National rejects expert advice?
Yesterday I was informed that a number of officials have been dumped from the New Zealand Government delegation to the climate change talks in Poznan, Poland [PDF factsheet].
Apparently, a number of senior officials from the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry for the Environment who were all set to attend to advice our Ministers during the negotiations, were told at the last minute to unpack their bags and stay at home.
One was even at the airport when he or she got the call to not board the plane!
I can only speculate what is going on here, which officials have gone and which haven’t, and what that means for the focus and expertise of the delegation.
Perhaps the National Ministers attending the meeting believe they don’t need expert advice from crucial sector agencies?
Perhaps the attempts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to get exclusive control over climate change negotiations have finally succeeded?
There’s no need for unnecessary ‘bureaucrat miles’, but I would like some reassurance that there isn’t a political reason for excluding expert and experienced officials.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Don’t count on assurance coming from anywhere but an OIA request!
I suspect they’ve dumped anyone who could be counted on to provide the ‘wrong’ advice. Like talking about the likely responses to taking agriculture “out” from our emissions? It would be nice to know exactly who.
Also, off topic, but when can we expect portfolio allocations to be announced (and excuse me if I’ve missed it!). I’d like to talk to new/existing MPs about issues, but would like to talk to the right ones among the new MPs. Some allocations are fairly obvious at this stage of course.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Nice to see the government saving some taxpayer money by not sending unnecessary advisors on a state-funded junket.
>>Perhaps the National Ministers attending the meeting believe they don’t need expert advice from crucial sector agencies?
Perhaps they don’t need to be there in person in order to advise? Perhaps the advice could come later, after thoughtful consideration?
They could even use the interweb…..
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
“Perhaps they don’t need to be there in person in order to advise? Perhaps the advice could come later, after thoughtful consideration?”
That comment reflects an ignorance of how these international negotiations work.
Unless, perhaps, Key has decided that engaging internationally in climate change is not a important for his government. (something that would delight IceBaby, no doubt, but send a clear message to other governments that they are likely to take heed of)
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Could it be that the delegation’s mission has changed? Rather than furthering the talks, we’ll be there to hinder them?
Naaaaah…..
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
>>That comment reflects an ignorance of how these international negotiations work.
Meh. I have a friend who used to work on climate change issues for Treasury.
It’s a talk fest. Nothing gets decided on the day…..
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
>>but send a clear message to other governments that they are likely to take heed of
Indeed…
“Oh, look. New Zealanders aren’t quite as stupid as we thought!”
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Great post Russel, something has happened, not too sure what, so lets just make up stuff as to what it might be. Good to see you have you finger on the pulse of the latest worldly developments.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Maybe National is just not sure of officialdom after the latest ACC fiasco. Fancy hiding a billion dollar deficit!
No wonder we need an officialdom cleanout, no wonder the new government does not trust any officials to give correct or sound advice!
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Gerrit, I couldn’t agree more.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
The ACC disgrace just shows how deep the lack of even basic integrity is on the left. I wonder if they crapped in the office draws on the way out.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
The last government’s officials on transport were all committed to Smart Growth (Dense thinking) and I would not let them out of New Zealand to comment on anything to do with transport.
They assume that public transport (code for trains) is more energy and fuel efficient that road transport and will cook the books to prove their point.
Glad they have to unpack their bags and stay at home.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Shunda, the “ACC disgrace” requires some research before we can intelligently comment. I suspect (but don’t know) that this is a beat-up designed to gain public support for National’s ACC privatisation plans that, funnily enough, seem to have no NGO support - not even from employer organisations.
Anyway, let’s take a break. ACC is an area I have professional expertise in, but I don’t want to rush into gut instinct comments, as John Key seems to have done, without looking at the detail.
Something tomorrow on g.blog maybe.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
IceBaby Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
> Perhaps they don’t need to be there in person in order to advise? Perhaps the advice could come later, after thoughtful consideration?
I wonder if advisers from Treasury and the Ministry of Fonterra Affairs and Trade have also been asked to stay home?
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
>>kahikatea
If they ‘aint necessary, then they should be at home, too.
National should answer for it.
Now, about Labours $1B “omission” on ACC.
You guys supported them.
They were your preferred partner.
Are you going to support the NZ taxpayer, or not?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Are these the same experts that predicted the credit instead of a deficit for kyoto compliance, and who said that biofuels would be so easy to implement and investors would flock to build processing plants? Or are these some hidden experts that have been hiding behind the furniture?
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Gerrit and Shunda barunda,
The ACC issue is a definitely a beat up, and an attempt to prepare the masses for privatisation. I can almost imagine it now: “Sorry guys, we don’t have a choice, our hands are tied. ”
I say this because the supposedly scandalous deficit is merely 6.5% of the ACC operational budget, and because the deficit is easily explained by the recent under-performance of international investments made by ACC to designed cover these costs.
Time will tell, but I will be happily surprised and delighted if NatAct, (otherwise known as the BusinessFirst Party) don’t spring the ’solution’ of Privatisation on us very soon.
