ACCforum: The Health Select Committee Videoconference - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Health Select Committee Videoconference IN CHRISTCHURCH

#21 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 28 October 2004 - 07:36 AM

From: billy
Message 6043 in Discussion

Hi from Billy - The Minister does not have the final say - the S-C will report to the House recommending (or not) what amendments in the Bill it recommends to the House should go to a second reading. If the Committee members were shocked with the prima facie allegations then they should not have been - the ACC problems and alleged fraud has been in the media for two years that I know of. I have the distinct impression that some of the Committee members were acting with reckless disregard to the fact that some of the amendments (Cl 23 & 24) were affecting the rights, interests and obligations of claimants and/or were recklessly indifferent to that. There is a case for a claim of bad faith being blind-eye knowledge. In my view the Amendment Bill is also ultra vires the principal Act because the principal Act itself, was not enacted constitutionally correctly - manner and form. There is reliance on the ex turpi causa public policy principle that the Government should not benefit from an illegal and/or immoral act and it would be an affront to the public conscience for the Parliament to grant the Government the amendments it seeks because Parliament would thereby appear to assist or encourage the Government in its illegal conduct ab initio. Remember also that the Chief Justice Sian Elias publicly put the Parliament on notice a couple of months ago that it may not necessarily have absolute privilege and its processes and procedures could be open to challenge.
0

#22 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 28 October 2004 - 07:37 AM

From: Prettycrafty3
Message 6041 in Discussion

Hi Billy, I was told by a submitter from another centre on another matter in the Bill that a person on the Select Committee told her that the Committee were impressed by the submissions. The Minister has the final say and it is possible that she may over rule and wipe the lot, cos there is MONEY involved. The ACC were charged with costs and lost an injunction over one of the items in this bill where they have proposed an ammendment, and this is why they are trying to ammend the law. Now they are trying to recoup their costs and it is feared
Dyson will support them. We got a few points across especially on FRAUD and one member wants to meet with us and see for herself just what is going on. Great, pleased to see you Madam!!!!!! The Chairperson kept saying the Bill was about Medical misadventure! Seems that is all she realised was in this bill's ammendments!! Great to be informed isn't it!!!! Not all our Members were allowed to speak and we were cut off unceremoniously at the end of 1 hr. Great eh!!!!!! Believe they are still going tonight hearing more submissions from the Acupuncturists who have had a number of submissions on a very important principle.
0

#23 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 28 October 2004 - 11:46 PM

"Locked horns with committee chairwoman Steve Chadwick"

It became evident that the chair, together with committee members, had no real conception of the seriousness of the "secondary issues" in Amendment Bill No. 3 and were content to focus solely on the medical misadventure provisions. I get the distinct impression that this public hearing and videoconferencing was a sideshow, the Bill's passage through the House is the main event, don't hold your breath waiting for the changes!!

No coincidence that a person due to give an important oral submissions to the select committee at Parliament was arrested on the way to the venue and not released until it was too late, nice one. Take note that no-one is immune to corporate excesses.

Christchurch Press

Submitters slam ACC

MPs considering proposed changes to the Accident Compensation Corporation's (ACC) medical misadventure system were yesterday left in no doubt about the organisation's unpopularity.

The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No.3) renames medical misadventure "treatment injury" and removes the fault element.

Early submitters yesterday had little to say about the bill, instead venting their anger over what they said was a difficult organisation: one even saying it was "corrupt".

Murray Jorgensen, of the Christchurch branch of ACC support action group Acclaim, locked horns with committee chairwoman Steve Chadwick after saying ACC had neither the will nor the inclination to administer the principal act in equity and good faith. "Furthermore, it is in the Government's financial interest to allow ACC to act in a perverse manner," he said.

Chadwick said his "controversial" statements were "not really related to this bill, which is about medical misadventure".

In his written submission, Jorgensen said ACC was "a corrupt organisation, which is actively engaged in the commission of fraud against the people of this nation on such a grand scale that beggars belief ".

"Evidence points to a covert policy that consistently denies claimants access to entitlement or to levels of entitlement matching claimants' needs," he said. "ACC cynically, callously and with the power of supreme arrogance engages in legal gymnastics by failing to implement court rulings that are adverse to it, thereby forcing individual claimants to go through the very same costly review and appeal process to seek redress. " The (bill) has the hallmarks of a hastily thrown together piece of legislation ... the perception is that ACC is endeavouring to increase its already significant powers and at the same time extinguish claimants' rights to redress."

