Don Rennie
Independent legal specialist on New Zealand Accident Compensation, personal injury and related issues
About Don Rennie
I am a retired lawyer having practiced since 1960. I was the First Director of Research and Planning for New Zealand Accident Compensation Commission and Consultant to original three ACC Commissioners. I have also been an International Consultant on workers compensation systems, leading the establishment of new Workers Compensation systems in the Australian States of Victoria, South Australia and Norfolk Island. I have also been Convenor of the NZ Law Society ACC Committee for 30 years and a public speaker on legal issues related to personal injury and associated issues.
In my life I have also been a coroner, Stipendiary Magistrate, Company Director, Chairman of a charitable aged care trust, Chairman of Council of District Governors of Lions International in New Zealand, and a Board member of several community organisations
For over 50 years I have been helping Kiwis navigate accident compensation with clear advice and trusted insights. My mission has always been to ensure that the New Zealand Accident Compensation System embeds in legislation five core principles set out in the Royal Commission Recommendations in 1967 (Woodhouse Principles) of Community Responsibility, Comprehensive Entitlement, Complete Rehabilitation, Real Compensation and Administrative Efficiency.
I continue to provided policy advice to the New Zealand Government and governments around the world to ensure that systems providing compensation for personal injury by accident provide fair coverage and access to justice for all victims
I have written books, papers and articles about the New Zealand Accident Compensation System and legal issues related to fairly compensating accident victims. You can see my main publications here:
Accident Compensation
Publications
Multi-volume legal text / practitioner reference work on ACC law. Widely cited in legal analysis and teaching and used as a core reference on ACC law in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Written to give an employer practical explanations of their duties under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992
Provides detailed guidance to lawyers and other professional advisers. Originally published in 1992, it has become an authoritative guide to all New Zealand law relating to personal injury compensation and prevention measures. This service contains detailed discussion of the effect of legislation and case law, brought together with the practical experience from leading New Zealand personal injury advisers and lawyers.
Provides detailed guidance and commentary on the effect of legislation (primarily the Accident Compensation Act 2001) and case law related to personal injury in New Zealand. It is an authoritative resource for legal professionals, covering topics like cover, entitlements, dispute resolution, and weekly and lump sum compensation. The service is available via subscription on legal research databases like Lexis Advance and Lexis Red.
Brookers’ Accident Compensation in New Zealand,
D.A. Rennie & J. A. Miller
Brookers & Friends Ltd, Wellington,
1992
ISBN 0864720998 (loose-leaf)
(contributing author),
Miller, John (John Michael),;
Shearer, Cheryl;
Rennie, D. A. (Don Alexander);
Thomson Brookers,
c1996-
ISBN 0864722206 (loose-leaf
Personal Injury in New Zealand
(contributing author),
Hamish Evans and others
Thompson Reuteurs, 22/01/2016,
ereference : 41940655,
Loose Leaf: 30136642
ACC and the Woodhouse principles : Comprehensive Entitlement [Part 2]
Lawtalk,
Jul 2018; n.919:
p.19-21;
Superannuitants, beware the ides of ACC law - you may unexpectedly find out you are vulnerable
Lawtalk,
23 Sep 2016; n.897
p.29;
Explains the nature and purpose of ACC under the Accident Compensation Act 1972 and subsequent statutes, how the scheme is being administered and how surplus levies are invested.
Looks back at the 13 Dec 1967 report by the Royal Commission on 'Compensation for personal injury in New Zealand', aka the Woodhouse Report, its five guiding principles regarding compensation for injured persons, and the evolution since then of the Accident Compensation Act 1972 and 'no fault' accident compensation scheme which emanated from the report, to its current status today
Discusses one of the fundamental principles, that of community responsibility, that underpins the ACC legislation. Looks at the extent the principle is embodied in the legislation and at its administration by ACC.
Looks at the five principles underpinning our current ACC legislation, emanating from the recommendations of the 1967 Woodhouse Royal Commission Report 'Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand', and the extent to which they are embodied in legislation and its administration by the ACC. Focuses on the principle of comprehensive entitlement. Analyses why neither the legislation nor its administration by the ACC follows this principle, which recommends comprehensive entitlement for all persons covered by the scheme. Notes in particular the law with regard to restrictions on defined age limits and those receiving NZ Superannuation.
