Keep ACC, or we're back to litigation free for all

Media statement Thursday, March 5th, 2009

Keep ACC, or we're back to a litigation free for all

Either we keep our no fault ACC scheme with entitlements about the present level, or we'll go back to a litigation free for all where the only winners are lawyers and doctors, says Paul Jarvie, Manager of Occupational Health and Safety for the Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern).

"If we start chopping away the foundations of our no fault no liability ACC scheme we'll quickly go back to pre-1974 New Zealand where claims and counter claims were the order of the day," Mr Jarvie said.

"Either ACC is a no fault no liability scheme, or accidents become opened up to litigation; there's really no half way house.

"Employers don't believe New Zealanders want to go back. But ACC must be kept for genuine accidents.

"We have the previous government to blame for the costs blow out as a result of its slow but planned 'socialisation' of the scheme.

"Under the Labour government coverage under ACC began to include grey fringe conditions like mental trauma, certain medical conditions that may, or may not originate in the workplace, and loosely worded definitions around medical misadventure.

"EMA and Business NZ both vigorously protested against those changes in numerous submissions for the very reasons now said to be causing the $1.3 billion blowout in the non-earners account.

"Missing from the debate, and critical to it is that claims and entitlements only occur after there has been an accident, but there has been hardly any effort to reduce injuries in the first place.

"Unfortunately such an obvious point has been dismissed as trite.

"But the fact is if we reduce the number and severity of accidents claims costs will plummet faster than shares in a US bank.

"ACC has to be removed from the position of setting and taking levies plus managing accident rehabilitation. It's a conflict of interests for them to keep doing so.

"On the one hand they set the ACC levy then they spend it. There's little accountability on the spend side, so when budgets threaten to blow they simply increase their levies. How trite is that?

"Employers believe there should be a competitive rehabilitation provider network which has to prove its cost effectiveness before its licensees can be in practice.

"It must also be in conjunction with revamped and targeted injury prevention initiatives."

ENDS