ACCforum: Acc Wins Againnnnnnnnnn. - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Acc Wins Againnnnnnnnnn. Asbestos vitims loose test case

#1 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 03 June 2005 - 10:59 PM

From the TVNZ website tonight
ACC wins asbestos appeal

Jun 3, 2005

Twenty six asbestos victims and their families may have to pay back nearly $2.5 million in lump sum compensation payments following a successful appeal by ACC against a ruling that awarded a lump sum payment to the estate of an Auckland man that died from asbestos poisoning.

Ross Lehmann was exposed to asbestos in 1960 while working at New Zealand Forest Products. He became ill 40 years later and died in 2003.

Last year the Wellington District Court ordered his widow Dawn be paid a $100,000 lump sum payment in compensation. It was the first time a lump sum had been awarded for asbestos victims exposed before April 2002.

Since the Lehman ruling ACC has given about $2.5 million in lump sum payments to 25 other asbestos victims or their families.

Prior to the ruling victims in New Zealand received only $67 a week from ACC.

"It resulted in fair compensation being paid to dying men and their families instead of a paltry $67 a week," Dawn Lehmann's lawyer John Miller says.

But now the High Court has overturned the Lehmann ruling.

Justice Lowell Goddard says: "Claimants such as Mr Lehmann are precluded from entitlement to lump sum compensation and are entitled only to an independence weekly allowance for their lifetime. If there is a perceived injustice in that situation, then it is an injustice that can only be remedied by legislative amendment."

Dawn Lehmann says the whole affair has been extremely distressing.

John Miller says the ruling could mean victims will have to pay the lump sum back to ACC.

"That will obviously exacerbated their condition and those people who have died since the $100,000 was awarded, the ACC will presumably be targetting their widows," Miller says.

In a written statement ACC says it has always advised claimants they might have to repay their lump sums. The issue will be discussed at their next board meeting on June 16.

In the meantime lawyers for the Lehmann family are planning to appeal the decision.
0

#2 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 03 June 2005 - 11:01 PM

Just another thought, has ACC's offices nationwide been checked for Asbestos?
0

#3 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 04 June 2005 - 01:01 AM

Two strikes now against John Miller, two very significant losses, I hope for all our sakes he isn't running out of steam.

It's rather obvious that Judge Ongly in the District court got it wrong - again - but despite that, his ruling up until the High Court decision was "good law"; I understand that ACC either couldn't or didn't ask for a stay of decision and that would be why lump sum compensation was paid to the claimants, who received it in "good faith".

Now watch the crocodile tears flow when ACC demands its money back - I wonder if it will have the gall to charge interest. On the other hand, do the claimants have a case to hang on to it? ACC was a cunning as an outhouse rat when it advised claimants not to spend it, thereby in all likelyhood negating claimants stance of accepting the money in good faith on the grounds of settled case law. Watch this space!!

We can't really comment on the decision until it becomes available for us to digest (probably vomit it up anyway). The High Court judge's comments say it all:
"Claimants such as Mr Lehmann are precluded from entitlement to lump sum compensation and are entitled only to an independence weekly allowance for their lifetime. If there is a perceived injustice in that situation, then it is an injustice that can only be remedied by legislative amendment."
lead me to suspect that John MIller may have argued from the wrong angle.

The dangers of asbestos have been known to industry throughout the world for many years and pre-dated the introduction of the 1972 Act; ACC must have known of the dangers and yet did nothing to protect workers, which it had and still has a statutory duty to do. Let's wait a while longer before jumping to conclusions.

Watch this space too!!!!
0

#4 User is offline   Accme 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 04 June 2005 - 12:50 PM

I believe Watcha, that ACC is treading very carefully, that is why they have not been available for comment, they know that by DEMANDING the money back it will get the ire of the public up, and joe public will have ACC under scrutiny. This could be "the straw that breaks the camels back" and I believe ACC know it. I would urge ALL readers of this forum to ask their MP why their parties or them personally, have not put foward under urgency a legislative amendment to allow these poor people and their families some dignity in their last days. MP's its time to stand up and be counted, if you do not support this then you have no right to represent the people of this land.
0

#5 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 June 2005 - 02:16 PM

I believe the lawyer at the High Court was Hazel Armstrong not John Miller. She was interviewed last night on Campbell Live and she said she had been talking to the widow and they were going to the court of appeal...
0

