ACCforum: Rehabilitation Or Criminalisation - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Rehabilitation Or Criminalisation Sue Bradford's Parliamentary speech

#1 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 14 October 2004 - 04:06 AM

FBI profiler invited to ACC seminar
14 October 2004
By MARTIN KAY

ACC has been accused of treating claimants as fraudsters after it asked an FBI-trained criminal profiler to speak at a conference.

Green MP Sue Bradford said yesterday that the presence of Australian Steve Longford at the March injury prevention conference sent the wrong message.

Mr Longford was a Queensland police officer for 17 years, specialising in intelligence and covert operations, and is a founding director of the "corporate intelligence division" at The Distillery in Canberra.

He has trained as a criminal profiler with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is described on The Distillery's website as an "expert in detecting deception".

ACC has invited him as a keynote speaker at its Bold Perspectives, Shared Objectives conference in Auckland.

The conference is billed as providing "future perspectives on injury prevention and rehabilitation", and Mr Longford is to deliver a speech on "behavioural intelligence".

Asked by Ms Bradford about Mr Longford's attendance at the conference, ACC Minister Ruth Dyson told Parliament he had been invited because of his "outstanding work in the area of family violence injury prevention".

ACC general manager rehabilitation Gerard McGreevy said later that Mr Longford would be addressing issues such as preventing violence against children, which was a big cost to the corporation.

However, Ms Bradford questioned why there was no mention of Mr Longford's expertise in this field on the ACC conference website. The area is not listed on his company website either.

She also seized on Ms Dyson's assertion Mr Longford had been invited after his appearance at a similar conference in Australia last year.

At that conference, Mr Longford gave an address on how to spot whether someone was being deceptive.

Mr Longford told the The Dominion Post yesterday that his speech on behavioural intelligence at the ACC conference would follow a similar theme. "Behavioural intelligence" involved two main strands, including "detecting deception and detecting areas of sensitivity when people are being less than obvious about their injuries. . . recidivist fraudsters who don't want to return to work," he said.

Mr Longford said he was not directly involved in injury prevention work, but his address in New Zealand would be aimed at professionals who did work in the area and would look at preventing family violence.

http://www.stuff.co....79a6160,00.html
0

#2 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 14 October 2004 - 04:59 AM

heres a question:

http://www.thedistil...ayRanking.shtml

BA (Bus. Admin)
Chief Executive Officer
Murray Rankin

is murray rankin any relation to ACC's David Rankin?
also, can anyone bring up the page on steve longford?

The Distillery Corporate Services Division (CID) offers a number of highly specialised intelligence, behavioural and vocational courses. These courses have been developed by both Distillery staff and a wide network of national and international experts with years of experience in both the public and private sectors. The majority of courses offered by the CID are otherwise not currently available outside law enforcement agencies and include instruction in techniques at a level previously only available overseas.
  • INTELLIGENCE FOR MANAGERS (IM01)
  • BEHAVIOURAL INTELLIGENCE (IB01)
  • CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE (IC01)
  • BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (IP01)
  • OPEN SOURCE INFORMATION (IS01)
http://www.thedistillery.com.au/external/T...Education.shtml


Consulting and Support Services

The Distillery’s Corporate Intelligence Division (CID) offers a wide range of highly-specialised consultancy and support services, particularly in the area of security threat and risk assessment, crisis management, criminal profiling, personality assessments, specialist negotiations, policy formulation, and the detection of deception. CID's consultants combine years of experience in military, law enforcement and national security intelligence operations. CID offers a number of highly-specialised intelligence, behavioural and vocational training courses.


Clients

The Distillery provides services to an extensive range of government organisations and commercial bodies. The Distillery applies a strict policy guaranteeing completely confidential services. It is company policy not to publicly identify our clients.

Our clients come from the following fields:

• Security intelligence organisations
• Defence Industry
• Federal and state law enforcement intelligence and investigations
• Defence intelligence and target analysis
• Compliance and customs
• Immigration and border control
• Equity and Ombudsman support
• Crime and misconduct prevention
• Employment Assistance
• Banking and financial services
• Legal and consulting services
• Professional and personal development services
• Information technology industry
http://www.thedistillery.com.au/external/C...nyProfile.shtml

The distillery website does not have any in-depth detail on family violence issues that i could immediately find that would relate to the ACC conference and ruth dysons response in parliament.

are we being misled?
0

#3 User is offline   Ivan 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 22-September 04

Posted 14 October 2004 - 08:23 AM

ACC conference speaker - rehabilitation or criminalisation?
Sue Bradford MP, Green Party ACC Spokesperson

General Debate, Parliament, 13th October 2004



Mr Speaker,

This afternoon during question time I asked ACC Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson a question in the House about the invitation to Steve Longford from Australia to be a keynote speaker at ACC’s forthcoming ‘Bold Perspectives, Shared Objectives’ conference to be held in March next year.