Christchurch woman Lynette Neill raised concerns about the way ACC treated people with mental illness. "
They feel pressured and maintain that not only do they not receive equipment or treatment but also they have to get out of the ACC system, because it is not good for their mental health," she said.

NZPA
[SIZE=7][B]
0

#24 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 28 October 2004 - 11:58 PM

Not all of the following was spoken to, however it will be sent to the select committee as a supplementary submission to ensure that will be on the public record, there being no official recording of who said what to whom. Deliberate ommission I would say.

Oral Submissions

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to my written submission to the IPR&C Act 2001 Amendment Bill No. 3. My oral submission is not so much of a personal one as it encompasses the collective views and opinions of the many members and associates of Acclaim Canterbury Inc. I have also been appointed by Acclaim Nelson Region to speak on its behalf, therefore I crave the committees’ indulgence to allow me to speak for a longer time than that allocated to individual submitters. The matters I wish to bring to the committee’s attention are somewhat complex but are germane to the Bill’s intent.

Is it not intent to defraud or conspiracy to defraud or fraud when a statutory authority collects public money to carry out a function and it wilfully and intentionally refuses or fails to do that while representing that it does? Because that is exactly the situation we have with ACC. These are indeed very serious allegations of which Parliament, through the select committee has the power to fix. I am recommending that the select committee does not report to Parliament on this Bill and instead arranges for these allegations to be properly and fully investigated by gathering evidence, including affidavits.

I can’t begin to adequately express my abhorrence of the proposed changes, ACC has neither the will nor the inclination to administer the Principal Act in equity and good faith, furthermore, it’s in the government’s financial interest to allow ACC to act in a perverse manner. To long-term claimants in particular, ACC’s motto of Prevention, Care, Recovery is nothing more than sophistry.

I don’t propose to delve into the proposed changes to the medical misadventure provisions other than to say that while
there are still areas of improvement needed, the changes are long overdue and with which we agree in principle.

The first issue I bring to the committee’s attention is that to the best of our knowledge there was no consultation on the Bill before it was introduced in the House, Sec 300 of the Principal Act provides that in exercising any functions or powers under this act, the minister must have regard to the public interest and, in particular, the interests of taxpayers, levy payers, claimants and potential claimants. It is not an empty clause; it is binding on the minister to so act. From the content of this Bill, it’s patently obvious to even the casual observer that the minister flagrantly disregarded the interests of stakeholders and users of the scheme. It is imperative that the Minister’s procedural default be corrected.

The second issue is in the area of natural justice as it relates to both the Principal Act and the Amendment Bill and the flawed nature of the Bill as it relates to claimants’ rights and entitlements to genuine and meaningful treatment, social and vocational rehabilitation

This committee is bound to take a long hard look at the flaws in the Principal Act as it stands, and include the proposed even more flawed amendments tucked away in the Bill as “secondary issues”. This committee also needs to consult more widely with the people who are the primary stakeholders and users of the scheme, hence my recommendation that the Committee does not report to Parliament on the Bill.

I am mindful of Acclaim Canterbury’s assertion in its written submission that the Corporation is actively engaging in systemic fraud not only against all levy payers in general but also claimants in particular and has been doing so for many years. It annually collects $B2.4 in levies, has in excess of $B5 invested in financial markets, shares and government bonds, it stands in contravention of the legislation by investing funds that are sorely needed for rehabilitation.

Hard evidence of allegations on fraud cases, - what procedures in natural justice has the select committee put in place to hear cogent evidence of those allegations and will it issue directions to receive affidavits? If the committee requires affidavits from affected claimants to support these allegations of systemic fraud against claimants, I will make the necessary arrangements. In the meantime, having regard to the constraints of time this morning, I will give you just two examples of ACC’s perverse, irrational and malicious activities.

