ACC ripe for reform
Anew report raises fundamental problems in the operation of ACC. The question is whether the proposed reforms would cure the problems, or whether even more radical changes are needed.
The report, by the Law Foundation and the University of Otago, says hundreds of thousands of claimants are denied cover each year – far more than the Accident Compensation Corporation admits. The result is that many people suffer unacceptable harm while battling against the huge, state-funded giant.
The report seems essentially right in its claims, which are based on a careful consideration of the fantastically complex legal and even philosophical battles about what ‘‘caused’’ the injury for which compensation is sought.
ACC takes a narrow and legalistic approach to the law in a bid to save money, and the result is massive injustice. Many people are genuinely suffering but cannot prove in court that the injury was caused by an accident. So they miss out.
Many people now view ACC as the brute they must fight rather than the guarantor of our rights under the celebrated ‘‘no-fault’’ scheme. The report says that even the ‘‘no fault’’ label is no longer quite accurate.
Too often, the disputes with the corporation tail off into byzantine quarrels about whether the claimant has provided ‘‘full’’ disclosure and when. There are endlessly complex courtroom disputes where the lay understanding of ‘‘cause’’ is lost.
The ACC scheme was supposed to replace the legal lottery of compensation, with its Kafka-esque complexity, with a simple, straightforward scheme to provide help to the citizenry. In some ways we are back where we started. Much depends on whether the claimant can hire the right legal expert to do proper battle with Goliath.
The report shows the myriad ways in which the system is weighted in the corporation’s favour. The corporation is a monopoly, as the report understands, and it acts like all other monopolies, in its own interests. The report recognises that 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.
This is a sensible change as far as it goes. But perhaps the problem lies deeper. One of the reasons ‘‘causation’’ is such a nightmare is that it assumes a clear distinction between injuries caused by accidents and those resulting from illness or an existing medical condition. A less niggardly approach to drawing the line might help a bit, although it would still raise questions about how to make the more liberal approach consistent over time and place.
A more fundamental question is whether the scheme should cover illness as well as accident. According to this school of thought, 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.
The corporation has become part of the problem.