The Green Party raised the issue because we cannot really understand why the ACC felt inspired to feature Mr Longford, given that his web profile identifies him as an FBI-trained criminal profiler with a specialisation in ‘deception detection’, unless the underpinning aim here is to use his expertise to get more people off income related compensation more quickly through a presumption that ‘deception detection’ will achieve this.

In response to my questions, among other things, the Minister suggested that this gentleman was invited because of his specialisation in family violence. Well we’ve looked again at the material readily available on the web, and at this stage we have not found anything in his resume that indicates anything to do with family violence.

Instead, Mr Longford’s contribution to the Australian conference the Minister mentioned earlier, says, in part, ‘Keynote Steve Longford – one of our four forensic profilers in Australia… the detection of deception is based on criminal intelligence and incorporates body language social psychology. Do you know when someone is being deceptive? Is someone purposely hiding information from you?” and so on.

That was the focus of his speech at the conference in Australia. This is why the ACC has invited him here. When this is allied to the fact that Mr Longford’s company focuses on intelligence and investigations management for counter terrorism, and government and corporate fraud and compliance, I think it is pretty clear what it is that ACC has invited him over to do.

I do realise that some MPs in this House probably think that countering claimant fraud and getting people off income-related accident compensation is actually ACC’s core purpose. The Green Party, however, subscribes to a somewhat different view - that the rehabilitation part of ACC should be primarily focused on helping and supporting people until they have genuinely recovered to the point where they can achieve real vocational independence; not on pushing people off because of dodgy computer certificates or treating people as criminals by case managers using behavioural profiling techniques such as those so expertly espoused by Mr Longford.

Claimants report that individual rehabilitation plans often seem to be a token exercise, with a speedy exit from weekly compensation entitlement through the vocational independence assessment process being the goal, rather than restoring the claimant's participation to the maximum extent practicable.

That perception is reflected in the petition currently before the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee calling for a Committee inquiry into ACC claims management. I hope the petition’s call is picked up the Committee.

I am afraid that the “Step by Step” computer course that attracted media attention yesterday is not an isolated incident. ACC claimants around the country are reporting that the inclusion of similarly short and inadequate courses in individual rehabilitation plans under the guise of retraining is widespread. These courses give claimants no real skills that enhance their employment opportunities. Rather, they result in just a piece of paper that shows they have completed the course so that they can be entered into the vocational independence assessment process and thereby have their weekly compensation stopped.

When experiences like these are combined with the invitation to Steve Longford to next year’s conference, the Green Party can’t help but feel that this is indicative of an ACC mindset that all claimants are potential malingerers, and that the primary focus is to exit them from entitlements as quickly as they can.

Restoring an injured person’s participation to his or her maximum extent practicable should mean what it says. It does not mean making a token effort at vocational rehabilitation. It does not mean treating all claimants as criminals, malingerers, or deceitful fraudsters and profiling them so as to exit them from the scheme as soon as possible. It does not mean forcing people off ACC and onto the dole, if they are lucky, or in many cases, onto nothing at all.
0

#4 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 14 October 2004 - 08:41 AM

do you remember the profiling method ACC uses for selecting their case managers?

ive got the name, will research it. time to profile the corporation.!

go back through the last few years of ACC annual reports,
some of your answers are in there, Garry himself said (i think)
that the corporation has behavioural training for their case managers


looking at the organisational tree of the corporation, the ACC board
are the step above the CEO and the last step before the ACC Minister.

Profile the ACC board members.

looking at the massive support the Australians got from their unions
on the James Hardie asbestos issue,
why are the unions so quiet here?
0

#5 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 14 October 2004 - 05:43 PM

This was Steve Longford's keynote speech that so impressed ACC..... can you see family violence mentioned anywhere???? hhhhmmmm who's telling porkies Ruth?
************

Detecting deception through behavioural Intelligence. Do You know when someone is being deceptive? Is someone purposefully hiding information from you? Want to know the best way to get information across to an unreceptive person?

http://injurymanagem...au/program.html
0

#6 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 19 October 2004 - 01:13 AM


Say it loud and proud, Ruth

18 October 2004

How peculiar that ACC Minister Ruth Dyson should feel the need to skulk around and find a less-than-convincing response when challenged on a criminal profiler being a guest speaker at an injury prevention conference, writes The Dominion Post.

