While academics are concerned that the electorate is insufficiently educated - a rather self serving bias, it appears - we, the electorate, may have a more legitimate concern that they don't know what they are doing.
This delicious quote, from The Economist, illustrates the point:
While I don't feel I know enough about it to write a decent crossword clue - okay if pressed, it's something to do with increasing the money supply and buying a variety of assets - you don't care, because I am not pretending I could be Finance Minister.
The flailing around on our own ACC issue has many of the same hallmarks. How many decent questions fail to be asked? Let us count only the general areas, the specific questions could run to hundreds...
1. What is ACC for? Some people think it's an important part of our social welfare system, some people think it's an insurance scheme, some people think it's about controlling legal costs, and reducing unfairness and inefficiency...
2. If we accept that part of it could be considered an insurance system, then what risks are to be covered, and what levels of cover are to be provided? Should we make different levels of cover available, or is ACC about providing only the minimum level of cover society requires and the private sector provides the rest?
3. How do we know if we're providing the level of cover that society as a whole reckons is about right?
UPDATE: I just finished listening to a bunch of goofs on National Radio as I was driving to an appointment this afternoon and they were confusing the whole issue of risk with social policy. Nick Smith is quoted as saying that an increase in the ACC levy on petrol is his favoured approach to sharing out additional cost because, broadly, the more one drives the more risk of an accident you have. After a rudimentary discussion about how true that is, while it was conceded as generally true two surprising new directions were taken by the commentators:
1) While conceding that experience rating was used for different employment categories it was considered the thin end of the wedge with a comment that 'we don't want to charge people more for hospital visits because they are overweight do we?' (wouldn't we have a whole lot less trouble with obesity if we did?)
2) Then one commentator suggested that perhaps this excusion into user pays could be excused because by making petrol more expensive we were again pricing up carbon emissions and that this would help environmental goals.
Doesn't this rather underline the assertion by Nick Smith that ACC has been seen as a welfare agency rather than a compensation and insurance outfit? Having failed in those two tasks to try and burden it with achieving environmental goals as well looks like a step into fantasy land.

Blogs are good for every one where we get lots of information for any topics nice job keep it up !!!
Posted by: dissertation write up | March 14, 2009 at 01:06 AM
Hello,
The title is aw sum, I loved the way you have written it. The update is rocking, keep up the good work
Posted by: Custom Essay Writing | October 23, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Hello,
I really appreciate it, and this resource is really useful for us. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Essays | October 24, 2009 at 01:12 AM
Hi,
This is really apprehending and influencing. Apart from the old style title, it has a great and updated info. Thank you for sharing
Posted by: Assignment Writing | October 24, 2009 at 07:26 PM
Hi,
This is very useful information for future generation. Thanks for sharing such an informative post. Keep posting
Posted by: Dissertation | October 24, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Hi,
It’s an interesting article. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: Business Plan Presentation | October 27, 2009 at 01:19 AM
Hi,
Nice post! You have worked hard on jotting down the essential information.
Posted by: Start a Business Online | January 16, 2010 at 12:53 AM