#6 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 04 June 2005 - 02:51 PM

Not much hope with the Court of Appeal - it's even more reactionary than Justice Goddard. I believe John Miller was Mr Lehmann's counsel in the appeal, although he may have been instructed by Hazel Armstrong. The comments about John M "running out of steam" are inaccurate and offensive. This is a notoriously complicated area of law, and poorly paid, which is why most lawyers steer well clear of it. If they do practice ACC law, it's usually for ACC or the fat cat employers. If claimants don't want any legal representation at all, then keep up the attacks on those who bust a gut trying to help.
A far better solution, IMHO, is lobbying the MPs. For those Labour MPs who are wondering why their poll ratings have collapsed around their ears, this issue will concentrate their minds wonderfully. Either they amend the law retrospectively and order ACC to provide lump sums to asbestos sufferers or they can starting dusting off their CVs for their job searches after the election.
0

#7 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 04 June 2005 - 03:21 PM

MG, for info, the full costs and disbursements of this appeal in the High Court for BOTH parties were met by ACC.

Which now raises a point about ACC's discrimination and treatment of other claimants who have "test-cases" on points of law before the HC but have to meet the full costs and disbursements of their lawyers - if they can afford one at all.
0

#8 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 04 June 2005 - 03:51 PM

It may be worth putting a submission into the select committee on the Legal Services Amendment Bill to the effect that ACC claimants who are challenging its decisions at review or appeal have an automatic right to legal aid, which need not be repaid if successful, subject to a determination that the claimant acted reasonably in applying for review or appeal. I bet the bureaucrats won't swallow it but it's worth a go, IMHO.
0

#9 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 04 June 2005 - 04:08 PM

MG - "The comments about John M "running out of steam" are inaccurate and offensive". Inaccurate and offensive to whom? To claimants? To fellow lawyers? Ever bearing in mind his sterling work on behalf of claimants, fair comment, I would have thought, posing a point to ponder.

Claimants may well recall that when support groups filed complaints of ACC fraud with the police, John Miller, responding to a query from the press, stated that he would eat his hat whle falling off his chair if the police took the complaint seriously.

I'm sure claimants would have thought that that comment was equally inaccurate and offensive. His comment was way out of line and effectively sabotaged our objective at that time. My thoughts were what the hell did he hope to achieve, wreck support group credibility, bunch of lefty agitators, best leave it to the elite, yeh right.

As it turns out, the complaint is still under investigation. So, Mr. Miller, what size hat do you wear and would you perhaps like to be seated on a commode?
0

#10 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:03 PM

Irrespective of who's right or wrong, personal attacks are unhelpful. Why do people always want to bite the hands that feed them.

This is about advocacy, not Softball (three strikes your are ou)

Look, even if an eminent lawyer or whatever has stuffed up, instead of criticising find a way to help redress the issue, or leave it alone.

Try to find a way to support those who have at the turn of Legal Precedence been denied what should be an alienable and sovereign right to compensation for death due to someone's knowledge being covered up or spin doctored.
0

#11 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 05 June 2005 - 04:40 PM

It's healthy to have a bitch now and again, it goes to show that all are fallible and if no criticism, constructive or otherwise, is forthcoming, one will learn nothing from one's mistakes.
The definition of an expert is that X is an unknown factor and spurt is a drip under pressure. Be ye ever so high .......
0

#12 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 05 June 2005 - 07:25 PM

you notice that the truth always remain while the thers move away

The ACC staff are all tempory and all can be EXITED at there supiours request.

claimants remain claimants and will always remain
0

#13 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:15 AM

Under s. 65 of the Act ACC has a discretionary power to revise a decision made in error at any time, whatever the reason for the error.

ACC must therefore not fetter the exercise of the discretion. This is important in decision-making.

The following extract from the case Works v ARCIC, High Court, Justice Goddard may be helpful to forum members:

