Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19068] 
7. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What action is the Government proposing to reduce workplace accidents improve rehabilitation rates for employees and make ACC more efficient? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The Government last week released a discussion paper on extending the Accredited Employers Programme and allowing workplaces a choice of insurer. The paper sets out the detail of the prudential requirements for insurers a clearing house to minimise compliance costs for health providers and the independent disputes process and it reinforces that regardless of insurer employees will have the same cover and entitlements for care rehabilitation and compensation. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What evidence is there that these reforms will deliver safer workplaces and better rehabilitation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The stocktake report did a comprehensive study covering the last 10 years of accident and rehabilitation rates comparing like with like and found 12 percent fewer accidents and 15 percent lower costs under the Accredited Employers Programme. The study attributed these gains to employers being far more engaged in workplace safety and the rehabilitation of their workers. Translated over the New Zealand workforce this means 10 fewer fatalities 22000 fewer injuries and cost savings of $85 million each year. This is the main reason the Government wants to expand choice to beyond just a few large employers. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What were the results of the 1998 reforms and how does the Government’s approach this time vary from them? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is interesting to note in terms of the number of workplace fatalities that in 1999 and 2000—the period when there was choice—fewer workers were killed in the New Zealand workplace than in any other year in New Zealand history albeit I do accept that we are not able to draw comprehensive conclusions from just that short period. The first change we are making from that approach is leaving ACC in the marketplace—that is companies are given the choice of an alternative insurer but they are not compelled to choose an insurer other than ACC. There were some problems with health providers seeking payment for care from multiple insurers so—and this is the second change—we are proposing a single clearing house for all claims. We have learnt from that record and we are sure there will be even more gains for New Zealand from these reforms. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How will privatising the ACC work account make the system more efficient given that an independent PricewaterhouseCoopers report found that ACC was already among the cheapest in the world that New Zealand employers already pay half what Australian employers pay on average and that the private insurance industry has already said it cannot do accident cover as cheaply as ACC can? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly I must correct the member’s use of the tired old word “privatisation”. This reform is no more privatisation than the decision in the 1970s to provide for instance alternative radio providers or the decision in the 1980s to allow TV3 to operate alongside Television New Zealand (TVNZ). Anybody who said today that the fact that choice was provided in the 1970s and 1980s meant that TVNZ and Radio New Zealand were privatised would be seen as ridiculous. In respect of the 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers report the part that is most interesting is that at the very time when PricewaterhouseCoopers was delivering a report for the Government to say how good ACC’s monopoly was ACC was simultaneously having talks with the Government about a multibillion-dollar bailout because it had huge losses over that 2-year period.