ACC opened to workplace competition

Print

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:03a.m. UPDATED: 2:30PM

Nick Smith

Nick Smith

By Dan Satherley

From October next year, employers will be able to purchase accident insurance from providers other than ACC.

ACC Minister Nick Smith made the announcement this morning, saying it was about cutting costs and providing choice for employers.

"We are proposing giving employers who want it a choice of workplace accident cover for their workers from either ACC or a private insurer," says Dr Smith.

"The Government is committed to retaining our unique 24/7 no-fault system and workers' entitlements but wants to improve the incentives for safer workplaces, better rehabilitation and greater cost effectiveness."

He says private insurers will have to maintain existing minimum worker cover and entitlements, and adhere to minimum prudential standards for insurers. 

There will also be a market regulator, a single claims lodgement unit and an independent disputes resolution service.

"'This policy is all about choice," says Dr Smith. "Employers and the self-employed will be able to continue with ACC or, if they wish, purchase insurance from another provider. These are not radical reforms.''

He insists they are not the first step towards privatising ACC.

"This is simply a decision to remove ACC's monopoly and allow employers the choice of obtaining work-related personal injury insurance from providers other than ACC.''

The Green Party has slammed the proposal, saying the only people who will benefit are "Australian insurance companies".

“Every accident victim deserves a fair go and this will not happen under a private insurance system," says MP Kevin Hague.

“This is essentially another proposed state-assets sale by John Key’s Government, as it allows for Australian insurance companies to take over parts of a public provider."

He says the Government "manufactured" a crisis in ACC in order to justify the changes, which have already been tried and failed in the 1990s.

"There was no financial crisis in ACC," says Mr Hague. "In 2009, when the 'crisis' was supposedly happening, ACC took in a billion dollars more than it spent on claims.”

Labour ACC spokesman Chris Hipkins says Kiwis will be paying more, and getting less in return.

"The only way the private insurance industry will make money from taking on ACC's role will be by reducing entitlement or increasing costs. Either way, Kiwis will lose."

He says Dr Smith the changes amount to "privatisation, pure and simple".

Labour will reverse the changes if it becomes the Government.

Submissions on the proposals can be made to the Department of Labour until July 15.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

02 Jun 2011 03:50p.m.

Brent wrote:

@Kim, So what about the private accident insurers that have been operating in NZ for 20 years+ would you have labour shut them down to. That would be a big vote loser.

02 Jun 2011 01:17p.m.

Kim wrote:

It would be a brave (stupid) insurance company that invested in this when in all likely hood it will be re-nationalised within 3 yrs when labour gets back in. I actually think this is just more electioneering and not really a goer. Key will probly come out in a month or two and pull the plug to show how he listens (yea riiight)to the people

02 Jun 2011 10:02a.m.

Brent wrote:

You Talk more pointless Crap Clarke, So to Tender or price any work Including CHCH work you must be compliant, To be Compliant you must have a health and safety plan, Site safe card, STMS in place, Workers on stop sign must have TC cert, all costs covered employers to insure your worker does not hurt or kill another worker, These are all covered in documents you Buy off standard NZ, Training is not done by Government training but independent companies, So to the point of if Staff currently have coverage for Accident insurance with a independent firm and a lot do, they negotiate the employer to cover costs why should the employer also pay ACC.

02 Jun 2011 08:13a.m.

Clarke wrote:

@Brent I asked a serious question of Katrina.. her being an emplyer and all. And I will ask it of you as well. If employers chose a dodgey scheme and because its cheap and their employees end up hurt as a result, should the employee not be able to sue their employer?. None of you employers seem to want to answer that. LOL and no I am not a member of a union. I Think employees will know from your comments that money over their safety is your priority.

02 Jun 2011 07:56a.m.

Miss Marples wrote:

Who in their right mind voted for Nick Smith? The face says it all.

02 Jun 2011 07:16a.m.

Brent wrote:

Unions work on intimidation to try and push there pointless opinion across, This is accomplished by name calling and insinuations about people. Unions have a open gender this year and that is to destroy National at any cost,

Clarke's insinuation that Katrina in his opinion is a slut pushes the boundary's and points to him being not only union but not all there in the head,

Does this set a standard of comments on TV3.

01 Jun 2011 11:21p.m.

katrina wrote:

In a nut shell hopeless

01 Jun 2011 11:04p.m.

hopeless wrote:

@LVC if ACC can put out a more competative deal they will get the business then wont they, like last time the government isnt getting rid of ACC, they are just opening it up to competition, there is no compultion for you to use them. ACC has a competative advantage over private insurers because they dont pay out unless you take them to court.
There was goverment regulation about the level of cover that had to be provided for employees with private insurance so it looks to me some of you are making it up as you go.

01 Jun 2011 11:00p.m.

Darren wrote:

So damn predictable!, what is the difference from the shipley nats?=NONE.
Sick to death of see that Nick smith try to wreck all the good things in NZ, vote the scumbags OUT!

01 Jun 2011 10:36p.m.

Tomb Raider wrote:

There is absolutely nothing original about this national government. They insist on persevering down the same old road already well trodden so many times over with the same old rhetoric.

They determine to play society against each other in an attempt to achieve their real goals practically undetected. This is nothing new neither is the immense cost to us all – ‘the process of again buying the undoing of their incompetence’. That will be the real cost to New Zealand.

Unfortunate and alarming to witness that seemingly a larger portion of the nation is prepared to forfeit a more solid and secure future merely for the sake of a presumed short term saving... this attitude in itself may already be directly related to the stress of Nationals policies. We can always blame the recession for this can’t we or the Christchurch Quake, Pike River….