[32] Mr Murray drew upon all of the relevant authorities in support of Works' case. In relation to the allegations of unlawfulness he quoted from Lord Diplock's judgment in CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935 (HL) and Lord Green's famous dictum in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (CA). He also referred to the judgment of Tipping J in Practical Shooting Institute v Commissioner of Police [1992] 1 NZLR 709 (HC), in which Tipping J discussed the authorities dealing with fettering of discretion by slavish adherence to policy; authorities such as British Oxygen Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610 (HL) and Findlay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1984] 3 All ER 801 (CA). Mr Murray also referred to the authoritative texts in this area. The following passages from Wade (supra) and de Smith & Jowell, Judicial Review of Administration Action (5 ed, 1995), quoted by him, bear repeating for their succinct statements of the rule against fettering of discretion:
An authority can fail to give its mind to a case, and thus fail to exercise its discretion lawfully, by blindly following a policy laid down in advance. It is a fundamental rule for the exercise of discretionary power that discretion must be brought to bear on every case: each one must be considered on its own merits and decided as the public interest requires at the time. (Wade at p360)
. . .
A decision-making body exercising public functions which is entrusted with a discretion must not, by the adoption of a fixed rule of policy, disable itself from exercising its discretion in individual cases. It may not “fetter” its discretion. (de Smith Ch 11 at p505)
. . .
The underlying rationale of the rule against fettering discretion is to ensure that two perfectly legitimate administrative values, those of legal certainty and consistency, may be counter-acted by another equally legitimate administrative value, namely, that of responsiveness. While allowing rules and policies to promote the former vlaues[sic], it insists that the full rigour of certainty and consistency be tempered by the willingness to make exceptions, to respond flexibly to unusual situations, and to apply justice in the individual case. (de Smith Ch 11 at p 506)
[33] Likewise, under the head of natural justice and unfairness, Mr Murray drew on the leading authorities. The most helpful and modern approach to the issue of natural justice is as conveniently stated by Tipping J in Isaac v Minister of Consumer Affairs [1990] 2 NZLR 606 (HC):
. . . his field the Court should take an essentially practical rather than a legalistic approach . . . the whole of the evidence should be reviewed in making a decision as to whether [the applicant] has had practical justice in the sense of fair notice of what the Minister's concerns were, what she was proposing to do and of the grounds and material upon which she was proposing to act.
[34] The leading authorities relevant to the third and fourth causes of action were also referred to and relied upon by Mr Murray.
0

#14 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 06 June 2005 - 10:37 AM

magna I can see were you are coming from but if the advice

Quote

Justice Lowell Goddard says: "Claimants such as Mr Lehmann are precluded from entitlement to lump sum compensation and are entitled only to an independence weekly allowance for their lifetime. If there is a perceived injustice in that situation, then it is an injustice that can only be remedied by legislative amendment."
is ot takenabor then the ACC will just try again. he is not just say to do it for tis section but for all sections.

legistation changes that do not have the ACC advisers feeing in negative statements that give the select committe the wrong information.

Magna I'll read your post again and think about when have more time.
0

#15 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 06 June 2005 - 12:25 PM

