Human rights plea at ACC ‘ageist’ claim
John Evans says ACC discriminates against oldies by cutting off their earnings-related compo. Martin Van Beynen reports.
Does ACC discriminate unlawfully against over 65s?
Christchurch retired real estate agent John Evans, 78, wants the issue tested and is hoping he can get legal representation for a hearing before the Human Rights Commission later this year.
His beef is ACC policy that means over-65s who are still working and paying full ACC levies get earnings-related income compensation for only two years after their injury. The payments also stop for people who have been on earningsrelated compensation for two years up to turning 65.
‘‘Lots of over 65s are still working and more will. But if you are over 65 and have an accident at work or at home and can’t work, your income payments stop after only two years because you get the pension. That’s treating over 65s differently from other people,’’ Evans said.
He claims the Accident Compensation Act is inconsistent with the right to freedom from age discrimination in the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and has asked the Human Rights Commission to issue a declaration to that effect.
Evans can’t argue his case before the HRC for health reasons and a quote for legal representation is about $35,000. He has been refused legal aid because his wife has substantial assets.
‘‘This is a social issue and I don’t think I should have to fund it. I’ve given it my best shot,’’ he said. If he can’t get representation the proceedings will lapse.
He started his efforts to have the policy changed in 2008 after his own earnings-related compensation stopped when he became entitled to superannuation. He had received ACC payments since 1989 when a tennis accident resulted in nerve damage and pain that prevented him from working.
ACC statistics show 12,572 people over 65 made a new ACC claim last year for work accidents. That was about half the total for the highest claiming group – 25- to 29-year-olds. In 2020, about 238,000 over 65s claimed for injuries in the home, compared to about 66,000 for the age group 60-64.
Evans said since people were all living longer and working longer, 65 was not a fair cut-off point and could cause severe hardship. ‘‘Some over 65s still have commitments and may still be helping to support family,’’ he said.
Some perfectly able over 65-year-olds could be discouraged from working or doing activities because of the risk, he said.
ACC has applied to strike out his application arguing the right to freedom from discrimination may be subject to justified limitations.
It argues the age limit is a policy decision based on the fairness, sustainability and efficiency of the ACC scheme and income compensation cannot continue indefinitely. The age of retirement was a rational point to cease payments because it was difficult to predict when someone intended to retire.
Such assessments would be complex and expensive, it says. Other accident compensation entitlements such as home assistance, treatment for injuries and rehabilitation were not subject to time limits.
Wage and salaried over 65s earn about $5 billion each year and self-employed seniors earn about $1.7b.
‘‘Some over 65s still have commitments and may still be helping to support family.’’ John Evans