In brief:
- Rongoā Māori, a traditional healing practice, is funded by ACC with loose guidelines, raising concerns about exploitation.
- Other alternative therapies like shockwave and yoga remain largely unfunded by ACC.
- ACC spending on Rongoā has surged from $250k in 2020 to $6m in 2024.
- Cultural practices in Rongoā such as karakia raise questions about taxpayer funding for spiritual activities.
What is Rongoā Māori?
Rongoā (also known formally as Rongoā Māori), a traditional healing practice, is officially recognised by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in rehabilitation programmes, but loose guidelines regarding its definition raise concerns. Anyone can access this service equally under ACC.
Meanwhile, other alternative therapies remain overlooked when it comes to funding by the state insurer.
Rongoā includes such practices as mirimiri (bodywork), whakawhitiwhiti kōrero (support and advice), and karakia (prayer), all culturally grounded in Māori spirituality.
Increasing funding going to Rongoā services
Since its inclusion in ACC funding in 2020, Rongoā services have seen an increase in expenditure from just over $250,000 in 2020 to over $6m projected for 2024.
ACC funds Rongoā services at a maximum rate of $125 per hour, plus GST, and covers the costs of sundries and herbal preparations used during sessions.
Are Rongoā “services” cultural practices, or are they medical treatments?
The categorisation of Rongoā as “social rehabilitation” rather than a medical service allows it to bypass the scientific validation required for other treatments.
Although Rongoā practitioners are not required to have formal medical training, they must register with ACC to provide these services. According to the ACC contact centre, detailed descriptions of what constitutes ‘Rongoā’ are not strictly required for invoicing, but including such descriptions “may” be beneficial to assist the processing team.
What happened to the line between church and state?
Furthermore, practices such as karakia are deeply embedded in Māori cultural and spiritual beliefs. This raises concerns about whether taxpayer money is being used to fund what is essentially a form of religious practice.
In most cases, government funds are not used to support religious activities due to the principle of separation between church and state. However, ACC’s commitment to Rongoā services seems to blur this line. When has a Christian pastor been able to claim ACC funding for praying over a parishioner’s recovery?
A Treaty obligation or an unfair bias?
While some may view Rongoā’s promotion through taxpayer funding as an extension of the government’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, if that is the case shouldn’t it be more transparent and not obscurely under ACC?
In contrast to ACC’s stance on Rongoa, relatively standard and proven treatments, such as shockwave therapy, are not covered by ACC in most instances. If, for example, an approved physiotherapist uses an unapproved treatment and bills ACC, the therapist can be charged (this has occurred). This is even if the patient is cured and the charge was no more than an approved therapy would have cost.
Are loose definitions opening the door to exploitation?
The Centrist has received reports from recipients of Rongoā treatments who say practitioners have offered them services like manicures and hairdressing as treatments. These accounts suggest that the broad definitions of Rongoā for taxpayer funding may be vulnerable to abuse. Abuse is almost inevitable with any loosely administered system, particularly with a government programme, and we wonder why ACC would set themselves up for it.
No doubt there are many legitimate practitioners of Rongoā who genuinely utilise traditional Māori knowledge to provide meaningful treatments. But we wonder how many people are paying the rate ACC is charged for this same service, when the money is coming from their pocket?
