A major investigation has been launched into why more than 2000 people have been affected by contaminated water in Havelock North.
The is the timeline of the unprecedented gastro outbreak.
Seven of eight gastro victims who applied for financial assistance were declined by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).
In August 2016, more than a third of Havelock North's population fell ill after their drinking water supply was contaminated with campylobactor.
Scott Kelly, of Havelock North, was seriously sick during the water crisis and gastro outbreak in Havelock North. Photo / File
ACC initially stated it could only cover claims which met criteria under the Accident Compensation Act Section 25 - which states the ingestion of bacteria is not considered an accident unless it is the result of a criminal act.
However, findings from the Government inquiry into the outbreak raised hopes it could be argued the regional and district councils' failure to protect public health was a criminal act.
After seeking legal advice, yesterday an ACC spokesman said the agency had reconfirmed its decision to decline seven claims, after clarifying how it interpreted Section 25 of the act.
Walk for Water, a march from Havelock North to Hastings CBD, after a gastro outbreak in Havelock North, from a Hastings District Council water supply.
ACC had clarified a "criminal act" had occurred only when a court or similar body found a criminal offence had taken place. There were limited exceptions to this, such as where it is obvious a criminal act has occurred but the perpetrator couldn't be found.
"As a result of the policy clarification, ACC confirms it is unable to extend cover to the declined Hawke's Bay gastro claims because under section 25 of the AC Act a criminal act has not occurred."
ACC did accept one claim relating to the outbreak, because it was for a physical injury to someone with the gastro bug, caused by the contamination of Havelock North's drinking water supply.
One of those affected was Scott Kelly, who as a result of gastro had part of his bowel removed, and had to take out a loan to keep up with his mortgage. He said his claim was initially declined citing section 25.
ACC will not support seven claims in Hawke's Bay after the gastro outbreak in 2016.
Although he felt ACC should have provided assistance, he hadn't been hopeful.
"I pretty much knew it wasn't going to be covered unless [Hastings District Council] were found liable at court. You just live with it and try and move on," he said, adding he was now hoping to receive help from the local financial assistance fund.
This was created by some of the agencies the inquiry found had failed in their duty to protect public health and prevent such outbreaks, including the Hastings District Council.
Yesterday council chief executive Ross McLeod said they were not surprised with ACC's decision, but had hoped ACC would revisit the policy.
"The decision is what it is, its a matter for ACC. Its unfortunate I guess from the council's perspective that ACC doesn't cover things that happen through no fault of ... people's own actions."
A decision on the assistance fund's successful applicants was "reasonably imminent". More than $300,000 had been requested by 37 people before it closed in September.
Hastings acting deputy mayor and gastro victim Simon Nixon had previously urged the council to place more pressure on ACC.
Yesterday he said it was hard to fight a large organisation such as ACC but, "my view is still that ACC should have come to the party. They've taken a very specific interpretation of their responsibilities, but I don't concur with that."
This was echoed by Wellington lawyer John Miller, who specialises in ACC cases. He said it was a "restrictive" way of interpreting the legislation.
A strict definition of a criminal act could be required under the Crimes Act, but Mr Miller said he considered it should be interpreted differently given the purpose of the ACC statute – designed to compensate, cover, and rehabilitate injured people.
"It's not an easy argument but it's possible on a purpose of interpretation to conclude what happened to those people is coming under the definition.
"That's an impermissible interpretation to say we can't compensate injured people because it will cost us money, that's the whole purpose of the act."
The 2016 outbreak was linked to the deaths of three elderly people, caused Havelock North businesses to suffer financially, cost local agencies nearly $4m and sparked national concern about the safety of untreated water.
