5. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
to the Minister for ACC
Does he stand by his statement “The board is saying we need to invest in cost-effective programmes for injury prevention and not just in any old programmes.”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) Link to this
Yes, I do. This was in response to a question about the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board’s decision to discontinue t’ai chi, an older person’s exercise programme, started under the previous Government, that cost millions. A recent return on investment calculation shows for each dollar spent there is a return of only 77c. Section 263 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act, passed by Labour, requires that levy money can be spent only on programmes that result in a reduction in levies, and this does not meet the legal test.
How does he view the research from the University of British Columbia, which found that for every dollar invested in the New Zealand falls prevention programme, $2 was saved?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
If that were true, then, perhaps, having had the programme going for 6 years, I would not, as Minister for ACC, be facing losses of billions of dollars in the accident compensation scheme.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
Is the Minister aware of any policy initiatives aimed at reducing costs that had the opposite effect for the scheme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Yes. In 2004 Cabinet approved a free physiotherapy policy on the basis that it would cost $9 million per year but save money by improving rehabilitation rates. The policy is actually costing an extra $66 million per year. There are no signs of any improvements in rehabilitation rates. In fact, in 2004 rehabilitation rates have been in decline. I note that Labour’s spokesperson on accident compensation, David Parker, has acknowledged that the policy was a mistake, but it has cost the levy payers $244 million. The architect of that failed policy was Ruth Dyson.
Will he advise ACC that it is flawed accounting for it to say that for every dollar invested in the falls prevention programme it gets only a 77c return, and that the reason the corporation’s advice to him differs from the research from the University of British Columbia is that the corporation is not including either the cost or the savings to Vote Health or to individuals?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I would ask that member to reflect, because she and her Government passed section 263 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act, which states that levy money can be spent only on programmes that result in a reduction in accident compensation levies, and this does not meet the legal test passed by that member.
Mr SPEAKERI struggled a little with the question that was asked of the Minister and with the answer the Minister has been giving, interesting though it might be. I invite the Hon Ruth Dyson to ask her question again—she will not lose a supplementary question—just to make sure that the House is getting an answer to it.
Will he advise ACC that it is flawed accounting for it to say that for every dollar invested in the falls prevention programme it gets only a 77c return, and that the reason ACC’s advice to him differs from the research from the University of British Columbia is that ACC does not count either the cost or the savings to Vote Health and to individuals?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
My answer is that the very Act that that member passed requires that the ACC board can take into account only savings to levy payers. That is the law that members opposite passed. This is a decision that has been made by the ACC board under an Act passed by those members.
Why does he say that he knows better than academics, better than researchers, and better than physiotherapists like Jacqui Bath who have proven the benefit of the falls prevention programme and who know that scrapping this programme will shift huge costs and pain on to Vote Health and to individuals and their families?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The member opposite claimed in her question that I had made the decision. I had not. The decision has been made by the ACC board. Members opposite are the same members who last week were complaining that I was interfering in the board’s decisions. They should make up their minds.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
If the corporation is going to fund exercise programmes on the basis that they are good for people’s health, why would it not also fund bowls, croquet, walking groups, golf, rest home Olympics, and all sorts of other activities that are good for old people’s physical well-being?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The member makes a very good point. If ACC is going to fund t’ai chi, what else is it going to fund? The truth is that there are all sorts of activities. My colleague the Minister of Health is a keen cyclist, and it keeps him fit and beautiful. Does that mean the Government should fund his cycling? If we are going to fund every single activity that does some good, there is no end to what ACC would fund.
I seek leave to table the University of British Columbia research showing that for every dollar invested in the falls prevention programme, New Zealand saves $2.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I seek the leave of the House to table the report from ACC about the disastrous policy of free physio as it was advanced by that member, which has cost ACC—
That is sufficient description. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. Leave is not granted.
I seek leave to table an email from Jacqui Bath to the Nine to Noon programme expressing dismay at ACC’s decision to cut the falls prevention programme.