Asbestos carters' call for help

Two truck drivers who were exposed to asbestos while cart­ing the deadly material - even
manhandling sacks of it on and off their trucks - believe that the indus­try needs to ensure that it's looking after the "hundreds, if not thou­sands," of truckies like them.
Aucklanders John Adams and Graeme Poole want to see a well­publicised helpline-style service in place - to offer asbestos-exposed drivers advice on what they should do to check for potential harmful effects, what help's available to them and what their rights might (or might not) be to any compensation payouts.
Adams, now 65, and suffering from asbestosis, reckons he was first exposed to asbestos when he had a holiday job as a schoolboy at James Hardie Industries in Auckland in 1956 - and again, regularly, in truck­ing the material in various jobs right through until the early 1980s.
"I used to help get it off the wharves," he says. He was one of about 150 owner/drivers in the Auckland Truck Pool (most running tippers or flatdecks) and "a lot of them" used to cart asbestos.
"City Haulage had the regular con­tract to take the stuff from the whaff to Hardies, but when a boat came in there was often so much of the stuff they used to get in a lot of outside truckies as well to move it all.
Many were also involved in trans­porting the asbestos offcuts and waste from Hardies to a number of rubbish dumps around the greater Auckland area: "Nobody knew what we were handling. We just got the job done. There were certainly no masks. We were wallowing in it.
"I've been told you only need a few good straight whiffs of the stuff and you can potentially get asbestosis," he says.
Adams also worked on a number of demolition jobs where he carted large quantities of asbestos to rubb­ish tips - jobs like the refurbishment of the Auckland Art Gallery where all the asbestos was ripped out of the building and trucked away by Adams and other operators.
In other instances, the asbestos was carted to farms, for instance:
"People used to use asbestos to covc driveways and farm races becau5 it was cheaper than gravel," sa~' Adams. "I did lots of jobs like that."
He remains positive about hi health: "The bad news is I've got 5' small cysts on my lungs. The go news is they're not cancerous. Yet'
After getting a referral from I own doctor, he has been to Greenla Hospital six times for tests sin November last year, but specialiK don't know whether his current cci dition will become worse.
Poole, now 63 and still drivin says he has no health worries of 11 own but became concerned abc the possible effects of the asbesti dust he'd worked in briefly on ti Auckland wharves in the 1970s.
Poole says he got sent to the wh~' with his flatdeck truck to cart sac of asbestos: 'You had to unload it the hook of the crane - straight frci the hold of the ship - onto the er of the truck. Then you had to phys cally stack it on the truck."
During the unloading, he says. was always "quite dusty: I used have to take my shirt off. The stti' was like little pine needles that usc to get in your clothing."
"Arid you only had to kneel in and it'd be all over you. You'd get bit of dust up your nose and you'd start coughing and sneezing."
At other times the asbestos was loaded from a cargo shed, and drivers had to wheelbarrow it from the shed to the truck.
"We never had a mask or anything. I didn't even think about it at the time: You just rolled your sleeve up and got on with it. You had a job to do. We didn't have OSH - we just went and did what we were told.
"It's only now that things are com­ing out that this stuff could bite you on the backside."
Poole says he can thank a pre­disposition to hayfever to avoiding further asbestos exposure.' "This stuff aggravated it, so I got taken off it - after maybe a month.. .1 can't remember to be honest."
Poole reckons he was only one of many truck drivers carting asbestos:
"There were a hell of a lot of drivers exposed to it. We used to cart tons of it."
And, he says, they used to get "totally covered with the stuff -there were clouds of dust as the unloading went on.
Poole says he started to look for information about asbestos a few years ago, once its debilitating effects on lungs and breathing became more widely known.
Arid, he says, it took him some time to get the information about what he should do, whether he really needed to be worried and what medical help he was entitled to.
Says Poole: "It's critical to get good medical care. We need to have some­where drivers can ring up and talk to somebody - where you can get information from."
The lack of such a service is the reason, he believes, why few truckies have registered with the NZ Asbestos Exposure Register, which has less than 0.2% of its total registrations from "transport drivers" or "trucking" occupations.
That is the surprising statistic prov­ided by the Occupational Safety and Health Service division of the Department of Labour, which keeps the register
Established in 1992, the regist­er has details of people exposed to asbestos as long ago as 1945 - but currently has only 14 registrations by truckies.
The National Road Carriers and the Northern Distribution Union (covering many truck drivers), both advise drivers who think they have been exposed to asbestos to register with OSH. That opens the door to free medical tests and treatment under the ACC Act.
While the ACC covers the medical costs of testing for asbestosis and its treatment, it is less clear whether sufferers of the disease can make lump sum compensation claims.
Last year the Wellington District Court ordered the ACC to pay the estate of Aucklander Ross Lehmann nearly $100,000 as a result of asbestosis he con­tracted through being exposed to the material in the 1960s and '70's. His condition was diagnosed in November 2002 and he died a year later.
The ACC has appealed on the basis it can only make lump sum payments for injuries or exposure first incurred after April 1, 2002 - when the lump sum payment scheme was introduced.
Several other lump sum claims against ACC for asbestosis are pend­ing. Arid a NZer who was exposed to asbestos here in the '60s and '70s, but now lives in Australia, has made a successful claim against James Hardie for several hundred thous­and dollars through the Australian legal system.. although Hardies is now appealing the decision.
The appeal is based on NZ's no-fault ACC system, which the Australian company claims covers whatever might have occurred in NZ.
Because the man now lives in Australia, the ACC has declined to cover him, although he contracted asbestosis here.
If the appeal fails, it may open the way for other asbestosis sufferers who worked with the product here, as supplied by Hardies, to lodge claims across the Tasman.
James Hardie Industries in Australia has already pledged in principle to provide up to 35% of its operating cash flow each year for the next four decades to compensate victims of the asbestos products it manufactured until the mid-1980s.
But the money - said to be around $1.5billion - won't start flowing to victims until the comp­any signs a final, binding agree­ment. After that, it will still need an independent expert's report and will then take the deal to shareholders for approval.
0

#16 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 06 June 2005 - 01:47 PM

I think this whole asbestos case goes back to the enactment of the original 2001 Bill and then the Act, and whether this Act was enacted constitutionally correctly.

I raised this point in another thread about asbestos and how serious is it.

Is seems to me that ACC knew, or ought to have known, that asbestos was dangerous from ACC's original inception in the 1970's, and it was quite wrong to have remained silent about that while moving the Parliament - through its government Minister - to exclude those people affected by asbestos when the new 2001 Act was enacted.

