Deborah Coddington: Red-light week for Nats' green ministers

What is it with new National MPs taking on this "born to rule" demeanour?

This has been total stuff-up week for National.

In fact, I bet there's more than one hardened cynic in the ranks who would silently thank two monumental tragedies - the Samoan tsunami and the death of Aisling Symes - which diverted the nation's attention from disasters that the Helen Clark-slash-Heather Simpson management would never have allowed to see the light of day.

Bill English wasn't known as a "trougher" (snout in trough), so the shenanigans around his accommodation allowance raised eyebrows. But at least he fronted up, unlike Melissa Lee.

When questioned by Duncan Garner on taxpayers' behalf about $100,000 of public money and why, according to NZ On Air, she'd breached their contract, she stuck her nose skywards and stalked off as if Garner hadn't washed in weeks.

Worse was Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman. Serious questions need to be asked of Mr Haughty, who trotted down the corridor looking like a possum caught in the headlights when asked if he'd tipped off TVNZ about Maori Television's bid for the Rugby World Cup. His waffling answers were totally unsatisfactory.

As Broadcasting Minister, he is on a mission for a sacking. He knew about Lee's trouble with NZ On Air and did nothing, yet he was her campaign manager.

He has proclaimed, nonsensically, that the World Cup is "the biggest event in our lifetime", and now, under his watch, the screening is turning into an embarrassing debacle for which taxpayers will pay and pay.

Moving right along, why is Nick Smith ignoring the very good reforms made to Accident Compensation by his own National Government in 1998?

Opening up workplace accident insurance to the competitive market was one of the most enlightened economic reforms the Shipley team undertook.

I would like to lock myself in a lift with Sir Roger Douglas and get an answer, but since Act is supporting the Key Government and Sir Roger is being a very good boy these days, I probably couldn't print the answers.

Instead, I went back to a book I wrote long ago about Sir Roger's 1984 reforms to government departments that had found themselves donkey-deep in debt. Just like ACC.

But there is a difference with ACC.

It's not just about saving money, it's about "elfin safety" and saving lives and, despite all you hear from the naysayers, when ACC was opened up to competition, the accident rate came down.

One of the best examples, often trotted out by proponents for change, is the forestry industry.

In New Zealand, forestry workers had one of the highest accident rates in the world and when ACC was being opened up to the private sector, critics swore no insurance company would touch forestry with (ahem) a barge pole.

But they were wrong, because the private insurers viewed the forestry industry not as a great liability, but as a prospect for the best savings.

Private insurers lapped up forestry workplace insurance and the accident rate declined markedly, as did - surprise, surprise - drug and alcohol use on the job.

And critics, don't wail to me about privatisation, because it already happens.

ACC already contracts out to private companies its most difficult cases - the long-term out of work.

But they wait too long. If these companies could get individuals sooner, they would have them rehabilitated much earlier.

Instead of tinkering, Nick Smith should carve off ACC's $10 billion unfunded liability.

It is unfair to have today's taxpayers funding the accidents of the 70s and 80s.

The Crown would fund that, but tender out management to the private sector. Even if only 10 per cent savings were made, that's $1 billion.

Then Smith could take a hard look at the remaining $12 billion - kill the thinly disguised welfare and sell off the bits and pieces it doesn't need.

The Government can remain insurer of last resort for dangerous employers with bad track records, but why should safe, careful employers who look after their workers continue to pay high levies and cross-subsidise the former?

I can't understand how people like Nick Smith and Andrew Little can agree with each other and argue with me on that. Or maybe I can.