95bFM Problems of the Social Security Amendment Bill
18 March, 2026
Interview by Theo Hayden, adapted by Chloe Porter
For the past 20 years, the Ministry of Social Development has required successful ACC claimants to repay supplementary assistance provided to them while their claim was being processed. This left many claimants with significantly reduced payouts and even debt.
Last year, the High Court found that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) did not have clear legal authority to reclaim supplementary assistance when ACC back-pay was granted. This news would have been beneficial for claimants with outstanding debts; however, the government quickly began to change the law retrospectively.
Instead of appealing the High Court's decision, the government began passing legislation that would make their unlawful reclaims legal. On the 18th of February, the Social Security Amendment (Accident Compensation and Calculation of weekly income) Bill had its first reading. It was passed under urgency, and its final report was produced on the 26th of February.
Honorary associate professor and one of the submitters to the Bill Select committee, Dr Susan St John, spoke to 95bFM’s The Wire about the consequences this legislation will have. “The argument is about the supplementary benefits that somebody on a benefit may access simply because they need extra assistance for accommodation, food, for special disability support which the Ministry had been treating rather inconsistently.”
When a claimant had to wait for some time before their ACC got approved, the benefits they received during that time—for food, accommodation, special disability support—would need to be paid back if more than their granted ACC allowance.
There were also disputes over the MSD creating debts when there was not enough back-pay to cover these repayments. This was the issue taken to court, and the High Court decision was that what the MSD had been doing by deducting the supplementary payments was illegal.
St John says this could leave claimants worse off after seeking an ACC claim. She also raises concerns for abuse survivors who lodge ACC claims, as they may be left with more debt after the process.
Concerns have also been raised for married partners. The benefit system bases the supplemented payments on the married couple as a unit, meaning payments may be for both of them at the couple rate. However, that benefit could also be clawed back from the partner making the claim.
St John says there are wider problems with trying to make the ACC and welfare systems work together, particularly because the welfare system doesn't treat partners as individuals as they are by ACC.
St John also questioned whether the select committee had adequate time to consider the large number of public submissions. She believes those in vulnerable financial situations, including those who were injured before entering the workforce or while receiving a student allowance, deserve to be paid careful attention.
“Those people are the ones whose submissions should have been given a great deal of attention. I can’t see how the Select Committee had time to read those 850 submissions.”
St John warns that the policy can leave some claimants worse off while waiting for their ACC claims to be resolved. She says this legislation raises serious questions about the purpose of pursuing an ACC claim in the first place.
“What’s the point of pursuing an ACC claim if the money is just going to be shuffled to a different area of government and leave them saddled with debt?”
Susan St. John says that while the policy is a significant issue, it also reflects a larger issue within the welfare system.
“The idea that a highly targeted benefit system must never give more than a dollar than is strictly deserved is very harsh. The harshness of that is reflected in this bill and its consequences.”
