Pansy Speak - You're covered, yeah right!

Back on February 22, when I first asked ACC Minister Ruth Dyson if she supported her department's 'Covered' advertising campaign, she was pretty gung-ho in saying she did because it was 'factually correct'.

In fact, she said twice that she was very supportive of the campaign. Fast forward to April 11, and she refused to repeat that support and instead referred reporters, acting on questions raised by me in a press release, directly to ACC.

So, what has changed? First, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled that the television ad that tells Kiwis they are covered if they are hurt is misleading. The ASA received seven complaints and upheld all of them. They said the ad had an oversimplified message which, by omission, would be likely to mislead consumers and breached Rule 2 of the Code of Ethnics.

Secondly and tellingly, it has been revealed in the National Business Review that businesses and ACC's own staff were critical of the ads before they were released. One stakeholder asked the very obvious question: 'Why do they need to promote themselves ... it's not a product I can buy. What is it trying to say?'

Meanwhile, during the research period before the campaign began, one of ACC's staff members said that trying to get something out of ACC was like getting 'blood out of stone'. If this level of scepticism exists within the department, it is no wonder the public has little confidence in them.

In the BRC Public Sector Trust and Confidence Poll, only 43% of the public had trust in ACC in 2005/06. ACC is aiming high to regain this trust, with an aim of only 46% this year. In NCEA terms, this would receive a mark of 'not achieved'! Out of 22 public sector organisations, ACC has been ranked 19 - ahead of only CYFS and NZQA.

The ASA said in its ruling that the television advertising was of a branding nature. It is clear that the $5.1 million campaign funded by taxpayers was extravagant as well as wrong.

One of the excuses Ruth Dyson has used for supporting the campaign is because it is targeted at Maori, Pacific Island and Asian communities. Research has shown these groups fail to access medical care because they don't know that ACC can fund their treatment for injuries, or that ACC runs on a no-fault principle. According to ACC, New Zealand is a significant destination for immigrants, and many for whom English is a second language come from societies where no similar agency exists. In theory, it would appear ACC is on to a good thing here.

So, I asked the Minister how much they were spending on specifically targeting these three groups via advertising. The answer: Out of the $2.2 million advertising budget that will be spent by the end of this financial year, only $38,690 will be spent on specific ethnic media. What an effective use of taxpayers' money!

Since the campaign began, my office has been inundated with people pouring out their hearts over the way they've been treated by ACC. Instead of the Minister and her department spending their money on branding themselves, perhaps they should be doing their job and helping people in need. I know this advice seems to be obvious but it has evaded ACC and Ruth Dyson for quite some time.

ENDS

© Scoop Media