Independent views By Brendan Horan

If you have a grievance with ACC, you are not alone. Close to one-third of all constituents who visit our Mount Maunganui office come with a grievance against this government agency; and this most often is causing hardship for themselves and their wider family.

What has become clear (in our local Tauranga office at least) is that ACC does have problems with client management , an apparent attitude and culture, we are told, to treating clients which is likened to an insurance company that it is more about how can we get out of helping this client. Constituents report this as frustrating coming from a government agency.

Regularly we hear from the same constituents that they have confronted a dismissive attitude, have not been provided answers to queries, nor have they been informed in relation to their rights under the ACC act; and that the ACC office is likened to an impenetrable fortress.

The intention of this Act is to provide for New Zealanders a system of managing injury caused through accidents; and to prevent, as happens in other countries, people suing one another. A system the Act states to: 'Provide cover for injuries no matter who is at fault” and to enable: 'Freedom from injury and its consequences”.

Many 35-plus year old constituents report that acceptance of an injury seems to be determined by age; and that ACC generally manage to decline claims on grounds that there was a pre-existing condition which has contributed to and, or, aggravated further the current injury. They justify their position by sending clients to various experts and independent assessors chosen by the agency, (we are told), as they are actually favoured providers that most often support the agencies desired outcome. Arthritis is a favourite, yet in reality we all start to develop degrees of this post 35.

Many constituents report conflicting results from the ACC-appointed specialist assessments to those from the specialists their trusted GP has referred them to. Further, ACC has a panel of experts who make assumptive determination from paper assessments only – they call this a balanced view across the conflicting reports. The view most often, we are told, seems to best suit the agency.

The Act has becoming increasingly difficult to interpret since inception, and various Ministers making changes have compounded this. Case reviews are an option clients can request. But these are fundamentally legalistic and Joe Average hasn't really a hope of representing themselves.

I believe that there needs to be greater transparency from this agency; and there must be greater openness and fairness in the consultants and providers they use. Should you have a problem I suggest you visit your preferred MP, as they may be able to assist. There are also advocacy groups and one or two well-informed lawyers out there.

Facebook.com/Brendan.horan.336 twitter.com/brendanhoran or Phone Brendan on 574 0253.