These affected people have been subjected to disproportionatly severe treatment and discrimination - both prohibited under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (s.9 and s.13)

We also know that the Attorney-General failed to give s.7 notification to the Parliament of possible inconsistencies with the BORA when Parliament enacted the 2001 Act.

It must follow that the Parliament blindly enacted the 2001 Act thereby creating an injustice.

It is therefore reasonable to say that if Parliament was made aware of the true situation and the inconsistencies with the BORA, it would have done something about the dangers in the asbestos situation or, at the very least, debated it.

There is no evidence that it did, or was even told, or knew about the dangers which have been kow since the 1950's.

As it stands, Parliament was kept in the dark (misled???) by ACC, the ACC Minister and the Attorney-General and therefore enacted the 2001 Act blindly.

That is where the Courts are able to intervene and make a declaration that this part of the Act is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

IMHO that is one of the things that the High Court should have been asked to do - and perhaps also what Justice Lowell Goddard ought to have done in this case instead of simply saying the situation can only be remedied by legislative amendement.

She is usually a very fair Judge.

However, what has happened has not done justice between the parties or ensured that justice is paramount or ensured the fearless pursuit of the truth.

Claimant's haven't be able to sue James Hardie or NZ Forest Products but IMHO ACC could.

And there must also be doubt, in light of this decision of Justice Goddard, whether these particular claimants still can't sue.

I still say they can't sue because they are covered by the Act and receive independence allowances.

It's just that Parliament has (blindly) excluded them from receiving lumps sum payments and that is manifestly unjust.

ALL our NZ politicians from all parties ought to be ashamed of themselves as uncaring, inhumane and dispassionate people otherwise we would see an immediate Members amendment to the Act put to Parliament - but don't hold your breath with this lot.
0

#17 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 06 June 2005 - 07:34 PM

I would have to disagree with you that the goverment did know the dangers of Asbestos in the 50's he Airforce did serviceing of forgin planes and there was one type that had asbestos around te exasut pipe. before they could do anything ther than checking the plane the asbestos had to be wet down and this was because of the dangers assocated with the asbestos.

The base closed down in 1958 and he was there between 55 and 57. of cause office wollies wouldn't know like they know very little out side their little glass house.
0

#18 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:00 PM

here is the list of contacts for the transport industry

Members of road transport seven member associations are automatically affiliated to the Forum. These include five regional transport associations (RTAs) under the auspices of NZ Road Transport Associations. They also include members of NRC, an organisation providing services to assist NZ transport businesses and the Combined Owner Driver Association SI, which works on behalf of owner-operators in the South Island.
National Road Carriers provides services that assist NZ transport businesses:
P0 Box 12-100, Penrose, Auckland,
Office 0800 686 777,
Fax (09) 622 2529
email enquiries©natroad.co.nz
Contacts: Bruce Reid, Executive Director Office (09) 636 2951, Mobile 021 771 911 email bruce©natroad.co.nz
James Smith, Executive Officer
Office: (09) 636 2950
Mobile: 021 771 951
email [email protected] Steve Woodward, Executive Officer
Office: (09) 636 2952
Mobile: 021 771 952
email [email protected] Bert Rile~ NRC Career Services
Office: (09) 636 2953
Mobile: 021 771 956
email [email protected] Ray Jones, NRC Technical Services
Office: (09) 636 2901
Mobile: 021 771 946
email [email protected]

Combind Owners Association SI specialises in owner operator services in the South Island:
P0 Box 20048, Bishopdale, Christchurch.
Office (03) 359 5539,
Fax (03) 359 5587
FREEPHONE 0800 338 338
Contact: Brian O'Neill, Executive Officer Mobile 021 755 156 email [email protected]


New Zealand Road TransportAssociation represents the following five
RTAs: National Office, P0 Box 31 306, Lower Huff, Wellington
FREEPHONE 0800 FOR RTA FREE FAX 0800 FAX RTA
Contact: Brian Priest General Manager
Office (04) 568 9530,
Fax (04) 568 9534
Mobile 027 422 2222
email [email protected]
Air note [email protected]


