These men and women down tools in their day jobs to respond to emergencies, and in their spare time endure disruption to their family and social life for the public good.
In many far-flung communities they are the first responders, not just to fires and crashes, but to medical emergencies.
Often, they deal with sad or horrific events involving people they know.
Depending on their location, there may be long waits for other services to arrive.
It is tough stuff. A job for the big-hearted, not the faint-hearted.
It is easy to understand how they could be traumatised by witnessing horrific scenes, and the sort of support they receive in the aftermath of such events should be top notch.
It was discomfiting to read when former Kingston chief fire officer Peter Ottley was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after he was first on the scene at an awful crash in December, the Accident Compensation Act let him down.
Because the event occurred outside of his employment, he was not entitled to any payment for the time he has had to take off work.
He is able to access support services within the United Fire Brigades’ Association (UCBA) and Fire and Emergency New Zealand system but that is not the same thing as compensation for time off work.
The UCBA has been agitating for a law change, but we are not aware of any progress on this.
The issue of the limits to Accident Compensation Corporation cover for people suffering psychological distress after traumatic events is not a new one.
Five years ago, it was revealed after the Christchurch mosques’ massacre, people who witnessed those horrific events but were not physically injured did not qualify for ACC help.
The previous government was loath to address this thorny issue, turning down an option to allow special ACC cover for the mosques’ situation.
Years before that, concern had been raised about the lack of ACC cover for people suffering ongoing trauma as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes.
Mental injury is not covered by accident compensation law unless it is a result of work, or related to a physical injury, or sexual abuse.
There will no doubt be other less publicised events where the law has not served traumatised people well.
Imagine, for instance, you survive a horrible bus crash without physical injury but several of your fellow passengers die and others are injured. The trauma may leave you needing specialist help and unable to work but you would not qualify for ACC support. However, fellow bus passengers who were physically injured, and the bus driver who was working at the time, would.
This is just one contentious issue around the existing law.
In December 2023, the New Zealand Law Society wrote to the government calling for a comprehensive review of the Accident Compensation Act, something it described as long overdue.
Incremental and often inconsistent amendments had been made to the law in the past 50 years. These made it difficult to reconcile aspects of this important social legislation or to apply the law at first instance, on review, and in the courts.
There were also a number of provisions which needed to be substantially improved, its letter said.
As far as we know there is no comprehensive law review in the pipeline, although in December the government announced an independent review of the agency’s operation, with then Minister Matt Doocey expressing concern about a decrease in rehabilitation rates while weekly compensation costs and average costs per claim were rising.
That will be no comfort to Mr Ottley and others affected by unfair aspects of the law as it stands.
We agree with him; the lack of coverage in situations such as his is a "massive" hole in the system, and something that must change.
