KEY POINTS:
The Accident Compensation Corporation backed down last night and agreed to make changes to its "you're covered" advertising campaign.
The commercials, part of a $2.3 million campaign, were found to breach the Advertising Standards Authority guidelines because they were likely to mislead consumers about the availability of cover when they are hurt.
The ads, which aimed to raise awareness of ACC's services, were earlier attacked by opposition MP Pansy Wong as wasteful.
Last night ACC chief executive Dr Jan White said the organisation agreed to make two changes to the ads.
It would add an "eligibility qualifying" statement to the end and replace the word "hurt" with the word "injured".
Motorcycle crash victim Peter White leaked the authority's ruling to the media having been one of seven people to officially complain about the campaign. The complainants found they weren't covered by ACC or weren't happy with the level or duration of cover they received.
The authority released its full decision last night, in which it deemed the oversimplified message was likely to mislead consumers.
Complainant S. Keen's submission detailed a four-year battle with ACC to gain cover for an accident and complications.
"A person has to do a lot more than simply ring ACC to have cover. We have had reviews, court hearings etc," the complainant wrote. "We are having to go through a long period of stress and financial devastation ... Seeing this advertisement evokes anger in my family."
National Party ACC spokeswoman Mrs Wong called on ACC Minister Ruth Dyson to apologise over her "misguided" defence during parliamentary questions of what she called a "wasteful advertising spend".
She said spending millions in taxpayer money on an advertising campaign to tell New Zealanders that the state monopoly had them "covered" seemed extravagant. "Worse still it was wrong."
Ms Dyson declined to respond to Mrs Wong's comments but instead referred the Herald directly to the ACC, which rejected the National MP's criticisms, saying Mr White had been fully covered and compensated by ACC for his accident.
"[Mrs Wong] is wrong," ACC spokesman Laurie Edwards said.
Mr White's cover had stopped when he was independently assessed as being "vocationally independent", Mr Edwards said.
"At that point it is not actually about the injury, it's whether you can get a job. The act removes you from ACC's area. In reference to [Mr White], it actually makes you an unemployed person rather than an injured person and there are other agencies to help unemployed people.
"Some people don't like that because they go from getting 80 per cent of their wages under ACC to the unemployment benefit."
The other six complainants had been in a similar position to Mr White, Mr Edwards said.
As for advertisement, Mr Edwards said it was the first of a series and had already completed its television run. The ad marked the start of an awareness campaign expected to run for three years.
"We absolutely stand by the campaign. [Our] research was conclusive that people just didn't know enough about ACC. That's a problem because if people don't know what they can get from ACC then they don't come and ask for it.
"It's not like we are trying to sell anybody anything or con them into buying our services.
"People already pay for ACC. We have got nothing to gain by running a tricky or misleading ad.
"We want people to know what they get for their money."
ACC also defended the cost of the campaign and said the organisation remained convinced the approach was a cost-effective way of getting its message across.