Northrn Regional RTA which covers operators in Northland and Auckland:
P0 Box 75 364, Manurewa, Auckland.
FREEPHONE 0800 FOR RTA
FREE FAX 0800 FAX RTA
Contacts: Steven Crosby, Area Manager
Office (09) 236 4110, Fax (09) 236 4112
Mobile 027 436 4644,
email [email protected]£o.nz Paula Davies, Area Manager
Office (09) 236 4110, Fax (09) 236 4112
Mobile 027 444 8135
email [email protected] Paul Scott, Area Manager
Office (09) 438 2972, Fax (09) 438 2972
Mobile 027 479 0056
email [email protected]
Office & postal: 149 Otaika Rd, Whangarei


Regional 2 RTA which looks after operators in Waikato, Bay of Plenty, King Country, Thames Valley and Poverty Bay: P0 Box 14140,Tauranga
FREEPHONE 0800 FOR RTA
FREE FAX 0800 FAX RTA
Contacts: Charlene Ken, Area Manager
Office (07) 552 5250, Fax (07) 552 5020
Mobile 027 443 6022
email [email protected]£o.nz Gary Masters, Area Representative
Office: (07) 889 1427, Fax (07) 880 1428
Mobile 027 2489 791
email [email protected]£o.nz


Central Area RTA covers the rest of the
North Island:
FREEPHONE 0800 FOR RTA FREE FAX 0800 FAX RTA
Contacts: Mike Dennehy, Area Manager, P0 Box 31 306, Lower Hutt, Wellington
Office (04) 388 1415, Fax (04) 388 1415
Mobile 027 443 7999
email [email protected] Garth Cassidy, Area Manager,
P0 Box 222, Waipukurau, Office (06) 858 8521, Fax (06) 858 8521 Mobile 027 445 5928
email gcassidy©nzrta.co.nz Tom Cloke, Area Manager;
P0 Box 66, New Plymouth, Office (06) 759 2049, Fax (06) 759 2058 Mobile 027 446 4892
email tcloke©nzrta.co.nz

South Island RTA (Northern)covers
the northern part of the South Island:
P0 Box 73g2, Christchurch FREEPHONE 0800 FOR RTA FREE FAX 0800 FAX RTA
Contacts: Peter Goodwin, Area Manager
Office (03) 366 9854, Fax (03) 366 9853
Mobile 027 485 5418
email [email protected] Catherine Hobbs, Area Manager,
Office (03) 366 9854, Fax (03) 366 9853
Mobile 027 444 8136
email [email protected] Sherry Henwood, Area Manager
Office (03) 366 9854, Fax (03) 366 9853
Mobile 027 445 5785
email [email protected]


region 5 RTA covers Dunedin, Invercargill
and Gore: P0 Box 6329, Dunedin FREEPHONE 0800 FOR RIA FREE FAX 0800 FAX RIA
Contact: Dave Potter, Area Manager,
Office (03) 477 4493, Fax (03) 477 7048
Mobile 027 446 4891
email [email protected]

When you want the forestry industry I go and look them up. these are big orginisations with lots of power to help change the legistation.

Magnacata I think by condeming the pratices of the judge is not going to solve the problem. personally unless you have the submissions and select committee transcript and every other document for the change of the Act you are barking and no one will listen.
I know several have barked the same tune but failed to go pass the bark. you will find out on the web what the goverment ask for and what the Act was to do on the web. Good luck with your searching.
0

#19 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:41 PM

Doppel, our government did know about the 1950's dangers of asbestos from the Royal Naval Dockyard case per Lord Denning.

I also know exactly what the Parliament considered and did not consider when the 2001 Act was enacted. I don't make assertions lightly.

I also know that when the 2001 Act was enacted the Parliament did not consider the inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights Act. There is case law R v Pounamo about constitutionally incorrect enactment of legislation and what Parliament is required to do.

And the only reason that ACC gets away with what they do generally, is because the Judges let them.
0

#20 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 07 June 2005 - 11:29 AM

IW2 - I think your analysis of the political machinations behind the lump sim/asbestos issue in the 2001 Act is spot on. Of course the MPs and ACC are well aware of the fact that asbestos-related illnesses have a long latency period, so they deliberately enacted legislation that denied real compensation to this group of sufferers (unlawful discrimination - cf s19 NZBORA/s21 Human Rights Act 1993?). I also have no doubt that ACC lobbied hard to stop being required to pay real compensation to this group of sufferers - as it did with the RSI sufferers by stopping their conditions from making onto Schedule 2 of the Act. IMHO, the drafting and enactment of the 2001 Act was a disgraceful piece of political cowardice, for which Labour deserves to pay heavily at the next election. On the other hand, a Brash/Peters government will be even worse. Why can't we get political leaders who actually listen to what the people want and make the system deliver.
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