Report into ACC legislation

[Conquiztador]

Last Friday the ACC Minister Dr Nick Smith released a statement welcoming the Select Committee report on the ACC legislation currently before Parliament. The statement is here. The text of the report is a pdf which can be downloaded at this link. You might also be interested in the Select Committee's report of their financial review of the ACC, released today.

[Squiggles]

You might also be interested in the Select Committee's report of their financial review of the ACC, released today.

Phoar, Parker starts ripping into Judge in that one

[Ixion]

Hm. I need to put my beancounter hat on and read this. Watch this space.

[mashman]

I hate reading! So, for sensitive claims ACC are going 3rd party short term. Seems to make sense as the skills aren't there in-house... but ACC did also say that they'd be training the 3rd party team too... Why not just train your own people then? Also it was mentioned that care givers were receiving the shitty end of the stick when it comes to pay out time as ACC "noted that it believes this can vary quite widely. Some of us are concerned about the impact of this change on low-paid workers and people living in rural areas."... and the reason for that concern was "However, the corporation pointed out that its caregivers are paid through an agency, which decides how much of the funding provided goes to the caregivers."... which to me sounds like money being absorbed by a 3rd party and not going to those that actually do the job... wouldn't you think that ACC would be looking to train their own if there's a possibility that those that actually provide the end service won't get the full payment for it? Hence, removing agency would dramatically drop costs, no agency costs, just salaries to pay. I dunno, it just seems like someone overlooked something there.

[MisterE]

So I'm picking that this is the important bit for motorcyclicsts

Risk rating

The bill departs from ACC’s founding principles by introducing further
risk rating. This undermines the principle that in society we are
all interdependent. Office workers use desks made of timber logged
and milled by workers in more dangerous occupations. We all share
the benefits of each other’s efforts and so should share some of the
risks.
Further cutting and dicing of risk comes at an administrative cost. If
privatisation follows, it will also leave the smaller and often riskier
businesses paying higher levies than those who have the systems and
can afford the administrative costs of proving their lower claims cost
to private insurers. This change would predominantly benefit larger
employers and would over time cost smaller New Zealand businesses
more.
Submitters also said it leads to pressure on injured workers to return
to work prematurely and to disputes about whether an accident is
work-related or outside work. The literature also suggests it leads
to discriminatory employment practices, where previously injured
workers would find it even harder to get work.
If the outcome were lower accident rates or better rehabilitation outcomes,
then we could understand the motivation for it. However of-
ficials advised us there is no clear evidence that this has been the case
overseas, and that research in New Zealand has yet to be carried out.

So I read this as meaning that the select committee is in favour of keeping to the original Woodhouse principles and is against targetting groups like us for increases.

So what now?

[bogan]

So what now?

the bastards will ignore it, continue to prepare ACC for privatization, all to line the pockets of their already rich mates.

But it gives us more ammo against them, and reinforces the opinions against privatization.