ACCforum: Acc Claimant Support Groups Concerned By Bill - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Acc Claimant Support Groups Concerned By Bill Issues for the ACC Minister

#1 Guest_IDB_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 11 January 2005 - 12:37 PM

Posted Image
ACC Claimant Support Groups Concerned By Bill
Tuesday, 11 January 2005, 4:05 pm
Press Release: Acclaim

11 January 2004

ACC Claimant Support Groups Concerned By Bill

ACC claimant support groups nationwide have expressed grave reservations regarding the purpose of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 Amendment Bill No. 3, alleging that it is yet another attack on claimants’ rights to fair compensation and genuine rehabilitation.

Following the Health Select Committee hearings of public submissions on the IPR&C Act 2001 Amendment Bill No. 3, Acclaim Canterbury’s youth representative was contacted by Tim Barnett’s Parliamentary Office to arrange a meeting with him, the Minister of ACC Hon. Ruth Dyson and the Acclaim board together with its youth rep over the contentious issue of the Minister’s failure to consult with the children and youth of the country on the Amendment Bill No. 3 as she is required to do pursuant to Section 300 of the Principal Act.

The meeting was to have taken place on Monday 10th January 2005. Acclaim’s representatives had a set of issues to raise with the Minister and Mr. Barnett regarding the Bill. The meeting did not proceed; the Minister declined to meet Acclaim representatives and despite being present in his electorate office at the pre-arranged time, Mr. Barnett appears to have also declined to meet, claiming that Acclaim reps were not his constituents.

One would have to wonder at the motive not to meet and why the reference to the Acclaim representatives not being constituents. Isn’t it is generally understood that MPs must make themselves available to meet electors over a range of areas of genuine concern? Isn’t New Zealand a democracy? Is this the result of the arrogance of unbridled power that Labour MPs now place themselves above the law? Or could it be that the issues have touched a raw nerve and MPs are reluctant to face the truth?


After all, this is an election year!!

ISSUES FOR WHICH THE ACC MINISTER’S RESPONSE IS SOUGHT:
  • IPR&C ACT 2001 AMENDMENT BILL No. 3 Select Committee report to Parliament dated 17th December 2004 – unseemly haste reporting back to the House, perceived as fait accompli.

  • Perception that Parliamentarians have been duped by those proposing the legislative changes (Minister & ACC) put forward in the guise of amendments to the revised medical misadventure provisions of the Bill – the select committee report to the House confirms that view.

  • The Bill is in fact a comprehensive rewrite of the Principal Act that further removes claimants’ access to justice, effectively alienating them as a disenfranchised class of people, more particularly claimants who require rehabilitation for longer than six months.

  • ACC Minister’s failure to adequately consult, if at all – and there is no evidence that she did consult, with the public of NZ as provided by sec 300 of the principal Act – particularly with the children and youth and cultural groups other than Maori and Pacific Islanders, the latter two having direct access to ACC CEO Gary Wilson and the ACC Board.

  • Solicitor-General’s failure to provide sec 7 notification to the House regarding several conflicts with the NZBOR and Human Rights Acts, both in the Principal Act and the Amendment Bill No. 3, e.g. inter alia, sec 117(3) (3B), (3C), sched 1 cl (8) & (9), sec 49 Code of Claimants’ Rights – no right of appeal pursuant to sec 149 (3), no right to refuse medical treatment and/or surgery.

  • Sec117 (3) is a particularly abhorrent amendment clearly designed to pre-empt the Peck decision currently awaiting (7 months) the Court of Appeal decision – another example of judicial pandering to political influence/pressure.

  • Judith Collins, member of the select committee offered to meet with Acclaim submitters regarding fraud allegations raised by us at the hearing – no contact to date.

  • A petition was presented to Parliament by Sue Bradford, Green Party MP, in June 2004; it was referred to the Administration Committee who passed the buck to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Seven months have passed and no word of a Public Inquiry. Will there be a Public Inquiry and if so when??

  • ACC Judiciary – Quality deficit evident in appeal decisions from the District Court, definite perception of establishment bias. Judges making the law rather than interpreting it, e.g. two formerly-respected Judges declining legitimate appeals pursuant to sec 134 (1)(B) – one of the sections the select committee recommends be amended.

  • Fraud and corruption – acts committed by the Corporation on a daily basis against the people of New Zealand on a grand scale previously unknown in the country, misuse of levy payers’ funds – officially sanctioned by the Labour-led government and to such an extent that it could well be the downfall of the government if the public becomes informed.

  • Fraud against individual claimants – Miss XX being falsely accused of fraud to deny entitlements, denial of entitlements amounting to persecution of the YY family, personal causes of action – no vocational rehabilitation. Levy payers funds used for illicit purposes in contravention of statute, complaint laid with the Police Commissioner.

