Will insurers come back to compete with ACC if ACT obliges National to deliver on its own policy of reintroducing contestability? Or will they be too wary of investing in the set-up then having to write it all off again, like last time?

I helped in drafting the reform law in 1998. I think all of us who worked on it were surprised by its success, not only in waking up the Corporation and lowering premiums, but even in dropping accident rates. I don’t think there has ever been an entirely convincing explanation of that drop, because it seemed too quick to have a cause and effect relationship with the reforms. At last our rates had headed in the direction of Australia’s lower rates.

The reform was reversed because someone made a silly campaign promise. Labour MPs had no pride in their work as they delivered on their promise. Cullen had not by then discovered his phrase "the ideaological burp" but I think he might admit that the repeal was worse than a burp – perhaps it was an ideological fart. I remember a discussion with a couple of them about the success of the reforms, the benefits in cost terms, the apparent benefits in tems of reduced pain and loss as accident rates dropped. They said that when National reinstated contestibility no one would make a silly promise to repeal it again.

We shall see.

I hope that ACT insists on committment to some of the elements of the reform that National was too timid to allow last time. There were several changes dropped that could help make ‘no fault’ more robust for the long term (to put further out of contention any restoration of tort).

Among them must be an option for workers and earners generally to elect a higher than zero deductible. All sensible insurance has deductibles, to save on administration costs for trivial claims that would be better dealt with directly and to reduce the moral hazard of entitlements with no co-payment obligation at all on the person suffering the "loss". At the least people should be permitted to choose to cover their own minor accidents and perhaps up to the first month off work, in return for a good share of the resulting savings to the ACC/insurer.

And the law needs some extra principles written in. Among them should be:

• another go at sorting out the boundaries with crime and criminal law reparations. The courts are busy recreating the equivalent of tort liability, but without the common sense of tort, by directing payments in HSE cases to the "victims". Some of the worst results of US style tort risk aversion are now affecting New Zealand, as land-owners close off access, employers deprive employees of discretion and recreational choices are restricted in the interests of protecting against hindsight court judgments that ignore individual choices and responsibilities.
• a requirement to show that counselling and other feelgood "treatments" help more than they damage. For example there is research evidence that counselling for one off trauma may harm. It may diminish the normal protective loss of short term memory. Rehearsing and  dwelling on an incident may instead cement  it into long term memory. "Harden up and forget about it" may be the best therapy.
• new mandatory prosecution provision to apply to Directors and other people in control of insurers (including ACC) if they lie like Labour Ministers about the financial condition and the provisions for coverage. They perverted a scheme that has always been vulnerable to serious boundary arguments, into a welfare election bribe..