Bradford Sue: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
Bradford Sue: Urgent Debates — Accident Compensation Corporation—Removal of Chair of Board 
[Volume:652;Page:1768] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party joins other colleagues here in the House today to express our extreme concern at the direction in which the Government is taking accident compensation and to question whether this is the beginning of National’s blitzkrieg on much that we hold dear in this country. 
National is using the tactics of shock and awe to try to soften up people for a major undermining of our accident compensation system. Whether National goes in the direction of privatisation which it continues to deny or whether it is undermining a whole lot of areas that accident compensation currently covers and is turning back the clock on them—whichever way National is going or even if it is going in both directions—we do not want it. The accident compensation system has been in place for many years. It is underpinned by the Woodhouse principles which I would hope National still subscribed to of community responsibility comprehensive entitlement real compensation and administrative efficiency. We do not want to see any of those go. We understand that there are concerns about aspects of the scheme’s performance but we do not need the kind of undermining of the scheme that is happening at the moment. 
First of all in relation to funding the Government has rapidly created a so-called financial crisis out of the issue that all claims are supposed to be fully funded by 2014. I understand that the Minister for ACC has accepted what the Opposition has put up and what the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board has recommended which is that the 2014 deadline for full funding should be moved out to 2019. I understand that Dr Smith is in agreement with that that he thinks it is viable and should be done. That is good; that is great. So why are we rushing into this now? Why do we have to suddenly start looking at cutting back people’s entitlements? Why do we have to look at taking accident compensation out to private companies? I believe that all of this is scaremongering done by the Minister and the Government. None of it is necessary. 
In terms of the losses on international markets that is not happening for— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the member believe the $22 billion from PricewaterhouseCoopers? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I have no idea but I believe that it is scaremongering in terms of how it is paid. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report actually stated a whole lot of positive things about what accident compensation is doing. It stated that compared with other workers compensation schemes our accident compensation scheme performs well in terms of people returning to work. Eighty-eight percent of New Zealand workers return to work within 6 months compared with an average of 85 percent in Australia. 
 That is not a sign of a scheme that is failing. The PricewaterhouseCoopers’ report states that the accident compensation employer contribution rate as a proportion of wages is substantially lower than in comparable Australian workers compensation schemes—78c for every $100 in New Zealand compared with an Australian average of $2 for every $100. Our motor vehicle contribution rates are significantly lower than rates in Australian states—although there has just been an announcement that our rates are going up today. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report also states that we have lower claims management expenses than all Australian schemes and lower administration costs. This report is the very one the Minister is talking about. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it’s not. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Yes it is. The report’s writers conclude— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s from 2005. It’s 3 years old. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: The Government has gone on this week to sack the chairman of the ACC board Ross Wilson and we are concerned about what may happen to the rest of the board. We are not sure what is happening to the rest of it but we are very concerned that Mr Wilson’s union colleague Wayne Butson may be removed. We question whether the Government will have any worker or union representative on the board once it is reconstituted after the 1 month deadline that the Minister has given. Given that this scheme is a workers compensation scheme it would be a total shocker if the board were to have no worker or union representation at all. I certainly hope the Minister will look at appropriate candidates for the board. Unions and workers absolutely must have representation on the board. One of the major parts of society affected by accident compensation cannot be suddenly left with no representation at all. Mr Wilson has been replaced by the previous head of Ernst and Young John Judge—about whom I must admit I know nothing and for all I know he will be a fantastic chair. He needs beside him at least one board member—if not more—who understands the real needs and the real situation of the workers of this country who are affected by accidents unfortunately every day around this country. 
The third area we are very concerned about is the threat by the Government to cut actual entitlements and services provided through accident compensation. Again this is very unclear. We can only go on what little the Government has said and what has been in the media over the last few days but it is clear there is a threat to physiotherapy. We had finally reached a point where physiotherapy had become accessible to all injured workers and others. Rehabilitation rates are going up. What we see now is a threat to that area—after we had finally got some decent changes. Will the Government be making cuts in the area of medical misadventure where unfortunately there have been a large number of accidents? Will it cut accident compensation for seasonal workers? Why should they miss out? Seasonal workers are workers too and deserve cover just as much as anyone else does. What other cuts will the Government make? What rehabilitation do people not deserve whether they are in work or non-earners? All injured people whoever they are deserve the best that this country can give them on a no-fault basis. Worst of all of course would be to restore—and some people are calling for it—the right to sue and to get rid of that no-fault basis. I certainly hope Dr Smith will not take us in that direction. I see him shaking his head. Thank goodness! 
ACC must be maintained as a publicly owned company. The Woodhouse principles must be maintained. Accident compensation must not be put out for privatisation. I am very concerned about the comments Mr Key made the other day—and I asked about them in question time today—regarding taking the accident compensation scheme out to private companies. I fail absolutely to understand the difference between taking the accident compensation scheme out to private companies and privatisation. Is it partial privatisation that the Government is talking about? Where do these private companies come in? 
I sat with the Minister on the special committee on accident compensation back in 2000 and we heard what a failure the first attempt at partial privatisation of accident compensation had been. I hope that some of the members who were on that select committee and are sitting on the Government benches now will remember the submissions we heard back then about the inequities and iniquities of that system as it was actually applied to workers in some workplaces. Workers were told they had to go through what was basically a company doctor scheme. Everything possible was done to avoid those people getting compensation. Income-related compensation and rehabilitation options were limited. We saw the beginning of a move towards the American system which has manifestly failed people in that country. 
The Green Party will continue to work with colleagues—where we can—across the House and with trade unions community organisations physiotherapists and everyone else we can work with out there in the community to resist what the Government is trying to do to accident compensation and to try to retain the good system that we have to the maximum extent possible.