Huggy, on 28 March 2018 - 09:41 AM, said:
Please forward this onto the reviewer.
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide submissions on why I believe ACC should be denied to participate in the review by way of teleconference.
I have canvassed my objection in my earlier emails, however, for reference, I will list these in brief, along with some other points.
I strongly object to ACC attending by teleconference because :
1. This is a significant issue that involves weekly compensation (ERC).
2. It is established in law that it is unacceptable that ACC, and in fact, any party, attend by teleconference.
3. His Honour Barber J is extremely critical of parties attending by teleconference (P v ACC and Gale v ACC).
4. His Honour Barber J has commented that it appears teleconferencing hearings do not comply with s.141 of the AC Act (Gale v ACC).
5. It appears in contradiction of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 at s.27(1) the rights to natural justice.
6. The actual decision maker could attend as he is based in Dunedin where the review will take place.
7. ACC has other representatives based in Dunedin that can be the attendee if required.
8. I opine ACC attending by teleconference doesn’t conform with natural justice.
9. It makes the review process an unfair playing field.
10. This is not a meeting, it is a hearing where parties may be required to provide evidence.
11. The reviewer has commented that he/she would “prefer” that all parties attend in person.
12. The reviewer has the discretion and ability by way of s140 of the AC Act to deny ACC participation by teleconference.
13. If ACC is denied participation by teleconference, ACC can still provide written submissions to the review.
14. In a previous review hearing for myself, and in attendance at other review hearings as a support person, I have struggled to hear and understand ACC through the speaker when they have participated by teleconference.
15. It is my view that ACC attending by teleconference is to my disadvantage. ACC could have, unbeknown to myself and to the reviewer access to their computer system along with having staff assisting the presenter during the review process, in order to submit further information that I may not be privy to.
This is a nationwide problem that has just been raised in the media where further media coverage is expected.
https://www.stuff.co...ne-not-the-face