Denise Powell takes issue with an ODT editorial on medical assessments for long-term ACC claimants.
We were extremely disappointed to read the Otago Daily Times editorial (27.1.10) relating to the ACC's current approach to "minding the shop" as, in our view, it contained factual errors and misplaced beliefs about the scheme.
The original reason for the ACC scheme being introduced in 1972 was not "designed to cover workplace accidents of employed workers" as stated in the editorial, but rather a 24-hour no-fault social insurance scheme initiated by a 1967 report, which had been commissioned by the Government in response to the fiasco that was the then Workers' Compensation Act of 1956.
Effectively, this new legislation was a social contract between the public of New Zealand and the Government which promised in return for giving up the right to sue, the public was assured of comprehensive no-fault 24-hour accident compensation.
The Woodhouse Commission based its proposals on five principles: collective or community responsibility; comprehensive entitlement; complete rehabilitation; real compensation; and administrative efficiency.
ACC compensation was never a "benefit".
It was, and still is, an entitlement of a policy-holder (which all New Zealanders are) to earnings-related compensation, as well as rehabilitation and treatment under legislation for the duration of their incapacity.
Remembering, of course, that in order to continue to receive entitlements every ACC client is obliged to provide a medical certificate on a regular basis which outlines their current situation, thereby meaning that their entitlement is being frequently "reassessed".
There is no "free ride" as implied by the use of the word "sinecure" in the editorial.
As we have stated previously Acclaim Otago is certainly not saying that people should not be assessed.
We agree that assessments are necessary to ensure only those who are entitled to receive ACC support do so, but the excessive use of such continuous re-assessments, which seem to disregard previous assessments identifying people as having a permanent incapacity, is pointless and a waste of levy payers' funds.
In both the 1974 and 1982 Acts there was provision for a "permanent pension".
Once a person's injury had stabilised an assessment was made of their residual work capacity.
If there was deemed to be a permanent loss of work capacity then a permanent weekly compensation payment was made based on the percentage of that incapacity until the person reached retirement age.
We have long argued that this was a fairer system as it acknowledged that some people would never return to "full" work capacity but may have "partial" work capacity and their weekly compensation adjusted accordingly.
Under the original Woodhouse principles this meant that people received real compensation in acknowledgement of the permanent nature and impact of their injury on their work capacity.
It is our belief that a return to the original intent of the Woodhouse principles, including a permanent pension for those fully or partially incapacitated permanently by their injury, would effectively stop the continual re-assessments that we spoke of in the articles (ODT 26.1.10) which serve no useful purpose other than to line preferred assessors' pockets and place considerable and needless stress on injured people and their families.
Denise Powell is president of Acclaim Otago, an ACC claimant support group.
