Ae Marika! 8 Oct 2013
Posted on October 8, 2013 by admin in NewsWhen the chairwoman of the Accident Compensation Corporation, Paula Rebstock, announced that ACC had made a $4.9 billion surplus from “better performance by its rehabilitation services returning claimants to fitness” and that ACC was in its “best shape ever” I almost cried, because of the horror stories I have heard since National decided to privatise ACC and reduce what was once a world-leading accident compensation system to a corporate entity where profits have become more important than people.
I recall a couple of years ago, helping a guy in Kaikohe after an ACC doctor had recommended he be sent back to work.
This chap, a married man with children, had suffered a serious head injury in an accident while working in the forestry. He’d been laid up for months, he’d lost much of his co-ordination, he couldn’t drive any more, he’d lost touch with his workmates, he struggled to complete even the most simple of tasks, and he’d become seriously depressed. He’d been working through rehabilitation but often got frustrated and angry with those around him when he couldn’t do what his mind said he should be able to do.
National’s new ACC focus “on investment returns on $24.6 billion reserves, higher interest rates to reduce the current value of the future cost of claims, and new investment strategies” however, meant that this poor bugger was about to get a real shock.
ACC hired private medical consultants charged with “reviewing claimant histories” who had determined (without even the decency of discussing the case in depth with his doctor, or his therapist, or his family), that although this poor chap would never be able to return to full-bodied employment, he was fit for certain types of work and therefore he could be returned to the workforce.
But what sort of work was this guy now suitable for? Carpark Attendant. Carpark Attendant … in Kaikohe for god’s sake!! Except there are no jobs for Carpark Attendants in Kaikohe – or Kaitaia, or Taipa, or Kerikeri, or Kawakawa, or Dargaville, or Whangarei, or Wellsford or Warkworth for that matter.
ACC of course, didn’t care. They’d made their assessment, the guy was “fit for work”, and he should move to where he could find work.
Great … the guy’s struggling to cope with the basics of life and they expect him to up his family and move to Auckland – pull the kids from school and away from the friends and the community they grew up with, try to sell the house, pay off any outstanding debts, organise a removal truck, find a house in Auckland they can afford to rent (yeah right), find a school for the kids, find a therapist, find out where the Carpark Attendant jobs are … and then get in line with the thousands of others lining up for the same job!
Under the 1972 Accident Compensation Act New Zealanders gave up the right to sue for personal injury, in return for a government-funded 24-hour, no-fault insurance programme, paid for by all taxpayers and employers. 40 years later, Kiwis still aren’t allowed to sue, so how come government can walk away from their part of the deal?
AE MARIKA is an article written every week by Hone Harawira, leader of the MANA Movement and Member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau. You are welcome to use any of the comments and to ascribe them to Mr Harawira. The full range of Hone’s articles can be found on the MANA website at www.mana.org.nz
julia maskill says:
Post Author October 12, 2013 at 5:21 pmThe example of ACC pushing back against the guy in Kaikohe is dreadful and probably illustrates the human cost of ACC’s $4.9 b profit pretty accurately. But let’s not get fooled into thinking that the answer is to restore the right to sue for personal injury resulting from accidents. In the bad old days recovering compensation by suing was well known to depend on the ‘lottery’ effect . Lucky claimants could provide evidence that an individual with money caused the injury and would gain court-ordered compensation. (Remember that lawyers took a good slice of the compensation that was ordered in these cases.) The unlucky ones could recover nothing in court because the injuries they suffered were not caused by anyone else, or else there was a guilty party but they had no money to pay any compensation. The solution for accident victims is to give up the plan to ready ACC for sale by maximising its profits, and instead to restore measurement of its success in terms of rehabilitation outputs and on-going support where this is required.
Another complaint about ACC is that the level of support an accident victim receives is higher than a sickness beneficiary with comparable incapacity to work – this in its turn smacks of random, luck-based decision-making rather than distribution of financial support according to need. If we can restore a philosophical approach where wealth is equitably re-distributed in order to protect the welfare of the vulnerable then the answer to this one is simple – extend the application of income related compensation to sickness beneficiaries. If ever there was a time to do this it is NOW – ACC has produced the profit to make this affordable at last.