[magnacarta]

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??????

[Alan Thomas]

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?

[spacefish]

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!

[Alan Thomas]

spacefish, 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?

[Delighted2018]

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.

[Delighted2018]

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?.

[doppelganger]

magnacarta, 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.

[Alan Thomas]

magnacarta, 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.

[doppelganger]

Alan 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.

[Alan Thomas]

doppelganger, on 30 March 2020 - 07:45 PM, said:

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.

Warren is trying and succeeding to get change. He has a direction from United Nations, the research funding and is continuing to lead a group of researchers.

So I think Warren disagrees with you.


Owen Woodhouse instigated the ACC ideal but did not complete nor control what actually went into operation. Warren seeks to complete his work along with the necessary adjustments to bring the scheme into today's world.


I take my hat off to Warren a lone crusader whom many of us support.


The dates of union style attack and pressure are well and truly archaic as they never succeed. It is a delusional myth. The reason it won't and never will is that you would have to be more powerful in the ACC itself stop the ACC are a multibillion dollar organisation having thousands of staff. Do you really think you can muster a bunch of invalid misfits to stand up against the ACC? No reasonable thinking person would be so delusional.

[Hemi]

Alan Thomas, on 31 March 2020 - 09:18 AM, said:

Warren is trying and succeeding to get change. He has a direction from United Nations, the research funding and is continuing to lead a group of researchers.

So I think Warren disagrees with you.


Owen Woodhouse instigated the ACC ideal but did not complete nor control what actually went into operation. Warren seeks to complete his work along with the necessary adjustments to bring the scheme into today's world.


I take my hat off to Warren a lone crusader whom many of us support.


The dates of union style attack and pressure are well and truly archaic as they never succeed. It is a delusional myth. The reason it won't and never will is that you would have to be more powerful in the ACC itself stop the ACC are a multibillion dollar organisation having thousands of staff. Do you really think you can muster a bunch of invalid misfits to stand up against the ACC? No reasonable thinking person would be so delusional.

Thomas
You have been trying to stand up to the ACC for 30 years.
UNSUCESSFULL in all attempts
As you say
You are DELUSIONAL

Many Thanks for confirming what many of us already know and to the rest of the world.

[Alan Thomas]

Hemi, on 31 March 2020 - 09:56 AM, said:

Thomas
You have been trying to stand up to the ACC for 30 years.
UNSUCESSFULL in all attempts
As you say
You are DELUSIONAL

Many Thanks for confirming what many of us already know and to the rest of the world.

Off topic

Do try to obtain help for your compulsive obsessive disorder concerning myself. Given your history your behaviour is quite frightening

[Hemi]

Alan Thomas, on 31 March 2020 - 10:05 AM, said:

Off topic

Do try to obtain help for your compulsive obsessive disorder concerning myself. Given your history your behaviour is quite frightening

Definitely on topic THomas
Your words already there
I just noted you were delusional according to your own writings.

Next??
Frightened.
I’m a bit like that re your wiring and testing you’ve got underway luring others into your lair.

[Alan Thomas]

magnacarta, 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??????

Do you have any information that suggests there might be a change other than ministers flying kites?

[doppelganger]

Alan Thomas, on 31 March 2020 - 09:18 AM, said:

The dates of union style attack and pressure are well and truly archaic as they never succeed. It is a delusional myth. The reason it won't and never will is that you would have to be more powerful in the ACC itself stop the ACC are a multibillion dollar organisation having thousands of staff. Do you really think you can muster a bunch of invalid misfits to stand up against the ACC? No reasonable thinking person would be so delusional.

there is only one misfit and that is you.

ACC was formed when the insurance industry would not change it behavior, and comply with the Human Rights that the Government and the rest of the world were agreeing to. It was based on how the government dealt with the persons with disability were handled after the wars. You might want to read the league of nations document and then you would know what the ACC was based upon. You are like most staff that work at ACC and think it ACC is for paying or denying claims, Think that Vocational Rehabilitation was not to make sure the claimant was able to earn to the maximum capacity.

[Ericthered]

Alan Thomas, on 19 February 2020 - 11:05 AM, said:

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?

Hon Iain Lees Galloway
Minister for ACC.

4 April, 2020
Dear Iain, Re: Ways to improve the ACC system service
Further to my letter of 24 November, 2019.

I raise the matter of the Accident Compensation Corporation with you again. As a layperson, I am progressing through real-life experiences within ACC’s systems under the burden of multiple ACC Review number processes and regular contact with multiple ACC lawyers. I am unable engage an experienced ACC lawyer in New Zealand to represent myself, as ACC has hired them all.

