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.