Considers the Woodhouse principles and the extent to which they are embodied in the legislation and its administration by the ACC. Focuses on the third principle - the need for complete rehabilitation for all persons covered by the scheme. Covers limitations on entitlement to rehabilitation, social rehabilitation, and vocational rehabilitation for accident victims under the legislation.
Considers the principle of real compensation, the fourth fundamental principle forming the basis of the statutory system which is the foundation for our current ACC legislation, as recommended in the 1967 Woodhouse Royal Commission report 'Compensation for personal injury in New Zealand' to replace the common law right to sue for damages for personal injury caused by negligence or breach of statutory duty. Explains the principle and looks at the extent to which it is embodied in legislation and its administration by the ACC.
Considers the principle of administrative efficiency the fifth fundamental principle forming the basis of the statutory system which is the foundation for our current ACC legislation, as recommended in the 1967 Woodhouse Royal Commission report 'Compensation for personal injury in New Zealand' to replace the common law right to sue for damages for personal injury caused by negligence or breach of statutory duty. Explains the principle and looks at the extent to which it is embodied in legislation and its administration by the ACC.
Warns all those who are of qualifying age for NZ superannuation of the provision under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 that if one incurs an accident after that age, one can only get weekly compensation payments from ACC as well as national super for 12 months, and then must choose one or the other, but not both.
Alerts to the consequences of the government's transformation of the legal aid system, via the disestablishment of the Legal Services Agency and the rolling of its services into the Ministry of Justice, for the legal representation of accident victims who have disputes with the ACC regarding their cover and/or entitlements
Concerns the legal limitation against the right to appeal ACC decisions to the Supreme Court. Observes the conflict between the Accident Compensation Act 1972, which stops the right to appeal ACC decisions at the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court Act 2003, under which jurisdiction is intended to be comprehensive. Notes the recent Supreme Court decision, 'J v ACC' [2017] NZSC 3 in this regard. Backgrounds arguments put to the ACC Minister and the Minister for Justice to amend the legislation to allow higher appeals for ACC reviews. Points out that ACC is not a tribunal and therefore the criteria for appellate review as currently legislated should not apply.
Reiterates the law on payment of entitlements to an ACC claimant, or to a lawyer representing a claimant in an ACC review or appeal, under Section 123(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Highlights a recent relevant case in which barrister and solicitor Andrew Cadenhead illegally obtained fees from ACC claimant Natasha Howell of Christchurch.
It doesn't rate
May/Jun 2011
Safeguard (Wellington, N.Z.),
Argues that claims experience has nothing to do with whether the employer has implemented optimum safety systems in light of comments from the ACC Minister Nick Smith and given the evidence of failed attempts, both in NZ and overseas, to implement a system of economic incentive schemes as means of reducing workplace injuries. Discusses experience rating schemes and economic incentives.
RIP : Ian Campbell
May/Jun 2004
Safeguard (Wellington, N.Z.)
Ringing in the changes
Aug/Sep 2001
Employment today (Auckland, N.Z.),
Summarises the deliberations and recommendations of the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee on the Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation (IPR) Bill, and comments on the implications for employers.
Can private ACC be cheap?
Mar 2000
Employment today (Auckland, N.Z.),
Expresses the author's opinion that employers will be better served by restructured ACC than private insurance. Gives reasons.
For better or for worse?
Sep/Oct 1998
Employment today (Auckland, N.Z.),
Looks at the proposed privatisation of accident compensation suggesting that it will not benefit employers or employees.
Some ACC anomalies actioned
Sep 1994
New Zealand manufacturer (Wellington, N.Z. : 1992),
Discusses the report of the Employment Premium Classification Consultative Committee, aimed at fixing anomalies in the accident compensation corporation scheme.
ACC experience rating reveals gaps
Aug 1993
New Zealand manufacturer (Wellington, N.Z. : 1992),
Discusses the amendment to the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 which allows premiums to be adjusted by reference to the 'accident experience' of employers.