1) A member of Acclaim Canterbury had her weekly compensation unlawfully suspended and was accused of “misleading the Corporation”, in other words, fraud. Our investigation clearly established that the allegation that she had worked for 1½ hours without informing ACC was arrant nonsense, moreover her case manager, having been found wanting, became nasty and vindictive, colluded with a contracted service provider and deliberately set about concocting a case to justify their actions. To cut a long story short, after refusing to hand over a copy of the claimant’s file and after being unlawfully suspended for some 8 months, she applied to review ACC’s Claytons decision and her appeal was upheld. It then further became necessary to write to the CEO advising him that a complaint would be lodged with police if the lawful payment outstanding was not paid within 5 days; - the amount being a meagre $150 net. This is the document gleaned from her file that states that the claimant had committed fraud and vindicating the case manager. The whole episode was a tissue of lies and fabrications – this is not an isolated case.

The submitters following me have an even more horrific tale to tell, so horrific in fact that it makes mine pale into insignificance, my heart is saddened and my mind angered by the atrocities perpetrated against this family, it has become a nasty, vicious vendatta.

Turning now to the primary issue, natural justice, I feel confident that the committee members are well versed in procedure; Parliament is after all the highest court in the land, however, natural justice took a back seat when the Principal Act was enacted, for instance:

Sec 150 of IPR&C Act 2001 provides that only sec 122 of the District Courts Act applies in the ACC jurisdiction. That provision effectively removes claimants’ rights to summons witnesses, to apply for interim injunctions, apply for a stay of decision and rehearing if the original Judge has erred – all these rights are enshrined in both domestic and international law for every other New Zealander but not for an ACC claimant. It is dehumanising, it is discrimination of the worst possible kind and a critical reason why the select committee must scrutinise the principal Act before proceeding further.

It has lately come to claimants’ attention, although we suspect that it has been the standard practice for some time, that ACC regularly as a matter of course suppresses evidence. On numerous occasions in the public record the Courts not only prima facie condone this deplorable practice, but also actively conspire or collude in the practice.

Sabotaging materials in files sent to the courts from which certain facts may be erroneously inferred. Untested evidence, slanted comments in files to denigrate claimants, ACC and the Court registry having scant regard to the district court practice note, senior ACC legal officials lying to the court on affidavit, refusing or delaying or denying access to files by simply not answering requests for provision of file documents, which amounts to the same as a denial. Nefarious activities are par for the course against which claimants are powerless. Our faith in the judiciary to fearlessly pursue justice and the truth in natural justice is being sorely tested. I can give you a perfect example of judicial activism, or as I prefer to label it, legal anarchy.

A claimant recently applied for special leave to appeal on a decision alleging a s.134 (1) (B) unreasonable delay in processing a claim for entitlement. The claimant had also lost his weekly compensation. Judge Cadenhead denied the leave to appeal on the grounds that ACC’s unreasonable delay was administrative and therefore did not attract review rights and yet the section of the Act the learned judge quoted was Sec 134 (1)(B) which states: “A claimant may apply to the Corporation for a review of – any delay in processing the claim for entitlement that the claimant believes is an unreasonable delay.” What could be clearer than that? Or am I incapable of understanding basic language. The judge made a deplorable error of law and the claimant continues to suffer. At least two other judges in the ACC judiciary have committed similar blunders and we have cause to believe that it unfortunately extends up to the higher courts. In fact I would go so far as to say that many district court appeal decisions are seriously flawed, having received the once over lightly approach and ignoring relevant issues. Claimants’ fundamental rights to natural justice are simply being steamrolled and the rule of law consigned to the rubbish bin in this jurisdiction.

I recall the speech given by The Right Honourable Michael Cullen during Parliament’s 150th anniversary wherein he alluded to judicial activism. The judiciary have a constitutional duty to apply the law and interpret laws enacted by parliament. Instead, some members of the judiciary are becoming lawmakers. If they want to make laws then let them resign from the judicial oaths and stand for Parliament.

I have a vision in my mind of Muldoon’s TV ads some years ago of activist Cossacks dancing across our screens, with the difference that the dancers are wearing judicial robes. It is striking that the colours of the attire worn by the senior judiciary are the very same as that worn by Santa Claus. I would lay odds that more people know the names of Santa’s reindeer than know the names of our senior judges. An irreverent view you might say, jaundiced you might also say, nevertheless it is the reality for ACC claimants, who have become somewhat gun-shy. The words of a prominent lawyer quoted in a recent ACC appeal in the High Court, Weir v ACC, spring immediately to mind: “Claimants have learned to be wary of case managers bearing gifts in the form of offers of rehabilitation”. It is our contention that ACC claimants in this jurisdiction have been isolated into an inferior class of people whose historic rights have been extinguished by the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 - this Bill serves to further disenfranchise them.