The ACC system has endemic problems at every turn, but underpinning is the substantial, defiant, and sustained failure of ACC staff (including its lawyers) to comply with s40 of the Act, the Code. The problem with s40 always was that it assumes we all have the same values and beliefs. What ACC decide under s40 Review complaint cannot be appealed. Under the Act, dishonest public can be prosecuted, but the same does not apply to dishonest ACC Staff. ACC Staff liability is a remedy the ACCC Australia suggests. This already happens elsewhere in business.

In Injury cases ACC has its own army of often anonymous medical persons, internal opinions and reports, and the Patient has their own independent medical specialists, and reports. The Review and Appeal processes see these two groups face-off, but usually the medical person with the most credentials wins the Reviewers or Judges favour.

If one is not happy with ACC’s medical cover and/or entitlements or other Decisions, one can apply for a Review. However, the Reviewer, a Lawyer, will assess ACC vs Patient medical information and make a new medical based Decision, if any. In this arena an ACC Lawyer attends for ACC, the Reviewer is a Lawyer, and the layperson patient is disadvantaged by a biased power imbalance. A layperson can almost never succeed in this arena without their own lawyer and deep pockets, and the stats confirm this.

Unless a complaint made under s40, one can Appeal the Review outcome, but again, the Judge being a Lawyer will assess ACC vs Patient medical information and arguments, and make a new medical based Decision, if any.
The underpinning flaw in the Act is that ACC and Lawyers are making medically based Decisions at all levels, which is unjust and discriminatory.

However, a family member has recently relocated to Rotterdam to work for a major multinational as a senior and front-line people manager.
He is very impressed with the simplicity, economy and efficiency of the Netherlands system compared to ACC in New Zealand. Upon his description it would appear that the Netherlands system is centred on the patients own GP making Decisions and directing entitlements, in conjunction with supporting medical specialist input if so required by him. It has no ACC with an army of lawyers to fend off laypersons like our ACC has, instead there is just a basic internet and email based administration system which appears to function effectively supporting GP’s. There is no Lawyer Reviewer of Lawyer Judges involved. The advent of Internet, Networks, and Email has now made this option efficient and possible anywhere, something unavailable when our ACC Act was originally made into legislation. The Public in the Netherlands seem to have much respect for their ACC system.

The Netherlands administration based system will be significantly less expensive to operate than New Zealand’s ACC as it is simple and non-adversarial, not requiring lawyers or expensive new buildings to put them in. The system he described is very similar to the Submission I made in 2018 when ACC was last reviewed by government.

I have considered Geoffrey Palmer QC’s 2018 speech and agree with his comments, especially that the NZ Government needs to be bold in sorting ACC once and for all. I considered Dame Miriam Deans report but believe it was set up to fail and has achieved nothing.

Have government considered adopting the Netherlands system for New Zealand?

A response to this letter would be appreciated.
Yours sincerely

[tommy]

Alan Thomas, on 31 March 2020 - 03:13 PM, said:

Do you have any information that suggests there might be a change other than ministers flying kites?

as in your entitlements being restored against criminal conviction . . any updates , allan

[tommy]

tommy, on 09 April 2020 - 04:30 PM, said:

as in your entitlements being restored against criminal conviction . . any updates , allan

BTW any amusement activity ... as in your lock down environment allan

[doppelganger]

Ericthered, on 08 April 2020 - 08:11 AM, said:

Hon Iain Lees Galloway
Minister for ACC.

4 April, 2020
Dear Iain, Re: Ways to improve the ACC system service
Further to my letter of 24 November, 2019.

I raise the matter of the Accident Compensation Corporation with you again. As a layperson, I am progressing through real-life experiences within ACC’s systems under the burden of multiple ACC Review number processes and regular contact with multiple ACC lawyers. I am unable engage an experienced ACC lawyer in New Zealand to represent myself, as ACC has hired them all.

The ACC system has endemic problems at every turn, but underpinning is the substantial, defiant, and sustained failure of ACC staff (including its lawyers) to comply with s40 of the Act, the Code. The problem with s40 always was that it assumes we all have the same values and beliefs. What ACC decide under s40 Review complaint cannot be appealed. Under the Act, dishonest public can be prosecuted, but the same does not apply to dishonest ACC Staff. ACC Staff liability is a remedy the ACCC Australia suggests. This already happens elsewhere in business.

In Injury cases ACC has its own army of often anonymous medical persons, internal opinions and reports, and the Patient has their own independent medical specialists, and reports. The Review and Appeal processes see these two groups face-off, but usually the medical person with the most credentials wins the Reviewers or Judges favour.