  • A TV documentary in the planning stages that will bring the government, ACC and the persons directly responsible to account for their actions – no holds barred. Failure to air in New Zealand wont matter – it will be streamed on the internet and New Zealand’s Human Rights violations will be brought to the attention of the international community.

http://www.scoop.co....0501/S00009.htm
0

#2 User is offline   Unicorn 

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

  Posted 12 January 2005 - 08:02 AM

[U]A question for you all how many groups around NZ have Youth /Student Rep's

Trust me after phoning around and searching the Internet not many

And after reading Stacy's Submission I feel lawyers should be looking very closely I think Stacy submission would be the only way to stop this government from changing the ACC Act at this stage would one of you lot that have contacts with the lawyers please see if legally there is something that can be done here after all children of this country have there own Children's Commissioner and Children Right's THIS MATTER IS VERY URGENT

THE LITTLE PEOPLE OF NZ CALL FOR ACTION


http://www.scoop.co....0410/S00268.htm
Stacy Becker Submission to Health Select Committee
Thursday, 28 October 2004, 8:21 am
Press Release: Acclaim

Oral Submission: Ipr&C Act 2001 Amendment Bill No.3
TO THE HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE

Videoconferencing to hear oral submissions on the Bill in Christchurch From 9am Wednesday 27th October 2004 At Ubix Onestop 136 Moorhouse Ave Christchurch.

Kia Ora My name is Stacy Becker I'm the Youth /Student Rep of Acclaim Canterbury Incorporated The issue I bring to the committee's attention is that the Children and Students of New Zealand are a vulnerable group, and therefore warrant particular attention in respect of The IPR&C ACT 2001 and the Amendment Bill NO 3. At no time throughout this bill have children / youth / or students been consulted in any way, shape or form. The Minister of ACC has a statutory duty to consult the interests of the public, not forgetting that children are also the public, levy payers, claimants and potential claimants and chose not to do so. Even though they are autonomous rights holders, the youth is dependent on others to give effect to their rights (For example, they rely on parents or caregivers to act on their behalf). This reliance is partly due to their developmental needs, with children of younger ages being especially dependent on others to meet their basic and evolving needs. As children grow, they are able to exercise their rights in an increasingly independent manner - but this relies upon their stage of development, support for any disability and the nature of the rights they are exercising. Infants and young children are completely dependent on others, primarily adults, for all their needs. This stage of high dependency requires other people to ensure that the full and indivisible rights of the young child are met. These rights include provision of the basic necessities of life. While there is recognition of the duties of parents, guardians and caregivers, the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act's

STATES: The need to avoid substantial disruption to the employment or other actives of household members

And this is not happening

There is also an obligation to ensure ACC conforms to a standard in care of youth in this country. The concept of children as dependents can, however, have a negative outcome if they are viewed as 'not being whole or complete'. This is especially true for disabled children, for whom societal support to meet their needs, irrespective of their disability, may be difficult, as it is subject to Many judgements about their disability and indeed, their inherent value as disabled children. Children live, learn and grow, not in isolation, but as part of families, whanau and communities. A life-cycle approach is useful for understanding this when children move from dependence to interdependence to independence. At each stage this allows children to exert greater power to act on their own behalf. Positive relationships between young people and adults are critical to this transition and to the shaping of attitudes towards others. Partnerships, and the relationships that evolve from them, recognise the importance of change and the need to view differing world perspectives in order to meet the best interests of the child. As a young person reaches a level of independence, there is a degree of autonomy involved in the transition. The right to participate in decision-making becomes an important measure at this stage, but it is not at the cost of other rights. While young people may have a sense of independence through reliance on self and a movement away from the family unit, they are still in a position of vulnerability as they often have to 'negotiate' to obtain basic rights. This frequently occurs in and when accessing information about ACC entitlements.

The extent to which children and young people in New Zealand are able to fully enjoy their basic rights is dependent on the extent to which all people in New Zealand enjoy human rights. Equally, a society that meets the basic rights of its children to an ACC system is building a future in which all its CHILDREN AND STUDENTS are more likely to enjoy their human rights.

So my question to you all today is why were the Children of New Zealand overlooked in this Amendment Bill NO 3 and why the children of New Zealand have not been given there rights in your so-called 24 hour no fault, no cost accident insurance cover.

Thank-you for your Time.

Home Page | Politics | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright © Scoop Media
0

#3 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 12 January 2005 - 08:35 AM

I completely endorse Unicorn's message. This Minister has acted ultra vires the Act and, in blind-eye knowledge, refuses to meet with directly affected persons who are attempting to remedy her default.

Furthermore, the interesting thing to see will be whether or not any MP at all will submit a supplementary order paper seeking to amend or alter the Amendment Bill No 3 in any way, shape, or form when it is read a second time in the House.

Remember the Health Select-Committee report to Parliament is just that - a report containing recommendations. Parliament does not have to follow that report.
0

#4 User is offline   Ivan 

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

Posted 12 January 2005 - 09:13 AM

Sue Kedgley has indicated that she will put up a Supplementary Order Paper to attempt to address the issues raised in the Green Party Minority Select Committee Report - see http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/Conten...rts/165bar2.pdf, pages 8 and 9.

