Attached to the letter was a very detailed 82 page position paper.  The paper describes how the amendments to the ACC Act that Nick Smith pushed through last year:

• ignored the legal obligations required by the NZ Bill of rights Act 1990, the Human Rights Act 1993, the ILO Convention 17 and the UN Convention on the Rights of persons with Disabilities;

• ignored the international specialist audiological research that states unequivocally that ACC’s assessment process is not scientifically validated, is unfair and inequitable, and produced variable outcomes;

• failed to consider the widespread economic costs of untreated NIHL to New Zealand; and

• dismissed the individual and community hardship incurred by claimants as a result of ACC failing its own statutory objectives.

I agree fully with the paper’s conclusions that the amendments to ACC legislation and regulations concerning noise-induced hearing loss cannot be justified on legal or ethical grounds as they enact discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and race.

They cannot be justified on scientific grounds, as the science does not support the basis of ACC’s hearing assessment and age-related hearing loss schedules.

They cannot be justified on economic grounds as the overall national costs of not treating noise-induced hearing loss are significantly outweighed by the benefits of providing comprehensive rehabilitation.

And they cannot be justified on social grounds, as the implementation of a government policy that knowingly precludes people with a life-altering sensory impairment from receiving rehabilitation is in contravention of human rights.

I’m going to be doing my best to keep raising this issue with Minister Smith.  But I need your support, so how about reading the position paper I’ve linked to above and sending Nick Smith an email asking him to reconsider these cruel and discriminatory cuts.

Still, it’s disappointing that only the seven games on TVNZ will be captioned, out of the 48 fixtures in the entire tournament.

In his answer to the House yesterday, the Minister seemed to imply that TVNZ was the only broadcaster in New Zealand capable of live captioning, but I find this hard to believe from a technical point of view – aside from cost and political will, is there really a technological barrier?

Maori TV are broadcasting all 48 matches free to air, 16 live, and 32 delayed. Maori TV is also a state-owned broadcaster, and is simultaneously screening every match on a second channel with commentary in Te Reo Maori. If this is possible, then surely the Government could require captioning for the deaf community?

It’s now widely accepted that ensuring accessibility is an important part of hosting an international sporting event. At the recent Football World Cup in South Africa, post-match reports in International Sign Language were available for download from the FIFA website for every match. There’s really no excuse for an inaccessible Rugby World Cup next year: in addition to the 200,000 New Zealanders who could miss out, there’s also an estimated 70 million deaf people around the world to take into account!

Catherine asked whether the Minister would broaden the sports captioning project beyond the Rugby World Cup, or remind private broadcasters of their responsibilities to make their programming accessible under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. After all, we’re pretty far behind the international eight-ball on this one – the US has had live captioning of all televised sports matches since 1982.

Sadly, he had no response, and worse, staged a nasty and unwarranted little attack on the Greens using a bizarre question from fellow National MP Melissa Lee. Not a good look, and it backfired when referee Speaker Lockwood Smith, quite rightly, ruled it out of order.

Red card!

MPs have heard that some proposed changes to accident compensation cover may result in the reintroduction of the right to sue.

One of the primary tenets of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) system is that New Zealanders are covered for accidents and forgo the right to sue.

A select committee is hearing submissions on a bill which includes the introduction of a 6% threshold for hearing loss claims.

But the ACC Futures Coalition says that means for the first time in the scheme’s history an injury is being removed from cover.

Its spokesperson, Wellington lawyer Hazel Armstrong, says the move would be a field day for litigators such as herself.

The right to sue in tort in respect of personal injury was a common law right.  It is only the statutory provision of section 317 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act that prevents injured people from suing those responsible for their injuries:

No person may bring proceedings independently of this Act, whether under any rule of law or any enactment, in any court in New Zealand, for damages arising directly or indirectly out of—
(a) personal injury covered by this Act; or
(b) personal injury covered by the former Acts.

But remove the cover under the Act, as Nick Smith proposes for hearing loss of less than 6%, and the right to sue for personal injury is restored.

The Government estimates this cut to ACC cover will save ACC up to $4 million a year.    But it is not just that cost that will be borne by employers – there will be the associated costs of investigating and litigating damages claims by employees for low level hearing loss.

Employers have a choice – submit in opposition to this now, or lawyer up later.

National wants to erode the comprehensive cover aspect of the scheme in an ominous way.  They are proposing to remove the right to be covered by ACC for people who suffer a hearing loss of less than 6%.

Hearing loss has only ever been covered by ACC if it has been caused by an accident, by the work environment of an employee, or by medical treatment.  You don’t get cover if it is caused by a natural process or by a disease or infection.

But even if your hearing loss is caused by an accident or by your work environment, Nick Smith wants to deny you ACC cover if you are only a little bit deaf.

It’s like denying you cover if you have only a small fracture, or if you have only minor ligament damage.  Maybe those types of injuries are the next on his list of things to deny cover for.

But if you suffer only mild deafness, do you get back the right to sue the person who caused it?  Of course not!  You’ll have to meet the cost of hearing aids and any other costs arising from it yourself.

This proposal cuts at the heart of the no-fault, comprehensive cover nature of the ACC scheme.

It’s just not fair!