If one is not happy with ACC’s medical cover and/or entitlements or other Decisions, one can apply for a Review. However, the Reviewer, a Lawyer, will assess ACC vs Patient medical information and make a new medical based Decision, if any. In this arena an ACC Lawyer attends for ACC, the Reviewer is a Lawyer, and the layperson patient is disadvantaged by a biased power imbalance. A layperson can almost never succeed in this arena without their own lawyer and deep pockets, and the stats confirm this.

Unless a complaint made under s40, one can Appeal the Review outcome, but again, the Judge being a Lawyer will assess ACC vs Patient medical information and arguments, and make a new medical based Decision, if any.
The underpinning flaw in the Act is that ACC and Lawyers are making medically based Decisions at all levels, which is unjust and discriminatory.

However, a family member has recently relocated to Rotterdam to work for a major multinational as a senior and front-line people manager.
He is very impressed with the simplicity, economy and efficiency of the Netherlands system compared to ACC in New Zealand. Upon his description it would appear that the Netherlands system is centred on the patients own GP making Decisions and directing entitlements, in conjunction with supporting medical specialist input if so required by him. It has no ACC with an army of lawyers to fend off laypersons like our ACC has, instead there is just a basic internet and email based administration system which appears to function effectively supporting GP’s. There is no Lawyer Reviewer of Lawyer Judges involved. The advent of Internet, Networks, and Email has now made this option efficient and possible anywhere, something unavailable when our ACC Act was originally made into legislation. The Public in the Netherlands seem to have much respect for their ACC system.

The Netherlands administration based system will be significantly less expensive to operate than New Zealand’s ACC as it is simple and non-adversarial, not requiring lawyers or expensive new buildings to put them in. The system he described is very similar to the Submission I made in 2018 when ACC was last reviewed by government.

I have considered Geoffrey Palmer QC’s 2018 speech and agree with his comments, especially that the NZ Government needs to be bold in sorting ACC once and for all. I considered Dame Miriam Deans report but believe it was set up to fail and has achieved nothing.

Have government considered adopting the Netherlands system for New Zealand?

A response to this letter would be appreciated.
Yours sincerely

Great letter but it is not going to get a result. You will not know what was said by the Minister to the ACC or MIBE. You will not know their reply and he may decide not to do anything except writing a letter to cover their arses.

Its clear that your GP gave a medical certificate with one of ACC pet diagnoses on it. there will be a number of that code that will relate to your injury.

If You ask under the official information Act what is the injuries that relate to the diagnose of ????????????????? from your certificate that is accepted by the ACC,

But before you ask what is the diagnoses get the medical documentation that is held in the library's and used for training Doctors, that until the ACC shows otherwise this is the injury that your GP / specialist has diagnosed, presented by this claimant as the injury representative in the medical certificate.

You should also before identify, the decision maker the case manager is working, has the necessary skills and experiences to be able to do the research to know what is the physical injuries upon the presentation of the condition of the medical certificate.

But more important is what the case manager did not present the reviewer or the judge.

You will need to know this. the reviewer should have the same information that was presented to the GP to obtain the diagnoses of the condition.

Present the information that you presented that is automatically been accepted by the corporation and shows that there is a physical injury and it is entitled to have cover. Question the qualification of the reviewer and report he did not carry out an medical examination to see if the GP is correct.

The ACC lawyers is another area that has a problems. They seam to be persons who have a medical degree and again have a reading disability in that they can not read medical documentation presented by treating persons or held in medical libraries.

[doppelganger]

as for a you complaint under section 40

The sub section 2 a includes or general law.

Any complaint that shows dishonesty is reported to some company in Australia. Not sure if the could bring criminal conviction to a ACC staff member.

Not presenting the information in the ACC possession is a criminal action. Stating the ACC doesn't have something when it does have or claiming the opposing information is the only information in its possession is also a crime. Fraud. part of General Law.

Of cause the object is that you present information in the Corporation possession, information the case manager used to make the decision. its information that is publicly available and therefore at some time it will be in ACC possession due to there ongoing research to make sure they have all injuries covered.

Remember the above post were you asked for certain information which just happens to show ACC has the necessary information in there possession showing section 117 allows ACC to supply entitlements.

Remember first information on medical is the GP medical certificate. Unless ACC can show error in that information the information is opposing. ( Ellwood High Court.) When you supply supporting information it is to confirm the first information is correct. It is not considered new information as it only supports the information from the GP's medical certificate.