I had intended to quote from Lord Diplock in Re Erebus Royal Commission, Air New Zealand v Mahon [1993] regarding natural justice. He put the principles succinctly and in terms easily understood, which applies equally to ACC. However time constraints preclude me from doing in full so I will assume that its relevance is well-known to the members of the committee.

Continuing with the theme of natural justice, some issues have been addressed in our written submission, however many issues that must be addressed by this committee which are the core provisions of rehabilitation entitlements, namely:
1. Clause 3 of the Bill. The highest level of qualification for acupuncturists must be maintained, dumbing down removes efficacy and the culture behind the science, which requires many years of study, western medical training simply doesn’t cut it.
2. Clause 20 of the Bill amends Sec 68, what can I say, forget it. ACC cannot be relied upon to reasonably exercise its powers of discretion now; it simply cannot be trusted with increased powers, which this section proposes. It has been touted by Labour MPs that it grants ACC powers to provide entitlements that it may not provide under the current legislation. My answer to that assertion is rubbish. Clause 20 (3) (a&B) giveth and sub cl 4 taketh away.
3. To remove any right of review and appeal constitutes a gross breach of natural justice, and this Bill is full of similar breaches hidden away amongst the so-called secondary issues.
4. ACC has surrounded itself with a coterie of compliant purported medical specialists who are in turn supported by an outer circle of no less compliant general practioners who meet the minimum statutory standard of a medical assessor. My experience as a support person confirm that these doctors are biased and in many instances, anti-claimant. Dr Des Gorman with his ex-navy cronies, the graduates of what we call the Gorman clone school at the Occ Medicine Faculty at Auck Uni and the infamous Dr W. E. D. Turner together with others of similar ilk, set the low standard of medical assessment in this country. ACC invariably utilises the services of these doctors to come up with medical opinions that are either at odds with the facts or vilifies claimants or bath and will shop around to get them. Now that is a fact. The vast majority of the medical profession are wonderful, caring, intelligent people whom I much admire and respect, often overworked and working in difficult circumstances. The others are a disgrace to the profession, I am at a loss to understand why the profession allows them to continue as they do, unfettered by the code of ethics. Sure, as assessors there is no doctor/patient relationship, they are merely contractors, however, their opinions can have devastating affects on claimants lives.
5. Therefore we stronly recommend that the word “specified” be deleted from Sec 72 (1)(d), that would put an end to the controversy once and for all and ensure that all claimants have the right to choose an appropriately qualified medical assessor in whom all parties can be confident that opinions are unbiased and truly independent.
6. Sec 117 (3) of the Principal Act is an amendment specifically designed to pervert justice; moreover, the entire Section is both draconian and punitive in purpose. Criminals are innocent until proven guilty, not so the poor old claimant, the reverse is true, and the claimant can be punished harshly on the whim of a case manager who may well have an intense dislike for a particular claimant, it does happen exactly as I have described and that is another fact.
7. The entire section requires overhaul, I have no objection to the Corporation having power to implement the section and suspend an entitlement for genuine and persistent non-compliance. What I object to is the capricious way it is used. Unreasonably refuses or unreasonably fails to… What is reasonable, what does it mean? Reasonable in the legal sense means being just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances, not making unfair demands, be logical and not being perverse…. Amend Section 117. The only way to encourage the Corporation to act reasonably in all situations is to legislate for it and you have the power to see to it.
8. The committee must also have regard to the Peck v ACC decision, from the High Court, finding that ACC must back pay the claimant’s suspended weekly compensation. The proposed amendment attempts by stealth to overturn that decision, past, present and future because of retrospectivity introduced by an earlier High Court decision. Sometimes the court does gets it right - we just wish it were more often.
9. Clause 24 of the Bill. Section 134 of the Principal Act. Extinguishing rights to review and appeal ACC’s discretionary decisions is fraught with peril. The majority of ACC’s decisions are discretionary, particularly as they relate to a level of entitlement it is liable to provide. Approving clause 24 will remove yet another right, albeit restricted to 68 (3) I would remind the committee that the Corporation cannot be relied upon to act in the interest of claimants, rather, it is in its financial interests not to so act.

