ACCforum: Privatisation Of The Acc - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Privatisation Of The Acc Naturally Automated Integrity Resulting from Market Forces

#21 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 April 2007 - 07:38 PM

So it becomes clear why this site is always attacking ACC and so very rude to anyone who reports any good thing from ACC.

I had often wondered why but with you, Alan Thomas, being a prime mover on accforum it becomes clear.

Accforum is against ACC so vehemently not through any fault of ACC (and they are many) but because you guys want a capitalist (did you call it above) dog eat dog society where employers and the courts must be involved before any accident compensation is available to anyone.

And, even though this site disparages the Courts that is where we would all end up.

Except that most of us could not afford to go to Court.

Currently only (!!!?) the 20% dissatisfied have to go through due process.

But Alan Thomas and accforum wants EVERY accident victim to have to.

That is one real retrograde step.

I think the sponsors of accforum should come clean and call the site the 'GET RID OF ACC AND LETS ALL INSTEAD HAVE FOREIGN OWNED INSURANCE COMPANIES AND LAWYERS DOING IT SITE'.

I am appalled and outraged but good on you Alan Thomas for at last coming clean!

#22 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 27 April 2007 - 08:32 PM

I am appalled at your comments and can only conclude you have the brain of a miniature moron. Any forum is an anarchy, and Alan Thomas merely exercises his right of free speech - and no - I generally dont agree with him. BUT I do uphold the principles of free speech.
To label the rest of us with Alan's views is appalling,.
And the issue of a privatised ACC should be discusses freely and openly. No I don't agree with it - but I have enough intelligence to digest the argument.

#23 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 27 April 2007 - 08:53 PM

You are quite right Spacecadet. The argument being referred to is the privatisation of ACC.

Those of us with memories of the pre ACC days knows that that abolishing it is not an improvement on what we have.

Those of us with knowledge of how private workplace insurance works also know that is no improvement either.

So what are we left with?

Not voting National and getting privatised as Alan Thomas suggests, that's for sure.

Most of us are dead keen on getting more from ACC, not less, indicating that we like ACC really. Our real gripe is that we are not getting enough ACC and would like MORE.

Back to my proposition from an earlier thread:

Admit you (me, us) like ACC. Be pleased with what we do get from ACC. Then, go for MORE, MORE, MORE using all the due processes available in the legislation and case law.

And, because we really do like ACC, do it in a reasonable and courteous manner, winning with magnanimity and losing with good grace.

That is, be winners and act like winners, even in adversity.

Or, of course, as Alan Thomas suggests, vote National back in and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

#24 User is offline   Simple 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-August 06

  Posted 27 April 2007 - 09:02 PM

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater may be a sentence many clients whose files have been reported on in absetencia and incorrectly may notice regularly thrown about by a workwise assessor

#25 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 27 April 2007 - 11:40 PM


would like to see Dr white be enabled to transform the way in which case management is administered so that, especially for long term claimants, specialised case management staff become positive mentors rather than just the bureaucratic machine, if thats possible

now that would be possible if it was not for someone who does not want that. Privatising the ACC would not acheive anything as insureance companies would reduce levies for a couple of years and them when it looks alright it would increase them with big profits.

Large business would be alright but every one else would have a fight on there hands. With privateisation the right to sue would be brought back into force.

We are better to correct the system than do whole sale changes were there is no control of anything.

#26 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 April 2007 - 10:13 AM


You seem to have attempted to hijack this thread into your own agenda.

This site does not have the capacity to have an agenda. You appear to have lost sight of the fact that this site is an open side with freedom of speech is encouraged and does flourish.

I do not think the site attacks the ACC act will be good intentions of the act. I think most of us will agree that the ACC Corporation process a lot of claims and for the most part kept the straightforward cases right.

I am simply putting forward the scenario of the National party privatising the ACC. How far should the privatising go and in what direction. The reality is that we might not have an option. Any waving of flags about or encouraging the invalids to vote in a particular way is ineffectual as the simply is not enough of us to make a difference. What will happen will happen with or without us. Now is the time to start thinking about the effects of privatisation whether we want it or not. We may at least be able to offer a very valuable insight to those who are privatising. Private insurance companies will definitely want to know what they are up against when it comes to dealing with long-term cases. I will want to know whether it is cost-effective to provide meaningful rehabilitation or quietly administer the paying out of the burning compensation in accordance with act without going through endless and expensive legal costs.

