The Education and Workforce Committee has examined the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed. We recommend all amendments unanimously.

The bill would amend the Accident Compensation Act 2001. The bill would require the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to report annually on the level of access Māori and other population groups have to the accident compensation scheme. This change is intended to increase transparency, including by identifying any disparities in access.

The bill would also amend the purpose of the Act and the functions of ACC. These amendments are intended to ensure that ACC has a focus on the level of access that Māori and other population groups have to the scheme, and on what it can do to improve the delivery of its services. These amendments would make it clear that ACC’s goal to minimise the impact of injury is not restricted to minimising the impact of injuries for which claims are made.

The bill would also bring forward eligibility for the minimum full-time rate of weekly compensation from the sixth week of incapacity to the second week. This would mean that claimants on low incomes who worked full-time prior to their incapacity would not have to wait 5 weeks to receive the minimum weekly compensation rate.

As part of our consideration of the bill, we have examined its consistency with principles of legislative design. We initially had some queries regarding Māori data sovereignty and the possible collection of personal data, but are satisfied these have been answered.¹ We have no issues regarding the legislation’s design to bring to the attention of the House.

This commentary covers the amendment we recommend to the bill as introduced. We also discuss a theme that arose from the submissions process, but that did not result in a proposed amendment.

The bill as introduced would require ACC to “monitor access to the accident compensation scheme by Māori and other population groups”. Māori are specified in the bill to reflect the Crown’s obligation to Māori as partners under te Tiriti o Waitangi.

We heard from some submitters that the phrase “Māori and other population groups” positions Māori as just another population group, and does not reflect their unique status as tangata whenua and partners under te Tiriti.

We recommend replacing all references in the bill to “Māori and other population groups” with the phrase “Māori and identified population groups”. Following consultation with Pou Tangata of the National Iwi Chairs Forum on 27 March 2023, we believe our proposed wording would better acknowledge the status of Māori as Tiriti partners compared to the bill as introduced.

The Green Party is disappointed that despite submissions on the Accident Compensation (Maternal Birth Injury and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, no progress has been made on creating a te Tiriti clause.

Most submissions recommended that we specify the “other population groups” that ACC would be required to monitor. The main groups that were identified include women, Pasifika and other ethnicities, refugees and asylum seekers, people who identify as LGBTQIA+, people with disabilities, and young and old people. We recognise that these are important population groups that may face disparities in access to the scheme.

We understand that this proposal was previously considered during the development of the bill. Government advisers continue to recommend against defining “other population groups”. This is in order to enable ACC to be flexible and responsive in its approach, as opposed to being focused only on what is required by legislation. Defining “other population groups” in legislation could make it harder for ACC to respond to new evidence as it arises, for example by reporting on groups not previously identified as facing disparities in access to the scheme.

We accept this rationale for not specifying in legislation the population groups ACC would need to monitor. However, it is our expectation that ACC will monitor the population groups identified by this commentary, should the bill pass. It would also be our expectation that ACC’s reporting include an intersectional analysis, and that it continue to monitor groups even if those groups achieve greater equity of access to the scheme.

The Green Party supports calls for the legislation to provide direction on an intersectional approach, and to include a non-exhaustive list of population groups that would need to be monitored.

The National Party does not believe this bill is necessary, outside of giving better effect to the purpose of weekly compensation.

There is nothing that stops ACC from reporting on these issues in their annual report; therefore this legislation serves no purpose other than to waste the House’s time.

Until the Clark Government dispensed with the practice in 2006, ACC produced comprehensive annual injury statistics. It was a mine of information that did not have a legal basis. It could easily be reintroduced without the need of legislation to do so. As a matter of fact, the 2022 annual report of ACC included 12 pages of the work it is doing to improve access for Māori, which is not something legally required.

It is for this reason that the National Party presents this differing view.

The ACT Party opposes the Accident Compensation (Access Reporting and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its current form.

This bill seeks to legislate the data collection and reporting requirements of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and improve access to the Accident Compensation Scheme (AC Scheme) for Māori and other population groups. Additionally, it expedites eligibility for the minimum rate of weekly compensation for an approved ACC claimant from the sixth week of incapacity to the second week of incapacity.

The ACT Party supports the notion that those who are unable to continue working in their full-time role because of injury should be able to claim compensation following two weeks of incapacity as opposed to six. This measure will prevent claimants who are on lower incomes from being disadvantaged due to injury. Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment noted that the costs of this are negligible.

Moreover, the ACT Party endorses this bill’s requirement that ACC must collect and report on the ability of population groups in New Zealand to access the AC Scheme. Providing a clear picture of any disparities that population groups may face while accessing the AC Scheme will better inform ACC’s decision-making. ACT hopes that this approach will result in long-term cost savings for healthcare provision in the future.

Despite this, the ACT Party cannot support this bill because it sets a double standard, specifying ACC’s data collection and reporting requirements for Māori above all other population groups. In a report to the Education and Workforce Committee, Government advisers noted that by specifying population groups, ACC’s ability to adapt data collection and reporting would be reduced in future. In contrast, a high proportion of the submissions to the committee recommended that “other population groups” were specified in the legislation.

In attempting to do both, this bill has identified and favoured the Māori population group above all others. This singling-out of one population group is inconsistent with the view of the ACT Party that all New Zealanders are inherently equal in society. Subsequently, the ACT Party cannot support this bill in its current form.