Effective Rehabilitation Questioned
More revelations in the media about "bizarre" practises within the Work Preparation Programmes used by ACC have prompted
support groups to canvas members about their own experiences. Some are being asked to write their own epitaphs, some are
being sent out on treasure hunts with the winners being rewarded with chocolate bars, some are asked to go out 'cold
calling' for employment whilst still on 'Fully unfit for work" medical certificates. Where is the justification or
accountability for the usefulness of these programmes?
ACC claims that some of the techniques used are simply trying to engage the groups. ACCLAIM says that if these
programmes were designed to really rehabilitate injured people to the 'fullest extent practicable' they would not be
required to 'engage' with a group. Rather they would be focussing on the specific needs and skills of the individual.
President of ACCLAIM Otago, Denise Powell, said "It is our understanding that some aspects of the courses are seen as
useful but, by and large, the feedback has been that most participants feel intimidated and belittled. Several have had
verifiable and documented aggravations of their injuries. To be treated as though all that is required is to learn how
to present oneself at an interview, or to learn how to write an effective application letter is ignoring the fact that
some people are able to obtain employment but are unable to sustain that employment for 35-plus hours a week due to the
nature of their injury."
ACCLAIM Canterbury President Murray Jorgensen expresses similar sentiments adding that the true purpose of the
Corporation's ill-conceived Return to Work and Work Preparation Programmes is to hoodwink claimants, reviewers and
indeed even the courts into believing that it is now OK to exit the claimant because "vocational rehabilitation has been
completed".
"Such programmes", Mr Jorgensen says, "should be implemented only after a claimant has received meaningful, genuine
training/retraining, i.e. has been rehabilitated to the maximum extent practicable provided for by legislation - not to
some low-paid, low-skilled, low-paid, soul-destroying, non-existent job. The reality is that no long-term claimants are
currently receiving retraining if they are unable to return to their former occupations and all who do have the gall to
request training are turned down flat."
Meaningful rehabilitation should be individually tailored to maximise that person's particular circumstances. "All New
Zealanders were entitled to real rehabilitation as part of the deal when they gave up the right to sue. The current
legislation allows for up to three years vocational rehabilitation but unfortunately ACC seems to find six-week group
courses preferable." Ms Powell said.