Based on freedom of speech we should also have the freedom to express the pros and cons of both socialist/communist against capitalist schemes. Both have good and bad points and I propose we discussed those good and bad points without all the emotional rhetoric. tspinoza I have never voted for the National party once as I am more of an Internationalist with a preference towards a benevolent sovereign. I think the reality is that by the next 50 years governments will have about the power religion has today with the world effectively being managed by companies. This globalisation will reduce war, increase opportunity for the poor (for commercial purposes) and lower the living standards for most of the Western world. Of course there will be the elite which will effectively become much the same as feudal lords of old. I personally predict this trend will be unstoppable. My prime concern is managing my invalid status and well-being given the circumstances of the remainder of my life which potentially could be 20-40 years which means I must plan for these changes now. The reality is if I trust ACC my future looks very glum and it does not look like social welfare in New Zealand will be able to continue to afford its noble objectives without supporting a productive environment for those who pay taxes.

Quite a number of us remember what I was like prior to the beginning of ACC. I must say that the world is now a different place but I do have recollections of quite a good worker's compensation scheme offered by various insurance companies which seem to function much the same way as our vehicle insurance functions with prompt and efficient payouts without argument. We also recall the brief and bungling flirtation with privatisation. Personally I don't think that situation counts for much as it was compromised and not handled very well.

Getting things right most of the times however is not the measurement of a successful scheme. You'll find that your local garage will invariably fix your car brakes properly almost 100% of the time. When you fly in an aeroplane you will then safely in the right destination almost 100% of the time. In fact everybody who works in the commercial world perform their tasks properly almost 100% of the time. It is only state-owned entities throughout the world that seem to have a frame of mind that they are immune from a requirement to do their jobs properly.

This is why socialism/communism fails and capitalism succeeds. This is why people in their hundreds of millions migrate from socialist/communist countries to capitalist countries.

We all agree that the ACC idea would be wonderful if only it worked up to the standards of performance specified in the act itself. I have simply raised the issue as to whether or not the socialist ACC experiment can ever work as intended. So far it has not been successful.

Currently we have a problem when the ACC fails that a judicial remedy is not readily available. The capitalist type schemes work reasonably well in this area in as much as there is an abundance of lawyers willing to take on cases for a percentage of the winnings.


Going through due process under the current scheme by in large fails. I think it is fair to say that the ACC legal specialist John Miller would have a superior comprehension of the act then all of DRSL's reviewers. When John Miller takes on a case he would do so only if the case had proper merit. In this circumstance he should win every single time yet he probably only wins 30% of the time. This is not because John Miller is stupid, naive or overly optimistic or does not understand ACC law. There is obviously something wrong with the due process!

The judicial contract whereby the fox is in charge of the hens would appear fundamentally flawed. The situation is commonplace amongst the socialist/communist concepts of due process. Under a capitalist system in a dispute would be completely separate and out of any apparent or appearance of a conflict of interest. Capitalist countries laugh at us.

You suggest that voting with our feet would be a good option. That is exactly what I'm referring to when we have individual choices of our ACC insurance provider in an open economic market. If one insurance company requires a bad reputation we can shift the case management of our policy to another insurance company.


Your comments regarding freedom of speech and expression of your viewpoints is what this site is all about. I can see you have digestive what I have put forward and made valuable contribution. I think in the 18 months or so to come this thread will develop with the input of persons such as yourself. I would anticipate that persons of your calibre will contribute all the more if it looks like the National party demonstrates a reasonable chance to be the next government.

The corrupt government agency is extraordinarily difficult to fight as they use our money to fight us. Private enterprise on the other hand had to use their money to fight us and with part five of the act as can be an extra ordinarily expensive fight. In my case I am confident that I can cost the ACC well over $100,000 per year in legal expenses continuously throughout the balance of my life. An insurance company would weigh up the benefits of not relegating in favour of the cheaper option to simply pay.

