Colin James in his Otago Daily Times column raises an interesting point about the concept of ACC. Below is an extract from his article ....................
"The 1967 Royal Commission fixed that legal defect by proposing a no-fault
scheme: the state should take over from insurance companies the injured person's
"compensation". That proposition stunned the National government of the time and
it took six years, a select committee inquiry and a change of government to be
It is admired internationally. But it is in concept
an insurance scheme. And it is unfair: ACC income support for accident-generated
disability is far greater than social security support for illness-generated
His point is the last paragraph is a valid one. Should the two 'schemes' continue to be quarantined one from the other Where is the fairness and equity in a system which discriminates between accident and illness with the taxpayer picking up the tab in both instances. Is this a conversation that we should be having? Interested in your feedback.