Finally, I have not had sufficient time to cover all aspects of the Bill, there are simply too many issues with which I am at variance to cover in the time allocated, considering that the Minister did not consult on the Bill. So I will content myself by putting a proposition to the committee:

The IPR&C Act Amendment Bill No.3 has the appearance of being put together with unseemly haste and without public consultation and in a manner that castes doubt on the true purpose of the proposed changes to the Principal Act. The major issues as our claimant support Group sees it are to restore equity to the scheme and curb the excesses of the Corporation. The Woodhouse Principles and the social contract entered into by the Government with the people of New Zealand in the original accident compensation scheme remain embodied in Section 3 of the current legislation. ACC’s and successive governments’ scant regard for the law, the principles and the social contract have reduced those most desirable principles to nothing more than a pious aspiration. The Select Committee ought to recommend to Parliament that it requires Section 3 of the Principal Act to be enforced when reporting and considering whether or not to recommend the enactment of this amendment Bill. In short, send it back whence it came. We expect Parliament to do its job and right the wrongs; you have the power to recommend that it be sorted out - if you choose to use it. Do you have the will?



Signed: ………………………. Date: …………………
0

#25 User is offline   jocko 

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

Posted 29 October 2004 - 06:56 AM

On behalf of all of us I am sure Watcha. A big thank you for taking the gloves off and telling them exactly what is going on. Surely this must force an enquiry where individuals can have time to elaborate on what you have put forward.
0

#26 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 29 October 2004 - 08:37 AM

Oral Submission - Acclaim Otago

Introduction
We are here to speak to our written submission. As you will see we have also addressed issues that are not in the Ammendment Bill. It must be remembered that this bill is seeking to amend the principal act. It is not to become the act itself.

In the context of our submissions to the secondary issues stated in this Amendment Bill, which directly relate to ACC's future possible powers under the principal Act, we believe the S-C must take into account relevant matters which directly relate to the exercise of ACC's existing powers in the principal Act.

Our submission started outlining the purpose of the current act (section 3). If the purpose of the act was being adhered to we very much doubt we would be here today. The need for support groups such as ours would not exist.

There is a public petition currently before the house. We strongly urge the S-C to forward our concerns/submissions to the appropriate S-C. We also urge you to check the advice given by the Crown Law Office to the minister about the impact of these amendments on the NZ Bill of Rights.

We welcome your questions so please ask as they arise.

Submissions
We don't propose to reread our written submission but we do wish to draw your attention to pertinent points.
Clause 3 - Acupuncturists have full and appropriate training and membership of NZ Acupuncturists Inc.
Clauses 4,5,7,9 - all supported
Clause 10 - extended to include all injuries regardless of cause
Clause 12 - unrestricted entitlement to cover for all work related gradual process disease or infection
Clause 13 - Supported but with the noted concerns
Clause 20 - Support proposal to provide discretion to provide entitlements but claimants MUST retain the right to review ANY decision made by ACC.

Clause 23 - This seeks to reverse the decision of Peck vs. ACC. We believe this will reinforce ACC's current tendency to coerce claimants into inappropriate assessments or rehabilitation. It is flawed and ill advised. We request that the clause be removed and amendments added as indicated.

Clause 24 - We believe ACC's decisions should not be protected from review. All decisions must be able to be reviewed to ensure transparency.

We will now speak to our comments and recommendations of the current act and its administration.

Access to services - Dave spoke to this so I don't have that here...

Counselling and SCU - We will be speaking to the PTSD submission next but we wish to support the submission here and reinforce the fact that counselling should not be timeframed or rationed.

Permanent Pension - This assessment was removed by the 1992 act. We believe there needs to be an acknowledgement that some people will never return to full time employment due to the impact of their injuries. We recommend a reinstatement of a permanent pension assessment.

Treatment Costs - NZ is a signatory to the International Labour Organisation. We are currently in breach of ILO conventions as NZ workers injured in the course of their employment do not have their costs fully covered. We want to see treatment costs for workers fully covered in accordance with current ILO conventions.