A government agency threatening witnesses and making a false allegations against citizens is the type of thing that occurs in Third World countries. The judiciary allow them to get away with it. It is a socialist/communist trait, even a natural occurrence with state servants becoming misguided. This does not happen in capitalist environments except when there are bribes involved.


Believers in socialism/communism continue to argue that it is only a matter of the people understanding the fundamentals. The problem is socialism/communism creates more and more bureaucracy and less unless productive output. We see with the ACC that they have over the years become more and more bureaucratic yet less unless able to produce rehabilitation in real terms. They focused more and more on statistical information that more often than not there's no resemblance to reality. In a capitalist system reality is driven by money. So long as privatisation is driven by money where payment for goods does not occur until the earnings capacity is quantified in real terms we will have real results. Those of us who have no capacity to earn ever again will not see an insurance company waste their efforts.


If the ACC was to be privatised I think it should be done completely. Every long-term claimant should cease to be under the control of the ACC but contracted out to an insurance company of the claimant's choice and transferred to any other insurance company also at the claimant's choice. For the purposes of the transfer they should be a comprehensive status report that forms the foundation of the claim so as the new insurance company receives a properly formed contract so as to receive a fee for the case management. I think the reasonable fee for private insurance company case management should be 20% of our pre injury earnings. This would motivate the insurance company to maintain our files and to carry out case management in our interests rather than the ACC. The ACC will of course continue to perform various administrative functions such as collection of the levies so as to pay ERC etc.


I have had many discussions with those who practise workers compensation law throughout the world. Similar schemes have existed as you suggest but it is fair to say that the New Zealand ACC scheme is quite unique throughout the world. Other countries are watching with interest because no scheme throughout the world functions properly or at least as intended.

The single biggest apparent flaw with the ACC scheme is the no fault aspect. While this sounds attractive in as much as the intention was a reduction in litigation the reality is litigation at the moment is greater than before the ACC scheme. The other reality is there is no money for competence legal representation to be interested in ACC litigation with the result that claimants are attempting to litigate their own cases with appalling results which ultimately establish case law in the ACC favour.

An interesting feature with the ACC scheme is that the ACC Corporation has been able to successfully though gradually manipulate the ACC act and the way the act is interpreted in the courts to the extent that we have progressively losing rights and access to entitlements. If this trend does not have a functional element to prevent its continuation invalids by injuries will become a distinctive second-class citizen group the current socialist/communist scheme. We are in the gulag.


Dr White is the boss. She has the power to change the way in which the ACC functions, she does not need to be enabled. Your suggestion that she might need to be enabled suggest that she is not the boss.

I would propose that under privatisation insurance companies would be strongly motivated to recover costs in some way from those who caused the accident.

If the criteria for ending an insurance company's liability is independent from the insurance company in the insurer's family would be strongly motivated to achieve that criteria rather than faking it away the ACC is doing now through the Vocational Independence assessments.


I do not think Spacecadet tipsy or anybody else is trying to align anybody with anybody. I have simply put forward a scenario whereby the National party become the next government and privatise. If the National party become the next government that will mean that the ACC act will change significantly. We need to think about being a part of these changes.

This will impact upon us in a very significant way. If we are to make the best of the circumstances we need to think about what privatisation will mean or how we can point out with clarity and in the proper way the manner in which privatisation should occur so as the new ACC Act that must be drawn up does not take away rights.

You must keep in mind that softly softly catch the monkey approach will not work if the man he is a capitalist. Come to think of it communist monkeys are hard to catch as well. But capitalist and communist monkeys don't care if we are suffering.

I don't think either socialist/Communist or capitalist based ACC has anything about the koha concept. It has never been a socialist help scheme like the social welfare and neither should it be. For the most part ACC is about medical and earnings insurance. Insuring earnings was relatively simple. One of my customers had a $300,000 key person insurance on me in the event that I had an accident. That insurance only cost them about $500. The customer collected their insurance on the production of a medical certificate without argument. A clean simple transaction.

