6 June, 2008
Another National wolf in sheep’s clothing
National has finally confirmed it still plans to reduce the protection afforded to hundreds of thousands of injured New
Zealanders a year by privatising the ACC scheme, says ACC Minister Maryan Street.
“While it’s good that at last National deputy leader Bill English has come clean on the basic agenda today in the
National Business Review, it’s unacceptable that National is still refusing to provide the public with critical details.
“In 1998 National privatised the work account, an action reversed by the Labour-led government. In 2005 National said it
would privatise all accounts, except the non-earners account. In 2006 it is reported to have said it would open up the
entire scheme to competition. In 2007 it went back to suggesting it would restrict privatisation to the work account.
What a farce!” Maryan Street said.
“Recently it said its policy – whichever policy that is - was under review.
“Injured New Zealanders make 5000 ACC claims a day. Many of those people may need to take out private accident insurance
cover to protect them from sports injuries, falls in the home or horrific car accidents if the scheme is fully
privatised. They deserve to know what National is up to before it’s too late.
“Mr English’s comments in the National Business Review suggest the “review” was really about working out how National
could disguise its true motives to the public, which revolve around lining the pockets of their insurance company
mates.”
“There’s been some changes around the language....(but) we still want to see people given a choice,” Mr English said.
“This sounds like another cynical National attempt to dress up the wolf in sheep’s clothing. National was less than
upfront over the detail of its ACC policy heading into the last election and appears set to do the same thing again.
It should just admit it would be wrong to privatise the scheme because it knows all the evidence points to the fact that
a fragmented, privatised system would not only provide lower quality health care - and may result in no care for a
number of people - but it would also cost employers more,” Maryan Street said.
ENDS