At the risk of being told that all governments do it, National has really out done itself for the week before Christmas dump of stories you don’t like. Not content with the OIA release that shows that a large chunk of the Hobbit debacle was totally unnecessary and opportunistic, and that Gerry Brownlee called Helen Kelly a liar when he knew that was not fair, we now have confirmation of the privatisation of ACC. Bear in mind Ministers have had this report for six months and have refused OIA requests for it. This is political cynicism at its worst.
Of course there is no chance of getting comment from John Key or Gerry Brownlee because they have already left on their holiday. Mr Key has been unavailable to explain whether he or Murray McCully misled Parliament about the Dalai Lama. Apparently they don’t have phones in Hawaii.
The ACC decision will most definitely be a major political issue. I am more than happy to see the focus go on privatisation and asset sales next year, as it seems that is where National is going. We have rehearsed the arguments around privatisation of ACC before- ordinary New Zealanders will pay more and get less as insurance companies seek to maximise their profits. Our globally well regarded scheme, with lower overheads than private schemes is compromised and we go back to the 90s for no good reason.
Anyway, at least we all know one question for the first question time of next year.
Further to yesterday’s post, there is a very interesting interview by Nick Smith with Kathryn Ryan from this morning, here.
In answer to some of the commenters on the original post the approach to claims for surgery has changed.
The Accident Compensation Corporation turned down 3500 more claims for surgery in the last financial year than in the year before. He (Nick Smith) said it’s necessary for a greater number of operations to be funded by the health system to contain ACC’s costs.
In other words surgery decisions are being made for financial, not medical reasons. This runs totally against what Nick Smith told Parliament last week, and is breach of the social contract that underlies ACC.
Even as a relatively new MP I get a feeling when a pattern is developing in dealing with government agencies. Four cases coming to the electorate office on one topic in a short space of time is a sign. That is definitely the case with ACC declining surgery on the grounds of a “pre-existing condition”. One of the cases has had a run in the media, but the others are just the same. In all cases the patient’s doctors argue that surgery is required as a result of the accident, but ACC has denied the surgery.
Jim Anderton raised this in Parliament last week, and at the time I thought he had got an unequivocal answer from Nick Smith that there had been no change in policy. Reading the transcript again I am not so sure. Smith talks about no change in the “legislative cover.“ But this does not eliminate a policy change, and I think that is what we are seeing.
In the exchange with Jim Anderton, Nick Smith does acknowledge that more cases are going to appeal, but he also says ” it is critical that these decisions are made on medical and not cost grounds.” That is something we can all agree on, but when doctors are saying that the surgery is required as a result of the accident, but ACC is finding ways around this, that is not meeting the Minister’s test.
The view of all those involved in the cases is that they feel as people who have paid their taxes and ACC levies over the years, they thought the system would be there for them when they needed it. They are feeling cheated, and they have every right to do so. I am supporting them to appeal the decisions, but that is wasting a lot of time for all concerned.
