Struggling to believe ACC can justify cuts

WHEN it comes to disrupting therapeutic relationships and denying people suffering from mental injury the right to choose a treatment provider, ACC has form.

Some years ago, it forced a costshifting exercise on such people, in the form of its ‘‘Sensitive Claims Pathway’’, which had the intended effect: claims for mental injuries dropped by 50% and many psychologists and counsellors stopped treating ACC claimants, after concluding that the bureaucratic obstacle course imposed by the pathway did more harm than good to the people they were treating.

After an uproar that disturbed even Parliament, ACC was forced to spend a lot of money on an inquiry, chaired by Dame Barbara Disley. As expected, Dame Barbara and her colleagues found that ACC’s actions were both harmful and unlawful. For the next few years, Dame Barbara continued to report that ACC would not implement her recommendations and that its management of sensitive claims remained substandard.

Now, a year after the government changed, it seems ACC is firmly in control of its Minister, with cutbacks to the services it provides to its victims, such as that reported by Mike Houlahan (ODT, 1.12.18). There are also wellfounded fears of further cuts, including to staff at provincial offices, to be announced early next month.

Of course ACC will cry poor and insinuate that claims costs are out of control. This is nonsense; as its last report to Parliament confirmed, ACC has financial reserves of more than

$36 billion and takes in more in income every year than it spends on claims, thus ensuring its coffers remain filled.

As for the sources of that income, employers pay less every year, while everyone else pays more. So much for ‘‘community responsibility’’, one of the original principles of the ACC scheme to which the government pays lip service. Michael Gibson

Invercargill

Playground

THERE is a proposal on the cover of today’s Otago Daily Times (11.12.18) to build a children’s playground at the head of the harbour. The plan suggests moving Wharf St on to the nearby vacant lot at major cost, closing off a major road link to the harbourside (the overbridge off ramp), pulling up the road that’s there, and putting a playground in its place right against the water’s edge, where no doubt any unwatched toddlers could easily wander.

Surely it would make more sense to leave the roads alone and build the playground on the vacant lot, away from the water’s edge. It would be a much cheaper, easier, and safer option which wouldn’t disrupt a major arterial traffic route.

3D movies

James Dignan

St Clair WHY are there no 3D movies screening in Dunedin? I have seen 3D movies in Dunedin previously, but when I look online tonight for the new movie Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, I find that there is no 3D screening of this.

I have noticed this before with various movies and am wondering why. Can someone from the two theatres in town that have screened 3D advise why they no longer do so? Peter McMann

Dunedin

[A Rialto Cinemas spokesperson replies:

Rialto Cinemas plays 3D where possible so our customers have the choice between 3D and 2D films. Because 3D isn’t as popular as it used to be, we are being very selective about which titles to play in 3D and will often play limited 3D sessions in the first week of release — which we did for Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. Please keep an eye out for any 3D sessions of upcoming films.]

[This letter was also referred to Reading Cinemas for comment, but no response was received.]