Rehabilitation - Changes in way ACC defines rehabilitation has meant that rehab. is at best woefully inadaquate and at worst non-existant. In fact ACC's latest Annual report defines Vocational Independence as "the ability to get a job" We recommend a return to the original definition of rehabilitation of earlier acts.

Assessments - We attached a bill for $7,129.33. The person concerned is here to speak individually so we will leave that to him but we recommend that assessments only be done by appropriately qualified specialists in the same field as the injury covered. We also wish Doctors performing these assessments be bound by the Health and Disability Code of Rights and the medical council.

Reviewer's Independence - Dave spoke to this so I don't have it here

ACC Ombudsman - Need to alleviate the current workload and ensure issues are being addressed fully.

Tax - Backdated ERC should be taxed in the year derived rather than the year obtained. Currently claimants are punished twice.

Conclusion
As we stated at the beginning the principal purpose of the current act is enshrined in section 3. We acknowledge that for perhaps 85% of people having accidents ACC do an outstanding job but the other 15% of long term complicted injuries they are failing miserably.
When deciding whether or not to enact these ammendments we believe the S-C ought to take serious notice of the original intentions of the social contract entered into when New Zealand gave up the right to sue and also the current stated purpose of the legislation.

On a final note. We read with interest an article from this week's SST "Swaying Power"

Mark Unsworth is quoted as saying...
"By the time it's got to a select committee, the government has already developed the policy, promoted that piece of legislation in the house and got permission from the house for it to go to a select committee. So your then asking a lot of people to change their mind."

We sincerely hope that what we have said today has not been a wasted effort and will be given careful consideration by the committee.
0

#27 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 29 October 2004 - 08:38 AM

PTSD Submission

This group supports clause 8 of the amendment bill which relates to cover for mental injury due to sexual abuse occurring before 1st July 1992.

We wish to make the following comments:

Our submission focuses on the Sensitive Claims Unit.

Since writing our submission we have cited a copy of a report commissioned by ACC and completed by Auckland Uniservices in Nov 2003. This report was withheld until recently and to our knowledge is still not available publicly. This report makes similar observations to those in our submission.

It should be noted that the review was conducted during the period May-August 2003 which is since the implementation of ACC's new process of managing sensitive claims referred to by Fraser Folster, ACC's media advisor (20.10.04 NZ Herald ) The article outlined results of interviews with 191 sexually abused women about their experiences of one to one therapy. Dr Kim McGregor's research found that sexually abused women were taking longer to recover from their ordeal because of the high cost of counselling and the restricted access to therapy subsidised by ACC.


Our concerns are:

The wide availability of highly personal information being available to case managers, supervisors, branch medical officers, peer evaluators, counsellor evaluators, ACC assessors and other advisors and ACC staff including the call centre. - Report highlights several concerns about privacy issues.

The invasive and continuous reporting required from treatment providers.

The inflexible allocation of treatment - report pg 47 recommends reports be required on completion of 20 hours or six months whichever comes first.


ACC maintains that they made changes to the SCU in 2002 to better reflect rehabilitation. The final report mentioned here echoes Dr McGregor's earlier 2001 findings however. It also reiterates the NZAC survey of counsellors' concerns which was completed in 2003. This indicates there are systemic problems with the way in which sensitive claims are still being handled.
0

#28 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 30 October 2004 - 11:22 AM

As far as the NZ Herald online is concerned today, the only thing in the Amendment Bill is medical misadventure. In its report it has completely ignored the 'secondary issues" or the substance of the extensive submissions which were made.

It has simply taken the ACC/government/select-committee press release and printed it verbatim judiciary and the NZ Bill of Rights is also interesting but wasn't that very issue raised in Amemndment Bill submissions to the select-committee. We should all email the editor.
0

#29 User is offline   Unicorn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 06-July 04

  Posted 30 October 2004 - 04:02 PM

Could you please put the web address up for NZ Herald online on
Amendment Bill is medical misadventure

Help the one's new to computers

Thank-you :D
0

#30 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 30 October 2004 - 06:26 PM

Hi unicorn - The web address is www.nzherald.co.nz - the story is headed "ACC changes aim to speed up claims." - or in the alternative you can go through http://www.7am.com/wireidx/nzl for The Herald, TvOne and Stuff as well as the major news wires from around the world on the left hand tool bar.

ACC changes aim to speed up claims
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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