Employers welcome ACC changes, unions don't

BusinessNZ has backed the government’s moves to give employers more choice in workplace insurance and opening the ACC to contestability.

Just as predictably, unions have opposed them.

The business lobby’s chief executive, Phil O’Reilly, says the ACC’s move in a more commercial direction is positive.

“Over the short to medium term we would like to see more transparency in levy setting including the removal of inefficient cross-subsidies,” he says.

“The introduction of experience rating in the Work Account is highly positive. Firms that have a good safety record deserve to have levies set at a rate that recognises this. Extending the Accredited Employers’ Programme, allowing more companies to self-insure, is also sensible.”

Mr O’Reilly adds that his organisation is looking forward to working with the government on the detail of this new approach.

“Competition will allow for more innovative products and services in this market with companies being able to negotiate arrangements that better meet their particular needs,” he says.

'Privatisation' claim
The unions have branded the moves as “privatisation” of ACC. For example, EPMU national secretary Andrew Little says, “Plans to privatise ACC unveiled today by National and Act are unnecessary and unfair because ACC has not made a loss since the 1980s, is presently making surpluses and has huge reserves.

“The only reason for this sort of privatisation would be to allow a massive transfer of wealth from the government to private insurance companies. Experience rating and provider competition has only ever made ACC rights worse for workers, not better.”

Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly says: “Despite the minister’s comments about solvency requirements for private insurers these never have and never will prevent a private business from going broke, as the recent spate of insurance firm collapses proves.

“Workers that experienced the last time ACC was privatised had horror stories of claims being denied and of long delays in payments. Employers and insurers had a considerable incentive to collaborate in order to deny liability.”