Focus on ACC

Murray Bell read a recent ODT editorial on the problems with ACC with more than passing interest. He offers his perspective on the issue.

It was with more than passing interest that I read your editorial What price accidents? (ODT 17.12.09).

Indeed there are problems with ACC from both the cost and service delivery viewpoints.

I agree strongly with your point that a degree of risk accountability should be built into the levy system.

We are reminded often that alcohol is a contributing factor in about 60% of major road accidents, so why not build in a substantial contribution to ACC as part of the reparation that should be made by those convicted of drunk driving causing injury or death?

This would be part of the criminal code, not the ACC legislation, as it may be argued it compromises the no-fault principles of ACC.

I have always felt it is pointless handing down prison sentences to these criminals because it only adds more burden to the already over-burdened taxpayer.

Keep them in the workforce and have them pay heavily, asset stripping if need be.

Draconian? Possibly, but it may well act as a deterrent that helps reduce the road toll and would reflect society's repugnance of drunk driving.

I would also advocate that those convicted of driving with excess blood-alcohol levels also make some contribution to ACC as part of the court sentence.

You have suggested that sports-injured patients should contribute more, but these cases rarely present with the complex multiple injuries seen from motor accidents which are at the high-cost end of the spectrum.

Your editorial also points out that ACC was originally intended to cover the workplace accidents of employed workers.

As I recall, the corporation was originally the Accident Compensation and Rehabilitation Corporation, but as its activities became progressively bogged down in compensation issues, the rehabilitation aspect was dropped.

I believe this to have been a fundamental error that was to set its future course on that which has lead to the present unwieldy and unfair system.

The original Act required that an event involving a physical force was a prerequisite to any entitlements.

This seems to have been progressively sidestepped to where there is indeed a very blurred line between the responsibilities of ACC and Vote: Health.

I believe there has to be a fundamental redirection of ACC back to rehabilitation with a definite time limit.

Lifelong support for those unable to be rehabilitated is the realm of Welfare, however unpalatable that might seem at present. Over the years the present ACC model has created a two-tier benefit system that has arisen through entitlements being based on cause, not on need.

This is well recognised, but successive governments have shied away from this injustice on the grounds of cost.

But the cost of doing nothing is already proving to be unacceptable as the present round of levy increase has highlighted.

I am sure there is a middle point in the gulf between ACC and Welfare entitlements that is a fair and sustainable level of support while also encouraging greater self-sufficiency.

There seems little or no incentive for self-help in the present system. Your editorial also demonstrates the absurdity of free accident cover for visitors to New Zealand.

However, this does not extend to illness.

Visitors, be they tourists, students, or seasonal workers who do not have medical insurance and who require hospital treatment, face very large bills which often prove impossible to collect and have to be written off by the health board.

An increasing number of countries require their visitors to produce certification of their health insurance cover when entering the country.

New Zealand should do the same.

Your conclusion that the very basis and scope of ACC needs urgent reassessment is entirely appropriate, but is the Government brave enough for the challenge?

• Murray G. Bell recently retired from the Otago District Health Board after 34 years as an accountant.

Otago Daily Times

Comments (0)

Show/hide comments

Show/hide comment form