Woodhouse Michael: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3335. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 There are many things that National Governments can be proud of and ACC counts among them. ACC is an organisation that was established under a royal commission set up by a National Government. It was set up by the Holyoake Government passed into law by Jack Marshall’s Government and maintained over 40 years by the National Government. 
I find it really really tiresome to have to continue to remind this House why it is that every time National comes back to office it has to tidy up the mess left by Labour. The one thing we have not heard from members of the former Labour Government is the simple word “sorry”. Maryan Street is there; she has the opportunity. She put her signature on a financial loss of $2.4 billion and oversaw 6 months of a $4.8 billion loss. I will do many things—and I certainly regret the fact that there was information leaked on several thousand claimants—but I will not apologise for this Government’s management of ACC. 
Let me tell you why. When the Bolger Government came to office in the early 1990s I wonder whether you know how many long-term claimants there were on the books at ACC. I can tell you that there were nearly 27500—27500. It was under a National Government that ACC implemented the case management model that not only is enduring today but is being picked up by social agencies and other insurance companies around the world. The impact of that was profound because at its core the very first thing ACC is required to do is prevent injuries then treat them and then compensate for them. But the most important part of that equation is the rehabilitation model and rehabilitation when it works involves people exiting the scheme. I think a reduction in the number of people who are long-term ACC claimants is a heck of a good thing. When we came in in the mid-1990s with long-term claimants at 27500 the case management model was successful in reducing that number down in the late 1990s to about 14000. And then claims continued to reduce. But under the Labour Government by how many were long-term claimants reduced? None. They went back up by about 1000. There were 100000 fewer claims— 
Jacqui Dean 
: How can that be? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —and 1000 extra long-term claimants. I can tell you how that can be. It is because under Labour ACC was left to take its eye off the rehabilitation ball—a come one come all approach. 
There is one thing that Mr Robertson did not mention—and that no Labour member when discussing ACC has ever mentioned—and that is the other stakeholders in ACC. Because it is not only about the claimants; the important thing is that the scheme is affordable. In the late 1990s it was absolutely apparent that with the growing numbers of long-term claimants the scheme could not be sustained in the model that it was in. The full funding model was put in place and the Labour Government had 9 years to change the full funding model and did not. 
But I will tell members what the Labour Government did do. It allowed rehabilitation rates to drop. This is very important because every 1 percent drop in rehabilitation rates over a 12-month period costs the scheme half a billion dollars. The rehabilitation rates under Labour went down and down and down and the long-term tail went up and up and up. I make no apology for the former Minister for ACC Nick Smith and the present Minister Judith Collins being very clear about the importance of rehabilitation not just for the claimants but also for the levy payers. And let us be very clear about that. Any softening of that approach is not only bad for the levy payers but very bad for the claimants. We should not be afraid to talk about rehabilitation with somebody even somebody who has been out of work for 12 months—and there are difficulties in rehabilitating claimants who have been out of work for a time. 
I congratulate the case managers on the work that they do. If 15 percent—a small proportion—of their remuneration is based on rehabilitation rates why should we apologise for that? Eighty-five percent of their performance is based on other factors including I am quite sure claimant satisfaction. A very small proportion of it is for doing what the law requires them to do and that is to rehabilitate claimants in a fair and timely manner. This Government is going to make no apologies for that. 
Yes there is work to do in ACC and I look forward to that work being well managed by the Minister Judith Collins but I make no apologies—