Good luck to us all.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:51 am
Owen, The LTSA chief executive appointed by Labour in their first term was appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment shortly before the LTSA subsumed Transfund. It seems Labour’s left hand may not have known what it’s other left hand was doing. I think it’s safe to say that by any definition of right hand Labour didn’t have one.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:25 am
moralpanic,
Having just written ACC a cheque for $1200 to cover a single self employed worker levy, I cant wait for the private opposition to ACC to be established. Dont get no option but to pay and if ACC said the levy is $12,000 I would stll hav to pay it.
Your employer has to your contribution so your wages are lower as a result.
Note that privatization of ACC is not required, just allow the insurance industry to compete with the monopoly called ACC.
Why should there not be competition?
Having had nine years of BusinessLast party (able supported by the Greens), am looking forward to the increased business opportunities and job generation (and extra tax take those jobs will generate) that BusinessFirst will “spring” up in the future.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I feel that bloggers should use their full name. I notice that a “Gerrit” has posted several blogs. Friends thought it was me (Gerrit van der Lingen), as I am active as a ‘catastrophic-man-made-global-warming agnostic, giving lectures and writing articles. But it’s not me. The Dutch name “Gerrit” is not all that common in NZ. I noticed that my fellow-member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition uses his full name. I am going to change GerritvdL to GerritvanderLingen from now on, to do what I preach.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Gerrit, your $1200 ACC levy pales into insignificance compared to the cost if you are injured, are wrongly denied cover by the insurer, receive no weekly compensation, end up on a sickness benefit, have to pay for your own rehabilitation, and have to engage legal representation to challenge the insurer’s decision.
That was my frequent experience working as an ACC claimant advocate in the 1999-2000 period when private insurers were involved in administering work accident insurance.
The easiest way to private insurers to reduce levies to gain market share is to wrongly deny claims.
This occurred particularly with gradual process injuries such as occupational overuse injuries (OOS), where the legal tests are complex and put an onus on the claimant to show that the work environment or work tasks have a property or characteristic that causes or contributes to the cause of the personal injury; that property or characteristic is not found to any material extent in the non-employment activities or environment of the claimant; and that the personal injury is not related to non-physical stress.
The private inurers denied the claims in the knowledge that most claimants would not have sufficient understanding of the law to personally challenge them and could not afford the thousands of dollars that legal representation would cost them.
[I have to say that I didn't make a lot of money out of representing such claimants - I only charged what they could afford, which in many cases was nothing so I was working on a contingency no win - no fee basis]
The difficulty is that (apart from the self-employed) the choice of insurer the employers - the injured employee has no choice and gets whatever insurer the employer has chosen. Those who give the best deal to employers in terms of levies are likely to be those that give the worst deal to claimants in terms of entitlements.
Oh, and the g.blog post I promised on this topic earlier on the thread is here.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Hmmm - now not sure which Gerrit I am responding to!
December 4th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Gerrit
The problem with privatizing is that the private firms don’t HAVE to take on your risk. They’ll take all the office workers and stiff the industrialist with the workplace hazards… even if they only imagine the risks. The subdivided market then forces the levies higher on some and fails to spread the risk across all.
Is ACC inefficient? I doubt that it is as inefficient or as profitable as any large US Insuror.
I could be wrong but I don’t doubt that it’d be a close thing.
respectfully
BJ
December 4th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Good point BJ - that happened in 1999-2000 too. The private insurers took all the low risk business while the ACC subsidiary @work insurance ended up lumbered with the high risk high levy industries.
One thing that I think could get levies down would be making ACC responsible for workplace injury prevention. The current dichotomy with the Department of Labour responsible for this (funded by Government appropriation rather than ACC levies) doesn’t provide ACC with any mechanism to reduce industry risk and therefore levies.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:23 am
toad, Bj,
Take both points on board and agree with them.
However having had OOS claims rejected by both NZI (when they had accident cover in that short time when competition was allowed) and ACC, I dont think either system is good as BOTH are based on denying claims.
Waited for the public health system to provide a carpal tunnel operation for over four years.
Luckily Southern Cross wanted to change my cover plan and as an incentive wiped all previous conditions.
So had a 15 minute operation ($4000) on the private heath scheme.
Basically not a fan of either public or private accident insurance, however bat for the side of competition. Got to be better then a state monopoly.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Gerrit said: However having had OOS claims rejected by both NZI (when they had accident cover in that short time when competition was allowed) and ACC, I dont think either system is good as BOTH are based on denying claims.
I’m not saying ACC don’t do it too - I know that they do. What I’m saying is there is more incentive to do it in a competitive enviroment, and my experience is that it happened more frequently in 1999-2000 when there was a competitive environment.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:43 am
toad,
I dont think that the time period that competiton in accident insurance was allowed, was long enough to establish the claim frequency rejection.
I fact my employer at the time was going to ditch NZI as they had rejected a number of claims.
Competion might have changed the long term rejection rate downwards.
What I see at the moment is ACC being like WINZ where the staff are on bonusses to pay out as little as possible. And without competion that is going to remain so.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Oh, and another thought - what happens if a private personal injury insurer goes belly-up?
