Turner Judy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20268] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 At this stage I want to talk about the clause that has been mentioned by previous speakers with regard to resource allocation or the lack of resource allocation and the fact that such problems cannot be used as part of the definition of an injury caused by treatment. I want to clarify that matter because there are some important aspects to it. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) covers unexpected consequences. It does not cover consequences that are the result of deliberate delays. Therefore ACC is saying that it is not responsible for the health funding and treatment priorities of the Government of the day. 
However that does not leave patients with no redress. The question was asked as to whether it left health providers—and in most cases they would probably be district health boards—open to litigation. It certainly seems clear that where claims for personal injury caused by treatment as proposed in the bill are not covered because the personal injury is solely due—and the key words here are “solely due”—to a resource allocation decision the maker of that decision is potentially exposed to litigation in respect of that decision. That may well include district health boards. So I guess the point I am making here is that that provision does not leave clients or patients with no redress if they can prove that their condition has deteriorated because of a resource allocation issue. It just means that the accident compensation legislation is not the mechanism that they are able to use. 
I want to reiterate the point I made earlier that the word “solely” is very important in that context. If an injury is caused by both a resource allocation issue and a clinical action together then a patient may have a case to make with the ACC. An example we were given was of a patient for instance being mistakenly assessed as having 15 points on a waiting list instead of 50 points in a booking system and as a result being given the wrong priority for treatment. Because of the clinical error that goes along with that priority that patient may well be able to make a case to the ACC for his or her costs to be covered. However the availability of resources is not always reliant completely on policy. For instance we have known of staffing shortages that have been beyond even the control of the Government of the day. Sometimes there are worldwide shortages in particular specialities. Even if the funding is available the ability to procure the appropriate specialist to treat somebody is just impossible. Under those circumstances the corporation does not want to be held accountable for those kinds of things. I guess a case could be made that poor planning within the nation over a long period of time might have contributed to the shortage but it is a predictable delay. 
I want to make that point very clear because I think that we have been working under the mistaken belief that people who suffer injury through a resource allocation problem have no recourse at all and that is definitely not true. They certainly have recourse although it is not under this legislation.