Last week, Green MP Sue Bradford said having former Queensland police officer Steve Longford, who was trained by the FBI in detecting fraud, as a speaker on a conference about future perspectives on injury prevention and rehabilitation "sent the wrong message". Presumably, the very clear message Ms Bradford thinks is wrong is that ACC knows it is often a victim of fraud, and is pro-active about defending itself against criminals.

When asked to explain Mr Longford's presence, Ms Dyson seems to have gone around more times than a cat getting ready to curl up, in order to find an explanation for his presence that would not offend Ms Bradford. Ms Dyson said he had been invited because of his "outstanding work in the area of family violence and injury prevention". Later, an ACC spokesman said Mr Longford would be addressing issues like preventing violence against children.

Well, that's a surprise to anyone who has read either the conference website, or Mr Longford's company website. In the conference notes, Mr Longford is billed as a former police officer who has been engaged in detecting deception and has researched aspects of profiling, psychology and other means to create a new tool to detect crime. There is no mention of him being involved in anything to do with family violence strategies. He does not need to apologise for that. And nor should Ms Dyson or ACC.

Detecting fraud is a part of ACC's job. Ensuring money is spent wisely and well is, or should be, a responsibility of every government or quasi-government organisation that takes money from the public. It is nothing to be ashamed of. To do anything less would be shoddy and irresponsible. Ms Dyson should hold her head up with pride that Mr Longford is one of four keynote speakers. The others, like him, are renowned in their respective fields, though are all likely to be more palatable than Mr Longford to Ms Bradford. One is an authority on disability employment management, another on health and safety in the workplace, another on injury prevention. They, like Mr Longford, should all have something worthwhile to contribute to the conference.

Every employer and taxpayer makes compulsory contributions to ACC. It can only pay for compensation and rehabilitation because all New Zealanders contribute to its revenue base. Everyone who rips off ACC is taking money not only from taxpayers but also from genuine victims and their families.

ACC estimates that 10 per cent of claims are fraudulent. It uses various means to try to detect those patients and health providers who are dishonest in their representations, either of injuries or treatment. In the 12 months to May, 68 people were convicted of ACC fraud, and the corporation said in that period, it had detected fraud valued at $27 million. Preventing that level of offending is a message ACC should be sending, in every forum available to it.

There is no shame in ACC protecting itself from fraud. The shame is in not being proud to do so.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/...83a6483,00.html


:D :D :D had to laugh when i read this, the article doesnt even have an authors name ...

the article points to "claimant and provider fraud", but says nothing about how the corporation operates in a dis-honest manner to deny legitimate entitlements.

Quote

ACC estimates that 10 per cent of claims are fraudulent. .....
In the 12 months to May, 68 people were convicted of ACC fraud, and the corporation said in that period, it had detected fraud valued at $27 million.


okay, the corporation says they have around 1.5 milllion claims a year, and only 68 get convicted of fraud. that = .0045%, but the corporation "estimates" fraud at 10%. these figures do not make logical sense.

10% of 1.5 million = 150,000
if 150,000 claims are estimated as fraudulent, then wouldnt a lot more than 68 get convicted for it??????????

The corporation claims they "detected" fraud at 27 million, but how much of that was actual fraud? well, dont fraudsters get taken to court and convicted? if so then according to these figues, the average fraud amount for the convicted fraudsters = about $ 397058 each. thats a lot of $$$ for each connviction.

also a question:

The Crown Law Office:

The acc is a corporation, its setup like a private enterprise im told.
private companes or individuals cannot gain access to the crown law office to
demand investigation on issues - so how can the corporation use the Crown Law Office to pursue "fraud" claims ??????

is that an incorrect procedure? if fraud is detected, then why are the police not involved to properly investigate the facts of the matter and why is it not the police prosecuting for the alleged fraud when it is known that ACC have used private investigators to harass and INTERROGATE members of the community which the resulting reports are sent by the ACC to the crown law office for further legal opinion??? theres something not right here.
0

#7 User is offline   aphinity 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 13-September 04

  Posted 19 October 2004 - 03:15 AM

When balling out my case manager over the phone last Fiday about my situation, she advised me that

"we are an INSURANCE company".


