was presided over by the member Maryan Street who is ferreting on but half of the $4.8 billion deficit that was incurred in the first 6 months after National came to power should also be taken responsibility for by Labour. 
There are 7.2 billion reasons to improve the performance of ACC and that party still says there were no problems. A couple of financial reviews ago when the member interjecting was no longer the spokesperson on ACC the then spokesman Mr Parker came to the financial review and made some very interesting comments about the Accredited Employers Programme which the previous speaker Hilary Calvert referred to. He basically said there was no evidence of improvements in rehabilitation or cost as a consequence of the Accredited Employers Programme. 
That comment was pretty consistent with Labour’s view that the only people who can operate ACC are the Government and ACC. There are a couple of areas where Labour very begrudgingly accepted that that was not the case. The first was elective surgery where 88 percent of all treatments are undertaken in the private sector. When Labour came to power it was very keen to do something about that but then when Labour realised how efficient how cost-effective and how important that elective surgery was to rehabilitation it left it alone. 
The other thing that Labour very begrudgingly accepted was the Accredited Employers Programme—the partnership programme. Despite the programme being very much at odds with Labour’s ideological beliefs Labour left the programme alone although I note that the number of people in the Accredited Employers Programme drifted off in the last few years. 
Mr Parker claimed there was a lack of evidence to support it so I was delighted to see amongst all of the stocktake reports that were prepared for the Minister in June last year that the  
Review of Employer-managed Workplace Injury Claims  
had exactly answered those questions. It asked whether accredited employers show lower medical and rehabilitation costs. They do not; they show higher rehabilitation costs and medical costs. But guess what that does? It lowers weekly compensation costs. Employers invest early because they know that getting people back to work faster and in a lasting way reduces total costs to the employer. The review also found that the time between the date of the first injury— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: It’s not what he’s talking about. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: It is what I am talking about; I am talking about the Accredited Employers Programme. We will come on to what the Government is proposing amongst the discussion document on increasing choice. Goodness me! “Choice” is a word that is the antithesis of Labour’s ideology. Choice? No we could not have that. 
The  
Review of Employer-managed Workplace Injury Claims 
 by Martin Jenkins and the ACC’s stocktake report unequivocally showed that there was faster rehabilitation higher costs on treatment lower costs on weekly compensation and overall better outcomes not only for employers but also for employees. They also showed that the really good accredited employers are doing the rehabilitation not just for the work-related personal injuries but for the personal injuries that are not work related. They do not really care how these people got injured; they just want them back at work. And so do we which is why this document is a really good start. I look forward to the consultation on it. We keep ACC in the game. I think that is a really good improvement on the sensible changes that were made in 1998. If employers do not think there is cost-benefit in it they do not need to change. 
Report noted.