Mini I am glad you are benefiting from this site even though you may not agree with me very often. The point is discussion is stimulated to be affected that information is brought to the fore and made usable. If I have made some point that is wrong and other persons have expressed other viewpoints which you have been able to use to your benefit then we are all doing our part.

You suggest that I might not have been helping once labelled with fraud. This is quite wrong as I have been a champion of this topic though much of the work goes behind the scenes. You may recall Ernie who put up a loss of case law on the site. Without realising it he had put up some very useful case law which I was able to put in the hands of a claimant who had been given three years prison. With this information he was able to successfully appeal his ACC fraud conviction and prove that the ACC were wrong. There are a large number who have been under investigation whereby myself and others were able to resist those under threat of fraud prosecution to force the ACC to look at the real information so as to avoid any fabrication of information by the ACC which stopped and fraud investigations in their tracks. This includes even a private insurance company.

Mini I'm not expecting privatisation to be the answer of all our dreams. I am simply suggesting that a socialist/communist style of ACC is more likely than not to continue in a downward trend but a capitalist based privatised ACC is more likely to the self levelling by the market forces of insurance companies competing with each other and give us greater access to the rule of law.

#27 Guest_mini_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 28 April 2007 - 10:57 AM

You are so full of yourself you think I was addressing you when I was addressing Tippsy, regarding the fraud incidences. I was appelling to him to help those charged with fraud.

Some may have been charged by the wrong government department!!

My posting was on Tipssy's thread.

My honest opinion is that those that follow you are going to end up in deep mire, as you have done to yourself. So your words are meaningless to me.

#28 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 28 April 2007 - 12:55 PM

Allan Dr White is no more the boss of ACC than you and I. She is a figure head and when you relise that you will look at winning your case.

You should have used the people here for your advantage instead of going in your direction of seek and destroy. Dr White can not possibility be the cause of your problems as she had no part of ACC before she joined as CEO. Her contact with ACC was rankin and due to the problems that she had with rankin she disposed of him. your problem I beleive is based at a level of ACC that rankin was at. do some digging come up with some useful facts for all of us and then you will see the problem so you can fight the problem.

you will have to learn how to be flexable but that will not suit you and your process.

Destroying ACC will not fix the problem. In your case your problem will be burried that deep in eveything from Goverment department to ACC side companies.

National need people like you so that they can blame labour for what they are supporting due to them not speeking up.

Allan look in a mirror, look at your self, look at what you are doing,

Destroying ACC will put you in a far worse position than you are now.

#29 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 28 April 2007 - 02:21 PM

All I can say is, that this Mr Tipsy seems to love ACC as they are his sole income, privately and in a business capacity. In that case, he cannot afford to run them down, EVEN IF HE LOSES HIS CASES. Take it with a good grace, ok, but what about the client you have taken money from and then been unsuccessfull in their case.
Mr Tipsy, you should just forget this forum and start your own, but wait, then you wouldnt be in the face of people for long as you are using this forum to promo your business.
I have been watching you from afar and am apalled at your persistent behaviour and am taking this opportunity to speak out!
Who do you think you are???
Back to my nest, cheep cheep, Sparrow

#30 Guest_tspinoza_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 28 April 2007 - 02:51 PM

Poor Sparrow, why do you say such things when they are so wrong? You talk without knowledge which makes what you say, well, nonsense.

Perhaps you would like to post on this thread what knowledge you have of my income, my personal affairs?

That is, back up what you say with facts rather than cheap nonsense!

I await your posting of my personal details which it is clear from your post, above, you have no idea of.

#31 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 28 April 2007 - 06:33 PM

Topspinza do you run your income as a company. that is a registered one were income has to be disclosed to the company's office.

If not you place your income for all to see and judge were you make your income from.

#32 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 April 2007 - 04:11 PM


You may rest your head on your pillow with the confident assurance that I seek no followers. I am "A" political. Many I don't ask you to listen to me but perhaps consider and address the information. There is a percentage chance that the National party will get into power and privatise the ACC no matter what we do. It is wise that we think about what this will mean.