If this is the case, I would expect as one who pays premiums (Levies) to an insurance company, on writing off my car in an "accident" I would be compensated the full
100% replacement value of that vehicle, not 80% as us ACC insurance "customers" receive.

So, as IDB suggests, there is something definately not right.

Does Tower insurance get the same priveleges to use the Crown Law Office if they feel that the vehicle owner willfully damaged the vehicle and is making a fraudulent claim? I wonder. How about AMI?

Surely, if this is the case, I can then take a dispute I may have with ACC to the Insurance Ombudsman???
0

#8 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 19 October 2004 - 06:41 AM

So did the article not even have NZPA? Gee maybe it was written by ACC?? LOL
The reason they're not proud is because it shows how devious they have been about how they treat claimants...*shaking her head*
0

#9 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:35 AM

ACC "estimates"???????? 10%????????? Here we go again. There was a post from Corporate Crimefighters that exposed this fraud as a myth conjured up through the media to place policy holders badly in the public eye so UNUM could get down to the serious business of embezzling entitlements. Fraud was estimated as high as as 14% by UNUM and even the crooked govenor of California got in on the act and in one speech quoted claimant fraud as high as 25% of claims.
With the advancement of the internet claimants organised themselves, like us and quickly accessed the information on claimant fraud. The truth was uncovered through serious research and claimant/policy holder fraud was proved to be only 3%. Most insurers allow for 7% fraud when they strike their levies.
If you do not believe me then ask the national MP who recently complained the ACC fraud unit was a waste of levy payers money because it uncovered fraud worth less than what it cost to run the unit. The only fraud charges ACC presents are those it has gained through entrapment with home help forms.
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 07 July 2008 - 01:23 AM

When ACC staff start thinking that the claimant fraud is as high as 10% and the fraud unit think the figures are even higher because the drive investigators tell them so it is hard not to believe the profilers could possibly be wrong do the same thing again with razzmatazz. The hierarchy paying a very expensive bill as to the credibility.

The reality is that fraud can only be determined if there is actual criteria to determine ownership. For example the ownership of a diamond go through a process of grading and identification in order to determine a value. The diamond will then have a registered owner. Fairly straightforward.

The ACC on the other hand think up a hair brained scheme to investigate a claimant to reduce their work like and after all what can they lose from a fishing expedition. Identifying a potential fraudster provide some credibility. Convicting one gives you hero status.

What does it take to convert a suspected fraudster. A tipster with some innuendo in order to initiate a private investigator. The private investigator had an artificial on the line will be unrelenting until he is able to persuade someone to sign some documents in accordance with his own spin doctoring in regards to a feud fragments of fax in the knowledge that a multibillion-dollar machine is up against an invalid with no resources.

ACC claimed 10% a fraudulent and it would seem that perhaps one third of those are chased away from their claim per year perhaps even believing they were not entitled simply because they were told. Other ones that screaming ignorance and innocents will be hounded and held with the files in one boat for many years on I just in case basis.

Over the last two or more years fraud has been in the highest level of long-term claimant exerts in a sustainable rehabilitation, all achieved without the benefit of the legislation
0

#11 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 07 July 2008 - 09:57 AM

Mr Thomas

This is a seriously interesting thread, which I find fasinating.

I agree with you on a couple of remarks. That is that people do take ACC word for things they say and you for one should be yelling the message!!! CHECK IT OUT. CHECK OUT EVERYTHING THEY SAY.

I will give an example: I recently got a copy of my up to date 'plan for getting back to an everday life'. All signed etc.

I have a very special concern about this IRP in that it has my injuries marked as Unobtainable-Not applicable- Seconday etc.

I verably asked CM why this is, seeing as I have a letter from them only a year old which lists my injuries properly.

Answer: My injuries from the old computer cannot be changed to the new computer.

Well I am not at all agreeing with the verbal answer only and will now get it in writing that my last years letter is still correct.

It is called being pro-active (short for covering ones arse!!), hence no need for a fear of any investigators one would hope.

Since I made a complete twat of myself believing their verbal doo doos 10 years ago when they told me I was not entitled to weekly compensation, yet I was still on light duties, I have followed the same pattern of utter distrust.

You may think I am subservient but there is a method in my madness. And that is to get as many of the dollars back that I am entitiled too, as I possibly can.

So I say to all out there in cyber land. Everything down on paper, to be used at a later date if need be.

Thats how an honest person gets their entitlements. Admittedly I will never get 100%, after the first big mistake!!! But it will do me, I hope.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users