ACCforum: ACC 'gagging clause' worries - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

ACC 'gagging clause' worries

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9052
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 July 2018 - 04:17 PM

Thursday, 26 July 2018
ACC 'gagging clause' worries
By John Gibb 45 2 Posted ImageWarren Forster Concern about an ACC ''gagging clause'' highlights the need for greater focus on human rights and oversight by a commissioner, Dunedin lawyer and researcher Warren Forster says. ACC claimant support group Acclaim Otago recently said it had done ''the right thing'' by not applying to join a new ACC scheme advisory panel, and objecting to the ''gagging clause''.

In May, group spokeswoman Dr Denise Powell ended a 13-year membership of ACC community liaison groups because the group was unhappy about restrictions on its rights to speak out.

The stand was ''the right thing'', but had damaged the group's ability to ''make a difference'' for injured members, she said.

Mr Forster recently wrote to the ACC and asked if the ''gagging clauses are going to be a blanket approach'' or applied case-by-case, as required.

The clauses were a ''significant problem'', and if further changes were to be made, ACC ''must then re-invite participation based on its new approach'', he said.

ACC has also said other members could be added to the panel, which could modify its draft terms of reference.

Mr Forster said some improvements were proposed, but claimant groups and other people concerned had already had to waste a great deal of time and energy.

Another case of ''ACC controls the relationships'' was clearly inconsistent with respecting the human rights of claimants, he said.

A commissioner for personal injury at ACC was needed, including to provide ACC with ''some independent advice close to home'' and to safeguard wider community interests, he said.

A UN committee which monitors compliance with the international Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has previously asked New Zealand to adopt a human rights-based approach to the ACC.

Dr Powell yesterday felt ''bittersweet'' about a likely more favourable outcome over the panel, but said more emphasis should be put on human rights.

ACC spokesman James Funnell said the panel's terms of reference would remain draft until confirmed its first meeting on August 10.

Given the need to access a ''wide and diverse range of perspectives'', panel members would discuss with ACC how best to ensure this.

This could include involving other individuals in some specific discussions, drawing on members from ACC's wider customer advisory panels, or further ''supplementing'' the panel's membership.

The panel appointment process had not ''infringed anyone's human rights'', Mr Funnell said.

[email protected]


0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9052
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 July 2018 - 04:18 PM

Reminds me off the cogs shenanigans
0

#3 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1699
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 26 July 2018 - 05:45 PM

As for the gagging clause it is a very serious nature.

The Gagging clause is primary to stop all knowledge leaving ACC but ACC is able to collect any information that they want.

Mr Thomas you didn't want anything to do with COGS. Made no recommendations and made no suggestions to correct policies. You believed COGS shouldn't even exist.
0

#4 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7502
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 28 July 2018 - 01:25 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 26 July 2018 - 04:17 PM, said:

Thursday, 26 July 2018
ACC 'gagging clause' worries
By John Gibb 45 2 Posted ImageWarren Forster Concern about an ACC ''gagging clause'' highlights the need for greater focus on human rights and oversight by a commissioner, Dunedin lawyer and researcher Warren Forster says. ACC claimant support group Acclaim Otago recently said it had done ''the right thing'' by not applying to join a new ACC scheme advisory panel, and objecting to the ''gagging clause''.

In May, group spokeswoman Dr Denise Powell ended a 13-year membership of ACC community liaison groups because the group was unhappy about restrictions on its rights to speak out.

The stand was ''the right thing'', but had damaged the group's ability to ''make a difference'' for injured members, she said.

Mr Forster recently wrote to the ACC and asked if the ''gagging clauses are going to be a blanket approach'' or applied case-by-case, as required.

The clauses were a ''significant problem'', and if further changes were to be made, ACC ''must then re-invite participation based on its new approach'', he said.

ACC has also said other members could be added to the panel, which could modify its draft terms of reference.

Mr Forster said some improvements were proposed, but claimant groups and other people concerned had already had to waste a great deal of time and energy.

Another case of ''ACC controls the relationships'' was clearly inconsistent with respecting the human rights of claimants, he said.

A commissioner for personal injury at ACC was needed, including to provide ACC with ''some independent advice close to home'' and to safeguard wider community interests, he said.

A UN committee which monitors compliance with the international Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has previously asked New Zealand to adopt a human rights-based approach to the ACC.

Dr Powell yesterday felt ''bittersweet'' about a likely more favourable outcome over the panel, but said more emphasis should be put on human rights.

ACC spokesman James Funnell said the panel's terms of reference would remain draft until confirmed its first meeting on August 10.

Given the need to access a ''wide and diverse range of perspectives'', panel members would discuss with ACC how best to ensure this.

This could include involving other individuals in some specific discussions, drawing on members from ACC's wider customer advisory panels, or further ''supplementing'' the panel's membership.

The panel appointment process had not ''infringed anyone's human rights'', Mr Funnell said.

[email protected]


Just a little reminder to all that I have said more than once on here that the PM at the time John Key had been questioned by the UN about our right to be heard and John Key said from memory that any problems we had with having our right concerning administration information and rights can be put before the District court and heard there. Now I don't know if anyone has investigated how correct it is or indeed put any administrative mistakes of ACC's before a Judge at District Court or not or what happened but I recall reading of one recently using the human right Act and winning the case. I do not recall which it was of so many I have read this year, but it could be quickly bought back to life, one would think.


Mini
1

#5 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 11 August 2018 - 05:15 PM

The problem here is that the problems can be tackled externally through activism or worked on internally through cooperation. To gain internal access and actually be useful once in position then people have to trust that what they do or suggest will not suddenly appear in the media. Otherwise there is no cooperation.
1

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9052
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 August 2018 - 05:35 PM

View PostLupine, on 11 August 2018 - 05:15 PM, said:

The problem here is that the problems can be tackled externally through activism or worked on internally through cooperation. To gain internal access and actually be useful once in position then people have to trust that what they do or suggest will not suddenly appear in the media. Otherwise there is no cooperation.


I most certainly don't agree that there are only two options and more so disagree with the options you put forward.
We only need to look at the legislation which provides the claimant of voice by way of complaint under the code of complaints and the judicial process starting with review hearing to take not only the wise course but the only lawful course. Having said that despite my advocating due process through the courts I have been set upon in the manner designed to shut me down through the use of compliance claimants who seek to offer the ACC high-value information in exchange for something of high-value obviously in order to facilitate the ACCs wishes of gagging me. After all it is I that set up the original ACC help site and have been very supportive of all comers needing help. While Douglas weal most vigourously asserted violence against the ACC for daring to investigated for fraud I can clearly recall advising him that the best approach is the sharing of information and knowledge Concerning the legislated criteria and enforcing that criteria by way of judicial force initiated against the ACC so as to address their wrongdoing conducted in secret.

-5

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