Aotearoa / New Zealand

1651 readers

23 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general

For politics , please use [email protected]
Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in [email protected]
If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to [email protected]
NZ regional and special interest communities

Rules:

Don't be a dick

FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom

Banner image by Bernard Spragg

Got an idea for next month's banner?

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

ACC at 50: A uniquely Kiwi scheme (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In the 1960s, workers' frustration was bubbling over. Measly compensation payments were not enough to make ends meet if they were injured and could not work.

Supreme court judge Sir Owen Woodhouse saw people battling the legal system to prove their injuries were caused by employers' negligence, and chaired a royal commission investigation.

He recommended a radical change - introducing automatic cover for injured people.

In 1973 the original Accident Compensation Act covered work injuries and car accidents, and an amendment the following year made it more comprehensive.

New Zealanders gave up their right to sue for damages, and in return got the no-faults scheme that still stood 50 years on.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I never thought about it like that. Sickness v accidents...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it's really stark too. If you're seriously hurt in an accident you get all these specialists helping you, treatment, equipment, even compensation for lost wages.

If you're seriously hurt by an illness you don't get any of it. I've had both and it was hard to believe it was the same health system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I've got friends who son is 'deaf' but it's neurological rather than an actual hearing issue (or something equally quirky), so they've got nothing from ACC without a massive fight. (There's a lawyer in the family, so not sure how it worked out in the end...)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Deaf people don't qualify for ACC anyway unless it was caused by an accident, so were they having to prove an accident caused him neurological damage? That does sound like the kind of thing ACC like to try to squirm out of.

Te Whatu Ora have this rule where disabled people don't qualify for disability funding if the disability is due to a long term illness. It's really bizarre.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure, unfortunately...

I got the impression if there was something 'mechanical' wrong with the ear (or similar) that there was support, but not for what's essentially a neurological issue (in their situation)...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

It's probably more that it's difficult to prove something damaged his hearing if it's not mechanical. ACC cover hearing damage, but not congenital hearing loss or Meniere's disease, etc.

ACC draw a very hard line. For example if you dislocate your shoulder in an accident they pay for it to be fixed but if they think it dislocated due to, say, rheumatoid arthritis or EDS then you are not covered.