ACC scheme ripe for reform
admits. So many people suffer unacceptable harm while battling the state-funded giant.
The report seems essentially right in its claims, based on a careful consideration of the fantastically complex legal and philosophical battles about what ‘‘caused’’ the injury for which compensation is sought. These rarified disputes are increasingly recognised for what they really are by ordinary people on the ground.
ACC takes a narrow and legalistic approach to the law to save money, resulting in massive injustice. Many people are genuinely suffering but cannot prove in court the injury was caused by an accident. So they miss out.
More and more people now view ACC as the brute they must battle rather than the guarantor of our rights to compensation under the celebrated ‘‘no-fault’’ scheme. The report says even the ‘‘no-fault’’ label is no longer quite accurate.
Too often, disputes with the corporation tail off into byzantine quarrels about whether the claimant has provided ‘‘full disclosure’’; or lead to endlessly complex courtroom disputes where the lay understanding of ‘‘cause’’ is lost in a farrago of jurisprudential debate and fantastication.
The ACC scheme was supposed to replace the legal lottery of compensation with a straightforward scheme to provide help to citizens. In some ways we are back where we started.
The report shows the myriad ways the system is weighted in the corporation’s favour. It is a monopoly, and acts like all other monopolies, in its own interests. The report recognises this will never fundamentally change, so it proposes a new body with countervailing power: a personal injury commissioner to help people navigate their way through the ‘‘incredibly complex and difficult’’ complaints process. The commissioner would be a people’s tribune in the labyrinth.
Arguably, though, the problem lies deeper. One of the reasons ‘‘causation’’ is such a nightmare is it assumes a clear distinction between injuries caused by accidents and those resulting from illness or an existing medical condition.
A more fundamental question is whether the scheme should cover illness as well as accident. Both lead to human suffering, so why should the state compensate one and not the other?
Changing the scheme to cover both, of course, would mean a huge increase in the bill. Governments, as a result, have decided to stick with the status quo.