Accident Compensation Corporation

We need to make one thing clear, our battle is not against ACC. As a comprehensive, no-fault, Government subsidized insurance scheme it provides the most generous list of e ntitlements found anywhere in the world.

A Brief Look Back in History

In 1967 the Government commissioned the esteemed Court of Appeal judge, Owen Woodhouse, (now Sir Owen) to write a substantive report on personal injury, primarily motivated by the need to rid the log jam of litigation cases jamming out courts. He was commissioned by the Australian government to write a similar report; recommending in both that sickness and incapacity be included with those whose condition was brought about by an accident. At the time ACC formally began in April, 1974 the New Zealand Government made a commitment to do this within two years. Thirty-five years later we are still waiting for Government's good intention to be written into the ACC legislation.

The New Zealand disability strategy, April, 2001

In April, 2001 the Labour Government published the New Zealand Disability Strategy; Making a World of Difference; its 115 Objectives designed to address the problems experienced by New Zealanders with disabilities. Objective 7.5 states 'Encourage equity of funding and service provision for people with similar needs, regardless of the cause of their impairment.' This is exactly what the Trevethick case asked for yet Crown Law, (Government's legal representative,) contested it. With the Strategy now being eight years old it is reasonable to expect its Objectives would largely have been met. In regard to Objective of 7.5, Crown Law's actions in contesting my case are hard to fathom. Equity-for-illness believes that if the NZ Disability Strategy is to be an effective working document it must come with a full business/implementation plan attached including a published timeline of when each Objective will be achieved, a budget allocated to each, and direct responsibility for its implementation. The current Disability Strategy lacks all three.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

New Zealand was given the honour to be the first nation to sign the convention at the United Nations both because of its work in developing the Convention and in recognition of its own Government's commitment to the New Zealand disabled community in creating the New Zealand Disability Strategy. New Zealand has since ratified the Convention; (before doing so they had to ensure that New Zealand laws, policies, and practices were in line with the United Nations Convention's goals.)

Optional Protocol

The third possible stage in the process after signing and ratifying the Convention is to sign the Optional Protocol. One of the avenues open if New Zealand were to sign is that is would allow anyone who felt the U. N. Convention's goals had been breached by the New Zealand Government to take a case to the United Nations. The disparity between ACC and Ministry of Health/ Ministry of Social Development funding and service provision and the Court of Appeal stated 'legal Government discrimination under the Bill of Rights' makes it highly unlikely in the writer's opinion that our Government will take the risk of signing it.

Equity-for-illness Alliance

While it was always necessary to test this claim through the Human Rights Commission Melanie Trevethick was well aware our judges can only make decisions within the parameters of current law/legislation; (so eloquently confirmed by their Court of Appeal decision.) Now that we have exhausted the legal avenues open to us we must now target our MPs who pass any legislation into law to overturn this 'legal discrimination.' Equity-for-illness is currently forming an Alliance involving the many organisations affected by this discrimination, its purpose to form a collective and collaborative lobbying group. Our Members of Parliament need to be 'encouraged' to create a fair and equitable health system. Expect news of us through the media in the coming months. Please do not think our battle is over now that the legal challenge has run its course; the next phase has only just begun.

Rehabilitation focus for ACC vs dependency model for Ministry of Health clients

ACC's stated goal is to return a person to their previous quality of life as much as is practicable. Their focus on rehabilitation provides free access to physiotherapy/occupational therapy/doctors, significant housing modifications, wheelchairs wherever they are needed, vehicles, computer equipment, hearing aids, glasses, communication equipment, and childcare, thereby enabling the person to get back into the workforce as quickly as possible. This is in sharp contrast to the Ministry of Health's means and asset-tested eligibility criteria. Let's look of this in more detail.

Accident Compensation Corporation '

Ministry Of Health

Once claim is accepted the following entitlements apply:-

Eligibility Criteria requirements apply:-

• No asset or means testing

• Asset testing applies accept for vehicle applications to transport a dependent child. Requires eligibility for Community Services Card for all other categories.

• 80% of a person's previous salary paid while recuperating, or if necessary, for life. (The disabled person's partner's income level is irrespective of this entitlement.)

• Not Applicable. A Sickness or Invalids Benefit @ $230p/wk for an individual or family if sole earner available from WINZ (through the Ministry of Social Development) otherwise means and asset- testing applies. (This means if the disabled person's partner is in paid employment, any Benefit the disabled person is entitled to will be reduced based on the income of the working partner, very often to a point of leaving the family on a single income.)

• All disability aids provided, regardless of where they are needed; (wheelchairs, walking aids, shower chairs, etc.) extra v fwheel cheers provided for sporting/recreational/work use.

• Some disability aids and wheelchairs are provided providing the person needs them for use within the home. (If the client can manage to walk around the home but cannot leave the house without a wheelchair, they either pay for it themselves or stay home .)

• Full home modifications including a purpose built home if necessary

• Some home modifications provided (subject to asset testing for modifications costing over $7,900.) Again, tightly written eligibility-criteria minimises what is paid for and what is not

• Education costs including special equipment, computers, hearing aids, glasses

• Not applicable unless for a child

• " Vehicle fully supplied or existing one adapted for the person's specific needs, either as the driver or as a passenger. No price restrictions apply. (NB: current model of choice for a person in a wheelchair is a modified Kia Carnival costing approximately $110,000))

• " Vehicle allowance to a maximum of $11,970 with an extra $11,900 towards modifications (NB: to be eligible the person must be in full time work/education/ vocational work/parental role of a dependent child living in same home)

• Up to 24hrly 7x52wks Registered Nurse/personal care for life; home help provided to reflect the level of a person's disability

• Personal care to approximately 30hrs p/wk maximum; home help @ 2hrs p/wk. (A disabled person requiring more care may have no option but to move into a resthome, regardless of their age.)

• All medical equipment, prostheses, etc paid

• Some assistance but in practice priority often goes to ACC clients as ACC pays more for its equipment than does MoH

• Doctors/physiotherapist's/occupational therapist's/chemists fees paid.

• Not applicable

• Lump sum payments for permanent loss of an eye, limb, mobility, etc

• Not applicable

• A person's social situation is taken into account; eg, providing child care

• Not applicable

• Payment for family members to be carers

• Not applicable