ACCforum: Structural rewrite of ACC Act - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Structural rewrite of ACC Act But when

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 18 February 2020 - 11:01 AM

The ACC Minister wrote on 17 February 2020 (yesterday) that the ACC Act would benefit from a structural rewrite but it depends of resources and MBIE is responsible for the policy and legal teams.

Well, it is accepted that a structural rewrite of the Act is needed - but when??????
3

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10735
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 February 2020 - 11:05 AM

We the injured Who have been disenfranchised from mainstream society as a result of ACC staff disobedience to legislation naturally have a viewpoint based on our suffering. Our group is in the minority and therefore does not feature highly as a voting force.


However mainstream society have a different viewpoint in as much as they feel they are being overcharged. This is where the votes are.


What is the driving force for the so-called Restructuring?

As we are heading towards another election where there is little to no likelihood of there being a landslide victory for either party as per usual democracy dysfunctions towards the desire to acquire votes.


The elephant in the room however is the fact that ACC administrators have been subject to a continuous stream of re-engineering or rewriting the legislation that they are required to administer and be obedient to for no other reason than they are disobedient to the legislation. So is the cure to the current ailment yet another law change? Really?

We look at the current legislation in the light of politicians speaking of change what is the perception for the need of change to the actual legislation as opposed to enforcement of the current legislation? Is there anything actually structurally wrong with the current legislation that enforcement of that legislation won't cure?

0

#3 User is offline   spacefish 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 19-February 14

Posted 20 February 2020 - 07:58 AM

I'm under no doubt the AC Act is in need of a re-write but the thought fills me with fear and trepidation because I honestly do not believe it would be in favour of claimants - or the the general NZ'er full stop!
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10735
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 February 2020 - 10:50 AM

View Postspacefish, on 20 February 2020 - 07:58 AM, said:

I'm under no doubt the AC Act is in need of a re-write but the thought fills me with fear and trepidation because I honestly do not believe it would be in favour of claimants - or the the general NZ'er full stop!


You, like others, to new to make assertions of fact without ever identifying a single fact.
In this thread there are assertions that the current legislation is somehow defective yet no criticism is ever specified with due particularity. If such criticism is not accompanied with specified defect it can only be described as a rant with the result that those who are in power manipulate to their own advantages. Please try to specify what you are actually talking about so as you do not get used by the ACC and others to those of us who are injured and disadvantaged by our injuries who continue to be disadvantaged by being treated as if we are a nutcase just like these who do rant and rave an unspecified way.

The ACC legislation seems to be quite simple in as much as Legislated criteria must be met with the assistance of independent information providers who are qualified to provide such information. If in the event that ACC have a reason to challenge this qualified information they in turn are required to fund information from an information provider was even more qualified. Any adjudicator or judge is not permitted in law to make a decision based on information does not meet the legislator criteria and neither are they entitled to make decisions based on any assumption of their own. The obedience of the legislation is at the heart of many individuals woes. Such disobedience for the purposes of pecuniary advantages support with a maximum period of incarceration of up to 7 years depending on the amount of value stolen from the injured claimant who would otherwise be entitled to such ENTITLEMENT described in legislation.

This basic principle is at the heart of the legislated scheme designed to lessen the effect of injury caused by others or outside force.. All of the legislation to date has maintained this basic principle yet we have every imaginable excuse leading towards the disobedience of this legislation. One of the leading politicians who have been instrumental in the ACC legislation, Bill Birch, has described the ACC as being difficult to deal with in the manner of attempting to herd cats to the extent that he was instrumental in changing the legislation twice in the past. Nonetheless these changes in legislation have not been effectual in bringing the ACC staff to heal and obedient in their duties to administer the act.

So if there is nothing specifically wrong with the act why change it? Why not identify what is actually going wrong and address that instead?

-1

#5 User is offline   Delighted2018 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 15-March 18

Posted 18 March 2020 - 11:32 PM

Structural re-write.
What does that really mean?

Watch this interesting video, then read the Act.

The word "Include" is a danger word used in "doublespeak" because not many people are aware of the legal implications with such a word if used incorrectly. It defines what is included and what is excluded in a legal sense and if you are not aware of the nature of such words like "Include" you may make a grave mistake in relation how you interpret as situation.

DoubleSpeak video

Is there any doublespeak in the existing Act? How can any be recognised? If you do not know, you wont know how to recognise it.

For any Act structural re-write there are legitimate questions such as....
Is the NZ Govt a private administrative company?; and is nz govt deriving from the dejure country we were born under as nationals?
The wording in the current and previous acts are described in which version of Blacks Law Dictionary?, any new structural re-write will / may / does have its legal definitions deriving from which dictionary?
In the current and former acts, are there any instances of double-speak? How could that be recognised?

What is the grammatical standing of the writing contained in the Acts? What is really being said?
What is the type of upper and lower case text used?

Which styles manual was used in order to construct the current and former ACC Acts?
The Oxford Manual of Styles? The Chicago Manual of Styles? (and which version)
These are legitimate grammatical questions not asked before.

Understanding the above will help you actually read any ACC act structural re-write.
-2

#6 User is offline   Delighted2018 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 15-March 18

Posted 23 March 2020 - 11:06 PM

So.
A curiosity.

Video - TREASURY-ISLAND What Includes Australia

read this, what could be an interpretation?
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - CLAUSE 6

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - CLAUSE 6
Definitions

"The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called a State .

"Original States" shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.
.........................................

a comment on another youtube channel said in part:
"The interruption to the constitutional process for NZ goes back to the Flagstaff Wars etc"
Flagstaff war

a comment in the video above refers to the Queens crown and which one they wore.

There is much more information to piece together, ultimately does the question arise about the validity of jurisdiction , of the Minister, parliament? this needs to be examined for historical events or proper process and procedure -
Why does NZ not have a constitution?.
-2

#7 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1712
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 29 March 2020 - 10:51 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 18 February 2020 - 11:01 AM, said:

The ACC Minister wrote on 17 February 2020 (yesterday) that the ACC Act would benefit from a structural rewrite but it depends of resources and MBIE is responsible for the policy and legal teams.

Well, it is accepted that a structural rewrite of the Act is needed - but when??????



Well then it is time to put information in the ACC Ministers possession.
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10735
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted Yesterday, 09:52 AM

View Postmagnacarta, on 18 February 2020 - 11:01 AM, said:

The ACC Minister wrote on 17 February 2020 (yesterday) that the ACC Act would benefit from a structural rewrite but it depends of resources and MBIE is responsible for the policy and legal teams.

Well, it is accepted that a structural rewrite of the Act is needed - but when??????


I think we need to be looking towards the work that Warren Forster has done with regards to restructuring how injuries are compensated and funded in New Zealand. This work would have been started a decade ago but more earnestly since his work with United Nations followed by the honours and funding from the Law Society. I can think of no one else more suited for competent to answer your questions.
0

#9 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1712
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted Yesterday, 07:45 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 30 March 2020 - 09:52 AM, said:

I think we need to be looking towards the work that Warren Forster has done with regards to restructuring how injuries are compensated and funded in New Zealand. This work would have been started a decade ago but more earnestly since his work with United Nations followed by the honours and funding from the Law Society. I can think of no one else more suited for competent to answer your questions.


One person can not get change by them selves. Many people can get change. Relying on one person will not get the change back to what ACC was designed to do.
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