ACCforum: Personal Submission - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Personal Submission Thre Submission

#1 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 22 March 2005 - 10:10 PM

To the Health Committee on the Injury Prevention
Rehabilitation Amendment (No 3) Bill.




This submission is from:


Name and address

I wish to appear before the committee to speak to my submission. I request that the committee travel to Kaikohe, or Whangarci, to hear my submission due to the fact I have a disability and need to have an equal chance of being heard. Without the ability to be heard in my closest main centre I am being disadvantaged.

I can be contacted at **********, or email: ************

There is a public petition for an enquiry into ACC currently before the
House that is supported by the NZ Law Society ACC Committee. That
petition has recently been referred, by the Government Administration
Committee, back to the House for it's consideration.

The Health Select-Committee is therefore authorised to provide a copy of these submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Select-Committee and/or any other select committee that considers the said petition.

I wish to make the following comments:

Clause 23

I strongly oppose Clause 23 and request it be removed from the Bill.
    Section 117 (3) ought to be amended as follows:

  • Amend this sub-section by inserting after "any" the word ''reasonable ~
  • Delete this sub-section as it conflicts with Section 11 of the NZ BORA 1990 and insert a new sub-section (b) "The Corporation must reinstate any cancelled or suspended entitlements of this Act"
  • Delete this sub section as it conflicts with Schedule 1 cl 8 and 9 of the principle Act and insert a new sub section
    © to read: "where weekly compensation was suspended or cancelled and subsequently reinstated, it must be back-dated to the day of the suspension."
Clause 24

Removal of review and appeal rights are strongly opposed.


For these reasons:
Refer to Appeal Auth. Decision no.7/2003.
Miller vs ACC. 25-Oct-2002. Decision date: 24th-April-2003
(can supply a copy by email if required)

To date, some 17 months later, this matter has still not been settled in full, (basically contempt of that court order, breach of the claimants code of rights, and of the legislation), Making the prospect of review or appeal on several issues, somewhat difficult. (incorrect figures used to calculate ERC, effecting the back pay total.)
This decision came after 25 years of ACC denial of my claim and rights.
A removal of review and or appeal rights, would be a grave injustice, Not just in this case, but in many more cases, of a similar nature.
I have personally lost a great deal in terms of savings, (in the early days), Assets, marriage, opportunities, due to what was, a "misdiagnosis", in 1978, which was continually re-enforced by ACC, despite Medical evidence supplied, to the contrary, over many years, and now, I am "disabled" due to lack of the correct treatment required at time of injury, which was asked for but denied, and I was also given incorrect and misleading information.

I also make reference to Judge Peter Trapski's report of 1994, in which he
made numerous recommendations to correct the behaviour of ACC staff and attitudes to claimants, the manipulation of the legislation, to the benefit of ACC, not the claimant. The issues noted in his report, have only got worse over the last 10 years.
This is all well discussed, and much more, on the ACCFORUM. http://accfornm.org

In conclusion:

The Woodhouse Principles and the social contract entered into by the
Government with the people of New Zealand in the original Accident
Compensation scheme remain embodied in Section 3 of the current
legislation. I urge the select committee to frilly consider the implication of
Section 3 when considering my submission.

I also write in full support of the formal submissions made in respect of The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 Amendment Bill No. 3 by the following organisation(s).
  • Support Network For The Aldehyde And Solvent Affected (NZ) Inc.
  • Acclaim Canterbury Inc./Acclaim Otago Inc.
  • 1 fully support all recommendations made by the Greens Party.
Signed.
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