It is also very likely that she will address through the Supplementary Order Paper the legislative response contained in Clause 23 of the Bill to the Peck High Court judgment, although the Green Party is still awaiting the opportunity to study the Court of Appeal's judgment in this matter before finalising its position on this.

I will be assisting Sue in drafting the Supplementary Order Paper, and any email input to me from anyone on the Forum would be most welcome.
0

#5 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 12 January 2005 - 09:41 AM

Thank you Ivan - I guessed as much.

Of all the political parties - the so-called representatives - the Greens IMHO have been the only true supporter of justice in these matters. Nobody else comes even close.

I don't particularly care what others are going to do, and some naturally won't like all Green policies, but there is sufficient empathy with much, that myself, and my extended family and friends tell me, they are giving their vote to the Greens both party vote and constituency.

That IMHO is just - and a deserved recognition.

I mean, for crying out loud, for Jocko - a true vocal West Coaster - to publicly admit a level of support for the Green's, is a remarkable achievement in itself. Go on yer Jocko.

Churchill said " If you will not stand and fight for what is right and what you believe in, there will come a time when you cannot stand and fight at all."

I agree with that.

For the rest of the so-called representatives, I will use every breath in my old body to publicly expose and to frustrate their ambitions.

Never, ever, underestimate the Power of One!!!!

Additional to what has been already posted on the forum can you guide us in what type of other feedback on the SOP you would like???
0

#6 User is offline   Ivan 

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

Posted 12 January 2005 - 10:01 AM

I think the Green Party is quite clear in its position on the issues raised in Sue Kedgley's minority Select Committee report - i.e. one acupuncture standard, no blanket exemption from treatment injury cover when personal injury caused solely by resource allocation decision, no denial of review and appeal rights in respect of discretionary decisions on whether to exceed the normal rehabilitation limitations provided by the Act. But any comments on these issues welcome.

The one area we are still floundering on, largely because we have not seen the Court of Appeal judgment, is the response to Peck. If the Court of Appeal has simply reinstated the District Court's findings in law, then it is no longer a satisfactory response to just leave the law as it is, which is what the Green Party's response would have likely been if ACC's appeal against the High Court judgment had been dismissed. So once we get to see the Court of Appeal judgment, some input on an appropriate legislative response would be most welcome.

What it is not appropriate to do in a Supplementary Order Paper on an Amendment Bill is to put up amendments to the principal Act that are on issues not addressed by the Amendment Bill. I could think of a plethora of amendments that could be put up to require ACC to provide proper and comprehensive rehabilitation, and to abolish the Vocational Independence Assessment Process, both of which are supported by the Green Party's draft ACC policy which should be ratified and published in the next few weeks. However, these are not issues that are in the No 3 Amendment Bill - they certainly are issues we will campaign in the election on though.
0

#7 User is offline   watcha 

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

Posted 12 January 2005 - 02:24 PM

I agree, the Greens ACC policy stands head and shoulders above all other parties. Until recently I had been a staunch Labour supporter, as were my father and his father before him, not any more.

I well remember the events of 1951, shadowy figures in the dead of night offering succour to embattled union members - the first and only time I heard my father use four letter words, so great was the emotion of his anti-National feelings at that sorry time in our history. Nothing has changed, except that the level of deception has plummeted to greater depths than ever experienced in peacetime. You name it, government, ACC, judiciary, probably even the police are implicated.

Believe it or not, history is repeating itself, it is predominately working people who are being injured and suffering as a consequence. It is the establishment endeavouring to improve its positions of power and privilege to the disadvantage of injured workers; differnt game, but the rules are the same and we are paying for it with our bodies and soles.

Back to the main topic of failure to adequately consult the public on the proposed changes. Young Stacy's submission on the Bill and now the Minister's refusal to meet over the issue clearly illustrates the point - inadequate consultation - and she still refuses to acknowledge the fact. The Minister had the opportunity but not the courage to address teh issue - so be it.

What can we do to get the Bill withdrawn, or at least delayed until proper consultation does take place? I fully support the Greens stance, I just hope it will suffice but even with the best will in the world, past history is not on our side and I have grave doubts that right will prevail, consequently, we should be prepared for the worst.
0

#8 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 12 January 2005 - 02:50 PM

The pamphlet produced by the Greens in 2003 I think sums up nicely the 'wrongness' of the current situation and also makes suggestions for correcting the wrongs. Are we able to get more copies of those Ivan.

As for political parties... I too have been a Labour supporter as has my family... no longer I'm afraid..... I joined the Green party two years ago after seeing the work being done that was a REAL attempt to rectify injustices.

I was also involved with the drafting of policy through the 'interest group'. I am impressed with the genuiness of the Green party and they definitely get my vote (and many of my collegues who have seen the current ACC fiasco for what it is... revenue gathering)
0

#9 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 27 August 2006 - 02:40 PM

And it is now AUGUST 2006 ... what are the Greens doing in supporting us who are now on a sickness benifit for exactly the same reasons the ACC had us on their books for?

NOTHING!

Sue and others from the Green Party should get their heads out of that beehive bullshit for a day or so and read what is written on this website since Jan 2005!

BLURB
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