ACC pre-employment statements cover disease, not injury
Mar 1993
New Zealand manufacturer (Wellington, N.Z. : 1992),
Discusses pre-employment statements concerning occupational diseases, and compensation for subsequent work injuries, in section 7 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992.
ACC experience ratings regulated
Jan/Feb 1993
New Zealand manufacturer (Wellington, N.Z. : 1992),
Explains the effects of the Accident Compensation (Accident Experience) Regulations 1992. Looks at reactions to the regulations by employers.
ACC experience ratings - the real impact
Jul 1992
Safeguard (Wellington, N.Z.),
Argues that the proposal to introduce an Experience Rating system for premiums payable by all employers and self employed people under the new Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act will result in undesirable practices.
OPINION : Getting your ACC act together
Oct 1989
Manufacturer (Wellington, N.Z. : 1988),
Summarises Budget changes to Accident Compensation. Discusses budgets and employers.
OPINION : Employers rights on ACC
Apr 1989
Manufacturer (Wellington, N.Z. : 1988),
Explains the rights of employers to pay the lowest permitted Accident Compensation levy.
Administering Accident Compensation in the 1980s
Victoria University of Wellington law review, Vol. 34(2), (June 2003) pp. 329-371
The director of research and planning, Accident Compensation Corp, 1974-1985, describes the shifts in organisational culture within ACC in the early 1980s, in response to political pressure in the turbulent economy of the period. Explains the fiscal consequences of the move to the 'pay-as-you-go' funding formula. Suggests that although the formal reviews of the scheme during the period paid homage to the original Woodhouse principles, the assumptions underlying these principles were losing ground in the face of economic tensions and eroding confidence in state-run programmes.
ACC: Lessons from History — ACC levies commentary Donald A. Rennie & Susan St John
PIE Hub / Economic Policy Centre commentary document (policy report). (2024).
Evaluation of proposed ACC levy increases and historical funding context for ACC.
Background to ACC — overview of NZ’s ACC scheme history, structure and issues.
Paper delivered to Wellington Medical History Society (5 June 2019)
"No fault Compensation Schemes -- Are they an Answer" (Commonwealth Law Conference, Cyprus, 7th May 1993)
"Negligence by the Health Professional in New Zealand 1992" (Greek/Australian International Legal and Medical Conference, Rhodes, 27th May 1993)
ACC papers presented at: Uppsala University Sweden (1986), Graz Austria (1988), Budapest Hungary (1988), Schladming Austria (1991, 1995)
ACC paper presented to UK Law Commission (18th October 1991)
Consequences From Employees Working From Home
Scoop Sunday, 9 August 2020
ACC Payout For Illegal Overstayer
Scoop Thursday, 21 January 2021
Is It Time To Take ACC Back To First Principles?
Werewolf.co.nz, 9 November 2017
Flaws seen in accident compensation rating
Dominion (Wellington, N.Z.), 16 Sep 1993
Details concerns about the new experience rating scheme for adjusting accident compensation premiums.
Birch urged to rethink ACC advice
Dominion (Wellington, N.Z.), 17 Dec 1991
Criticises the proposed new accident compensation scheme referring to statements made by the Labour Minister about definitions for coverage, compensatory damages for medical misadventure, appeals made to the district court, and the exempting of employers from provisions of the scheme.
A dangerous step backwards
Dominion (Wellington, N.Z.), 17 Sep 1991
Discusses planned changes to the accident compensation system.
ACC's viability put at risk
Dominion (Wellington, N.Z.), 20 Mar 1991
Government to hold ACC levy at same level as last year.
ACC runs the risk of coming a cropper
Dominion (Wellington, N.Z.), 21 Jan 1991
Examines the perceived problems of the present Accident Compensation Scheme (ACC) and argues that the scheme is, in fact, fair and inexpensive to administer.
ACC at 50: A uniquely Kiwi scheme, Lauren Crimp – RNZ
Thu 04 Apr, 2024
ACC vision still not achieved after fifty years
13 December 2017
Government response to ACC dispute resolution report encouraging
20 September 2016
Recalling the Future of ACC, Richard Gaskins
seminar paper — Australasian Law Teachers’ Association (1999)