Heather Roy's Diary
Bold Reform Or Nervous Tinkering?

Two recess week announcements made the headlines this week which give a steer as to the direction of a National-led government post November 26. On Tuesday State Sector Reforms were announced and on Wednesday a move towards private sector involvement in ACC was proposed. Both have potential to cut costs and gain efficiencies, but how effective are they really likely to be?

A government discussion document on ACC was released on Wednesday. The proposals include allowing choice of workplace insurance cover for employers from October 2012 and extending the Accredited Employer Programme (AEP) from April next year.

For a brief period in 1998 the work account was opened up to competition by the then National Government. Although only in place for nine months the early indications were that the numbers of injuries in the workplace were dropping and prices for most employer categories were lower than in the non-competitive environment. ACT was instrumental in pushing for competition in 1998 and again for this current proposal of greater employer choice.

The Accredited Employer Programme was introduced in 1996. Current experience shows the AEP delivers 12 percent fewer claims and lower costs of 15 percent. Strong financial incentives and involvement by employers in rehabilitation has resulted in a commitment to workplace safety. Programmes that incentivise employers in this way benefit workers and employers alike and should be encouraged. ACT is very pleased with the proposal to extend this programme.

Missing however from the talk of improving ACC is fairness. The artificial barrier that drives a wedge between illness and injury is no closer to being dealt with. Those eligible for payments because they have an accident will continue to be advantaged over those who suffer illness, even if the symptoms and outcomes are the same. I would have hoped we could have a real discussion this election about fixing this inequity. An insurance based health scheme which deals with conditions and needs regardless of how they are acquired would have been a good starting point.

State Sector Reform has been on the agenda since last election. Finance Minister Bill English announced on Tuesday the formation of the Better Public Services Advisory Group to investigate a number of proposals in order to achieve better value-for-money, innovation and high-quality service provision within the public sector.

Mr English noted that "New Zealand currently has 39 government departments, over 150 Crown entities of various types, not including school boards of trustees, and more than 200 other agencies” and "With the Government committed to returning to budget surplus in 2014/15, change in the state sector now needs to pick up momentum. This is about identifying the things that matter most to New Zealanders, doing them better and doing them with less back-office bureaucracy”.

There are seven proposals including: disestablishing the Crown Health Financing Agency, the Health Act Boards of Appeal, the Maritime Appeal Authority and the Land Valuation Tribunal; and transferring the functions of the Charities Commission to the Department of Internal Affairs. Consolidation of the audio-visual archiving by the New Zealand Film Archive, Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand is also planned. The Education Review Office and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority would be merged into a single agency.

The full list of proposals can be found at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-reviews-more-state-agencies

It all sounds like movement in the right direction but has the look about it of tackling the easy areas first, as opposed to any overall vision of how New Zealand should look in two generations time or a plan of how to get there. Some would conclude this to be tinkering around the edges.

When it comes to State Sector reform government needs to show leadership. If smaller government is the aim – and I sincerely hope it is – then leadership by example would be wise. The 1999 referendum on reducing the size of Parliament to 99 MPs has been ignored, despite the support of 81% of voters, but would be a sensible first step in reducing the size of the bureaucracy, especially for a country with a little over 4 million people. A longer electoral cycle would help government plan more effectively too – but that’s another whole ball game.

Lest We Forget - 1 June 1941, The end of the Battle of Crete

The Battle of Crete is a significant part of New Zealand’s military history. The battle began on 20 May 1941, when Germany launched an airborne invasion of Crete. After the first day of fighting, the Germans had suffered heavy casualties with none of their objectives achieved. The following day Maleme airfield fell to the Germans due to miscommunication and the failure of Allied commanders to grasp the situation. The Germans flew in reinforcements and overwhelmed the defenders. The battle lasted for 10 days.

The Battle of Crete was unprecedented in three respects: it was the first mainly airborne invasion in military history and the first battle where “parachute rangers” were used on a large scale; the first time the Allies made significant use of intelligence from the deciphered German Enigma code; and the first time invading German troops encountered mass resistance from a civilian population.

Greek and Allied forces, along with Cretan civilians, defended the island. Greek forces consisted of approximately 9,000 troops. The British Commonwealth contingent consisted of 14,000 British troops and another 25,000 Commonwealth troops evacuated from the mainland – the New Zealand 2nd Division (without 6th Brigade and division headquarters), the Australian 19th Brigade Group and the British 14th Infantry Brigade.

ENDS

© Scoop Media