The facts that I raise is provocative and the subject matter is provocative. I'm sure you will be the first to agree with me in saying that there is good and bad and everything.


I do not agree that Dr white is no more than a figurehead. She is the chief executive officer where the buck stops. Her appointment requires her to ensure that the ACC administers the Act under her control in accordance with the Act. If for example he was large-scale fraud or ACC staff were routinely exterminating claimants in this information was known to her but she did nothing she would be guilty of crime for doing nothing.

Dr white is not the cause of the mistakes that caused me problems those were under the control of her predecessors. I expect her to solve the same kind of problems with her being responsible for the new thinking necessary.

Any CEO coming into a new position like she has first take an overview of the whole Corporation, meet with various department heads and then progressively work their way through the entire organisation. She will only be dealing with matters as an operational level and as such I do not expect any personal involvement in my case but I do expect the necessary corporate machinery to exist to resolve problems rather than fend problems away. This level of corporate structure is a label that she should be involved with. Having said that it is also more probable than not in those who have been doing wrong within the Corporation will hide the facts from the CEO. Obviously these people do not want to expose how they function is so successfully with them the Corporation.

Running a large organisation or having dealings with a large organisation has nothing whatsoever to do with being flexible but only to do with the core business of that organisation which in this case is the delivery of accident insurance reliant upon the facts on the file in comparison with legislation. As the Corporation does not had any realistic mechanism to achieve its core business the CEO is directly and personally liable for not making any steps to make it so. There are many funny books on how large corporations play.


Yes I agree that various ACC agents/advocates, or is that the other way round, are dependent upon a relationship of some sort to enjoy some of the crumbs that fall from the ACC banquet. These people achieve a fine balance between success and failure at the percentage deemed to be appropriate and factored into the Corporation's operational strategy. Imagine if 0% cases succeeded at Review Hearings. That would be too obvious. 20%-30% seems to be about just right. What mystifies me is how they stage-manage the same percentages with the likes of Professor John Miller and Loopy Lucy with blue hair from the Citizens Advice.

Sparrow the ACC and courage the likes of **** ********** and people with blue hair to represent ACC claimants for very obvious reasons. As the site has a freedom of speech policy, except for advertising and so forth, tspinsoza is welcome. Personally I don't agree with a lot of what he says that occasionally he does throw up a few pearls in front of us swine (stock)


I notice that you use terminology that is commonplace in mind the ACC. I guess this is what happens when you rub shoulders with them. "which makes what you say, well, nonsense."

We are aware that your own advocate and can conclude that in some way or another receive funding. The bottom line is that this is known about business just as it would be the case with anybody else's chosen pursuit or endeavour.

It is that however important to us that we share information on this site which in the main part you have been doing to the extent that some are even benefiting. You must however recognise that there is a goal of difference between the 2000 plus strong multibillion-dollar funded Corporation with his team of lawyers with specialist in exclusive expertise and ACC matters and the average person calling themselves and ACC advocate. Don't let the strain of this effect sound reason or self perception. Many people expect those who help them to be there at night in shining armour or cavalry riding over the hill at the 11th hour and are disappointed with failure.

The reality is that there is a gulf of difference between us and them and it is unrealistic to believe that you are sufficient to be the bridge between. If you believe that you are the bridge between, now would be a good time to wake up. If you are trying to do good and they kick you, do good anyway. If you are part of the evil empire we will kill you, revive you and then kill you again. The question is do evil people no when they are doing evil?

To All

As the usual we appeared to be wandering off the thread of the subject. The potential that the ACC might be privatised and whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing if it does happen what could we do to make it better.

#33 User is offline   BLURB 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 02 May 2007 - 04:59 PM

Meaning National and, most probily, Aon, bring it aON!

I think cullen said in 1999 the one year (acc cm provider) contracts wouldn't be renewed ... which led me to write and ask why then was Aon still butchering my injury file in early 2002 if these contracts werent valid ...

One responce i think ... because my emplyer uses aon as their injury management blah

Hey but hang on a minute ... I injuried myself in 1992, my emplyer had no option but to be with acc so why is aon involved?

No answer.

Share this topic:

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users