8. PANSY WONG (National) Link to this
to the Minister for ACC
How much does the Covered publicity campaign currently being run by the Accident Compensation Corporation cost and is she supportive of its message?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) Link to this
The Covered campaign, designed to inform New Zealanders of their entitlements under the accident compensation scheme, will cost $5.1 million over 4 years. The cost of this campaign represents 0.0012 percent of the $1.9 billion that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) spends assisting injured people per year. Broken down further, it represents a cost of 7.75c per person per year. The cost of the campaign will be met out of ACC’s current communications budget, and, yes, I am very supportive of the message.
Does that mean the Minister agrees with this statement on the ACC website for the Covered campaign: “New Zealand is the only country where everyone is protected with this kind of injury cover—even if it was something you did that caused the injury.”; if so, is that why she has not ruled out compensation for the previously convicted killer Graeme Burton?
Yes and no. Yes, I support the message, because it is factually correct. It is important that all people know that even if it is their own fault that they are injured, they are entitled to receive accident compensation cover. I do not support, despite that statement, cover for people who have committed crimes such as that indicated by the member. In fact, that was indicated in comments made at the time of the Graeme Burton murder, by the chief operating officer, Gerard McGreevy. I will quote from them, to perfectly clarify the matter for the member, who clearly did not read them: “While someone is imprisoned, they are not entitled to any form of compensation from ACC, apart from treatment for their injury. Any periodic ACC payments cease for the period of imprisonment, and there is no eligibility for back payment.” I am sure that clarifies the issue for the member.
Hon Mark GoscheThe reason ACC is running the Covered campaign is that research has shown that many people, particularly Māori, Pacific, and Asian people, do not have any understanding at all of the accident compensation scheme. As a publicly funded organisation, ACC has a duty to inform all New Zealanders of their entitlements. Unlike the National Party, which has been deceptive towards the public about its privatisation plans, as demonstrated at the last election when details of its accident compensation policy were “deliberately kept out”, our Government is proud of our world-class scheme, and wants the public to be knowledgable about it and enjoy their full entitlement.
Does that mean the Minister agrees with the ACC spokesman that while Graeme Burton is in prison he will not be entitled to compensation, but afterwards he will be able to file for compensation; if that is the case, how does she think the family of the late Mr Karl Kuchenbecker, who was gunned down by Graeme Burton while he was on parole, will feel, when she will not rule out compensation, full stop?
As I explained to the member in answer to a previous supplementary question, there is no eligibility for back payment. When Graeme Burton is released, he is entitled to apply for lump-sum compensation, and ACC rather than the Minister—as the member would find out, if she would care to read the legislation for which she now has responsibility as Opposition spokesperson—must then apply to the District Court. I will read the particular reference: “for a declaration that such a payment would be repugnant to justice, and therefore should not be made.” ACC has previously exercised its—not the Minister’s—statutory power in this regard.
Will the Minister assure the family of the innocent victims of the saga of the parole fiasco that ACC will apply to the court to make sure, or the Minister will do something to make sure, that compensation categorically will not happen?
Tempting though it may be on many occasions, I will not rise to the temptation of instructing the District Court on its response to any application.
How does ACC justify the cost-effectiveness of this $5 million Covered campaign, when it has rejected on the grounds of cost-effectiveness its own pilot study that shows that increasing the subsidy for a family doctor visit by $10 would increase by 3 percent the number of people in the target group who visit those doctors; how can the corporation justify, and how does the Minister support, the cost-effectiveness of this $5 million programme?
The member is confusing two very different incentives for ensuring that people have access to treatment and to cover. In addition to a comprehensive research programme aimed at finding out exactly what New Zealanders did know, 5,000 people—predominantly, Māori, Pacific, and Asian people—took part in face-to-face interviews. During those, people said they did not know they were entitled to accident compensation cover. Having education about the right to apply is quite different from having entitlement to go to the doctor. I have to add that it is a bit rich for that member to be promoting a higher level of subsidy for doctors, when through her party’s entire 9 years of Government the only alteration it made to doctors’ subsidies was in 1992, when they were cut by 15 percent.