Nosey people!

**Ixion** · 5th January 2008, 11:00

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

...
As you know disability is my boat. A drunk driver who is crippled gets a mobility van whether they are able to drive it or not. I had to find $25,000 to by a mobility van because Nats, who was born disabled, cannot drive it so I do not get help...go figure.

You may say it's different depts, however, ACC. Income Tax is just tax to the Govt so at end of day the Banker is the Govt.

...

That is a valid complaint. There is no equitable justification for the invidious distinction between those disabled as a result of an accident and those disable due to other causes.

And, in fact, Sir Owen Woodhouse, the architect of the ACC sheme, intended that stage two should extend the scheme to non-accident disability. And the original 1972 act made provision for that.

And subsequent governments prepared to implement it. And almost made it.

The “Third Woodhouse Report” was prepared by the Law Commission when Sir Owen Woodhouse was its president. In its report “Personal Injury, Prevention and Recovery”, the Law Commission recommended an end to the “inequality of luck” which flows from providing cover for those who suffer personal injury by accident, but not to those who are disabled by sickness or disease.

The Government appointed a working party under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Keith, then of the Law Commission, to further develop the policy of extending ACC cover to sickness. The Government’s intention to expand the scope of cover was announced in the 1989 Budget. The legislation to implement the Government’s policy was introduced as the Rehabilitation and Incapacity Bill 1990. That Bill was never enacted.

Never made it because it was knobbled by the 1990 National government , another little deed that the NZ public can thank them for, and those who support the original intention have not been able to restore that commitment.

If Labour had won the 1990 election, Natalie's condition would be covered under ACC. A much fairer situation. Sad, as usual greed triumphed over fairness.

**Grahameeboy** · 5th January 2008, 15:50

Originally Posted by Ixion

That is a valid complaint. There is no equitable justification for the invidious distinction between those disabled as a result of an accident and those disable due to other causes.

And, in fact, Sir Owen Woodhouse, the architect of the ACC sheme, intended that stage two should extend the scheme to non-accident disability. And the original 1972 act made provision for that.

And subsequent governments prepared to implement it. And almost made it.

Never made it because it was knobbled by the 1990 National government , another little deed that the NZ public can thank them for, and those who support the original intention have not been able to restore that commitment.

If Labour had won the 1990 election, Natalie's condition would be covered under ACC. A much fairer situation. Sad, as usual greed triumphed over fairness.

Well the van is the main issue. I may still have had trubs getting the wheelchair as it was an age thing and ACC with all it's rules may not be any better.