I suppose we get an AIG-style taxpayer funded bailout, or do all the claimants on their books just lose their entitlements?
December 4th, 2008 at 9:42 am
toad,
About the same as when the state cant collect (increase) taxes and is unable to pay ACC claims.
Guess the state can always print more money.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:39 am
2 things need to affect the premium an employer pays for ACC, 1 the industry and 2 the number of workplace accidents the employer occurs.
BJs argument of spreading that cost around is unfair (socialism) instead you need to reward the successful company (capitalism). If a factory has high ACC premium’s then it needs to implement safety protocols to reduce accidents in order to lower those premiums, it isn’t up to ACC to do this. The incentive lies with the factory owner, by spreading the risk around their is NO incentive (lack of incentives is why socialist systems never work)
Note unemployment insurance should work exactly the same way, except the premiums the company pays should be based on how many people you fire. If the company fires lots of people then it will pay more in unemployment insurance.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:49 am
As far as private/public i don’t care so much, I do have a problem with a public system in that its possible for an industry to lobby(buy off) political parties in order to have their ACC premiums subsidised by other industries.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
One last thing the ACC levy needs to be removed from petrol and the motor vehicle license fee. Each driver in NZ needs to carry roadside accident insurance coverage instead, good drivers pay less and bad drivers pay more.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
gerrit
re
>
About the same as when the state cant collect (increase) taxes and is unable to pay ACC claims.
>
Luckily the last CEO of ACC, Garry Wilson, managed to shift the corporation from this year’s revenue pays this year’s costs, to a scheme whereby ‘this year’s revenue pays for costs incurred this year’. In other words, there are six actuarially costed funds, each of which has to have enough reserve to pay for the future cost of current claims. (That’s putting it very simply - but a fair approximation I thimk.)
This means that as long as the regime Garry put in place remains, no one with an accepted claim will suffer down the road. THe rub is in sticking to that regime.
THis is why the comment by moralpanic above that
>”the supposedly scandalous deficit is merely 6.5% of the ACC operational budget
>
is about as misleading as any comment can be!
Firstly, the six finds have to look after themselves, not each other, and so the total annual operational budget is of no interest anyway.
Secondly, the operating budget of ACC is not the $15,384,615,000 it would have to be for $1 billion to be 6.5% of it.
Thirdly, that billion dollars has to be paid by the Tax Payer and given there are only about 2 million of us that’s another $500 I have to fork out to pay for the Labour Led Government’s ineptitude.
Why was this ineptitude? Simple! In Mr. Wilson the ACC had a leader who had a clear commercial backgroud, a reputation for equity and honesty (badly needed after the prior three CEOs) and took an extremely cautious approach to the way the corporation operated. During his tenure he radically changed, for the better, the way things worked there and was able to return many people to gainful work who had no future other than dependency on ACC’s funds. This reduction of the ‘tail’, as it was called, saved taxpayers, earners, employers and drivers billions of dollars.
Garry was replaced by a person who is a medical doctor, came from being CEO of a DHB, and clearly has no understanding of how insurance management really works. Her first action was to appoint a lawyer as COO. I wonder how much more trouble we are in thanks to this wonderful commercial combination!
December 5th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Turnip, For somebody living in the United States of America you seem to be wondrously uninformed about how car insurance works there. US insurance don’t classify people as bad drivers only if they have a history of crash claims but also if they have a speeding ticket. Fortunately market forces and judicial precedent have provided a solution to be labelled a “bad” driver simply because you got a speeding ticket. Exceeding a speed limit is a misdemeanor offence. Any entity that pays a fine for a misdemeanor is deemed to be the offender. Thus you can buy speeding ticket insurance which ensures that the fine is paid by the insurance company. For the pricely sum of $15 a month you can ensure that your car insurance company can’t hit you with a speeding offence “high risk” premium because your fine will be paid without you ever admitting legal liability for having committed the alleged speeding offence.
Incidently, car insurance is compulsory in most if not all states, and most insurance companies won’t pay out on a crash claim without sighting the police report form. That last requirement does give the USA the most complete and comprehensive crash database in the world, which allows crash involvement and crash severity to be studied exclusive of each other. That’s very important for working out the actual causes of fatal crashes, ie separating the cause of the crash fro the cause of the fatality.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I don’t see what you are talking about Kevyn.
Where did i make any claim’s about the US car insurance system please cite? or are you just pulling mis-quotes out of your arse.
[frog: sorry turnip28. You got automagically moderated by using Paul Henry's favourite word, "arse"]
December 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
It looks as though Key is using Act to do its’ dirty work just as Clark used the Greens (S 59).
December 6th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
jh - key has ‘dirty work’ that needs to be done? Surely not!
December 6th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
That was a great protest (face masks) a lot of people will be disquieted by Key and Hydes judgement.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:21 am
jh
“That was a great protest (face masks) a lot of people will be disquieted by Key and Hydes judgement”
Hell yes, about 6.7% of the people in NZ will be up in arms, the rest will not give a toss.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
What about people who like the birds and the bees?
December 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am
They are still looking for a real Green party to vote for.