Tuesday, June 19, 2012


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 implemented.

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 disability."

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.  


Anonymous said...

THere is inequality in the outcome, but that is there for a good reason. If you get sick, it is no-one's fault. ACC takes away your right to sue for personal injury and steps into the place of the liable party.

JC said...

"It is admired internationally."

Maybe, but tellingly no other country has taken it up in the last near 40 years. Why would they?.. its obvious to anyone that its a recipe for corruption, politics and mindless expansion.. exactly as has happened.

"Should the two 'schemes' continue to be quarantined one from the other"

Both were proposed in the original report, but the politicians separated them before birth because: "its obvious to anyone that its a recipe for corruption, politics and mindless expansion.. exactly as has happened." :)

Half a decade ago I led a delegation to the major political parties to advocate that ACC should include illness and disease.. the best audience we had was with Meritea Turei and a fortnight later the idea was floated in a Green speech. We later part funded a court action as well which basically said the separation was a denial of human rights, but made no judgement forcing the Govt to do anything.

But at any rate, we were just reacting to an unfair and stupid system.. I actually think the Govt has no place in accidents beyond law making and audit and we should go back to the (brief) scheme of 1999; that was so much cheaper and we got great feedback from our private insurers who were vastly more pro-active in safety practice.. because it was in both parties' financial interest to do so.


Anonymous said...

ACC was a reasonable concept but has morphed into what it shouldn't be - another form of welfare. Such is inevitable when politicians respond to pressure from a variety of sources for treatnment of special interest issues (the emotional area following unproven events is particularly danagerous).

Competition would do something about this as private companies will sort out what is required to pay for what people want and rate it accordingly. The govt can pick up the flotsam no one wants under welfare. That may allow the basis of compensation under ACC and Welfare to grow closer for workers but we need to separate work from welfare.

How does legislation that removes my right to sue for just compensation allow judges to award compensation to victims of accidents when it suits them?

Its become a hotchpotch mess but Labour loved it as is because it was a means of control and it has lots of money.


gravedodger said...

ACC is welfare funded by the usual trapped contributors and they also get to fund claimants who are immune to contribution.
An unlicenced vehicle operator gets the same treatment in an accident as one who has paid dearly through registration and guess who paid for it.
A welfare benny gets identical rest home care as one who has used up their savings that the former pissed in the tavern urinal.
All welfare, including ACC rewards the feckless equally with the responsible except for income claims and it is entirely likely an earner will have topped that up anyway, I know I did.

Interesting that current Labour thinking appears to be reversing it's love affair with funding forward exposure to a PAYG model.

It is still welfare by a different name and a different funding model.

Shane Ponting said...

I want to sue.

anonymuch said...

In the last 5 years I have lost 3 days due to staff injuring themselves on the job.

In the same time I have lost several weeks to staff being injuryed playing rugby or hurting themselves during other weekend activities of their own doing.

ACC fucking stinks.