Grant, (aged 47 in 2005) was married with three children when diagnosed with bowel cancer. After surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, sadly the cancer returned, showing tumours in his abdomen and lungs. He was told he has a short time to live. Such news has had an enormous impact on his family; not to mention on the wonderful man that he is. The ACC/ Ministry of Health disparity has huge implications for Grant and his family, as it does for every one diagnosed with cancer. If Grant had been eligible for ACC, 80% of his previous salary would've been paid from the time of his diagnosis enabling the family to 'stay afloat' financially during his treatment. The means-tested WINZ Sickness Benefit of $230p/wk that the family did receive didn't begin to cover their mortgage and living costs, forcing them to sell their home and leaving them greatly in debt ever since. A WINZ benefit can hardly be considered an equitable or sustainable income replacement when compared to ACC's 80% entitlement. Is this fair?

Joshua (aged 5 months) was diagnosed shortly after birth. The dilemma facing families like Joshua's is to determine whether an ACC-determined accident was the cause of the disability. For example: if during the birth process the umbilical cord had been seen constricting the baby's neck, ACC would accept his claim as an accident of birth. Without such an obvious cause it is assumed a medical event, either before, during or after the birth was responsible for his condition. This seemingly irrelevant distinction of how his disability came about has enormous implications on how he'll be funded for the rest of his life. Is this fair?

Emily, (39) was first diagnosed at age ten. Now with three university degrees she works fulltime in an important role for public advocacy; her personal care, housing modifications, and mobility needs provided through the Ministry of Health's eligibility criteria. It is here that the system fails her. In regard to a vehicle she can drive from her wheelchair, even with the Ministry of Health's maximum vehicle allowance, (recently increased to $24,000,) it falls well short of the $110,000 fully paid for by ACC for their clients. It falls to community groups to fundraise on her behalf. Is this fair?

Margaret (aged 59) is unable to walk long distances; requiring a mobility scooter to access her local shops to retain her independence. She is ineligible for a wheelchair or other mobility equipment through the Ministry of Health because she is able to cope inside her own home. If she was an ACC client this would not be a factor. The Ministry's stated goal to maintain the dignity and independence of their clients falls well short in practice for people in Margaret's position. Politically correct words mean little if not backed up with criteria that deliver.

Sasha (Stroke)

Four years ago Sasha, (aged 12) was riding her bike to school when she suddenly felt dizzy. She got off her bike then suffered a major stroke. With Sasha then profoundly disabled her mother gave up work to look after her. One aspect of the disparity affecting this family is that under ACC Sasha's mother would be paid to look after her; sadly the Ministry of Health has no such criteria. The irony is that had Sasha stayed on her bike a few minutes longer then fallen off it would've appeared as if the stroke was subsequent to the accident and she would've fallen in all speaks into ACC's generous entitlements. Our Government's carefully manipulated legal discrimination equated to a loss of several hundred thousand dollars for Sasha's family. Is this fair?