ACCforum: New Petition Suggestion - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

New Petition Suggestion New Petition suggestion

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 26 February 2006 - 07:37 AM

To the House of Representatives

The Petition of (name and address and signature) and.........others

Respectfully requests that:

The House of Representatives convenes a Select Committee Inquiry on the following grounds:

According to a letter from the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives dated 24 November 2005, there is nothing in Standing Orders preventing another petition being lodged on the same matter.

Petition 2002/121 of Denise Allen Powell and 522 others was presented to the House on 17 June 2004.


The petition requested:



“Due to the widespread dissatisfaction among ACC claimants with the claims management practices of ACC and its subsidiary companies, the House of Representatives convene a Select Committee Inquiry to inquire into such claims management practices.”



The petition was referred to the Government Administration Committee (GAC) who resolved to refer it back to the House for re-referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee (TIRC) because it considered that that Committee was the more appropriate Committee. The GAC relied on Standing Order 188 when it considered that matters to do with the ACC are outside its subject area.



There is ambiguity, because in a letter from the Clerk of the House, which is also referred to later, he wrote: “There is no right or wrong committee to which a petition is referred. Every Committee has jurisdiction to deal with a petition which is referred to it.”



However, the TIRC apparently informed the GAC that it had recently considered a report on ACC case management prepared by the Auditor-General and as a result it had nothing to say regarding the petition and it did not wish to have the petition transferred to it.



In the petitioner's respectful view, the Auditor-General's inquiry and report into case management was limited in scope, it did not compare the ACC policy, procedures and systems against the ACC legislation, there were mistakes and several errors of fact and law contrary to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 and, the report did not address the Corporation's obligations and failures to observe the principles of natural justice in the course of its decison-making.



For example, there is a distinction between administrative decisions of the Corporation which are not subject to a right to review and appeal, and entitlement decisions which are.



Notwithstanding, the recommendations of the Auditor-General were meant to be implemented some time ago.



The conclusion of the GAC was: “That the petition be referred back to the House and that the House re-refer the petition to the TIRC.”



That never happened. There are alleged to be serious flaws;



Firstly, by virtue of s.3 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) the Parliament is bound by the provisions of the BORA.



The petitioners are aware from an email reply from the then Attorney-General dated 15 July 2003, that she did not give s.7 notification to the House of possible inconsistencies when the IPR Bill, as it was then, was proceeding through the reading stages. There are a number of inconsistencies identified between the IPRC Act 2001 and the BORA.



In the case The Queen v Poumako the Court of Appeal had much to say at paragraph’s 96 and 97 about the proper constitutional enactment of legislation – manner and form. As has the High Court.



Secondly, the TIRC committee relied on a limited investigation and report from the Auditor-General about case management when the petitioners were requesting Parliament to convene an inquiry into claims management practices of the ACC and its subsidiaries.



Clearly, entirely distinguishable matters.



Claims management relates to the overall governance and operation of the scheme, the policies of the ACC, the ACC Boards’ non-compliance with the Minister’s Letters of Expectation and the processes and procedures adopted by the subsidiary companies (DRSL), - whereas case management relates to individuals.



For example, in the overall claims managment, the operational costs of the Corporation are forecast to increase this year by 35%. The Corporation has s.262 (3) obligations imposed to be cost effective and promote administrative efficiency and yet it proceeds with litigation of little importance when the cost of that litigation far exceeds the cost of providing the actual entitlement.



The Corporation operates an official form 202 which asks the question "Is it less than $300 - No - hearing" This means that a claimant seeking 10 visits of physiotherapy treatment which costs around $400 is off to a hearing costing the Corporation many times that amount.



A proper reading of the request for an inquiry into ACC shows that the intent of Petition 2002/121 of Denise Alen Powell was unfortunately misconstrued or misapplied by the TIRC when it elected not to take further action on the petition.



On 17 June 2005 the Clerk of the House, when answering concerns about process and procedure and a denial of natural justice by the TIRC, wrote:



“While the petition is no longer before the House, the Petitioner can, if she wishes, present another petition to the new Parliament to be elected at the forthcoming general election.”



In this petition the petitioners are again simply seeking to protect their rights, obligations and interests and seeking redress of their grievances from their House of Representatives.



It is respectfully submitted that the defaults of the TIRC have implications for the Rule of Law and a failure of representative democracy.



Over time, many claimants have also asked the Minister for ACC to intervene both in individual cases and about conducting an inquiry but without success. The New Zealand Law Society supported Petition 2002/121.
0

#2 User is offline   Noddy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 10-April 04

Posted 26 February 2006 - 08:05 AM

Fantastic introduction Magnacarta!

I, probably like many others, visit this Forum every day and take in what is developing. Many are just waiting for the chance to jump in and help - not all of us are leaders, but will gladly support those that do.

I agree with Percy's question - what is best? A dozen individual petitions or one nationwide petition with many thousand signatures? I for one will get hundreds of friends and family to sign it. Would this carry more weight?

Noddy
0

#3 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 26 February 2006 - 08:36 AM

Well done me boy,

lets keep the ball rolling .

I will even come from Whangarei to be part of the handing over to meet in parliament grounds , and will bring our sheets.
Just say the word.
0

#4 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 26 February 2006 - 08:37 AM

Thanks Noddy, but there is no need for petition's with many signatures.

Each individual person has a right to lodge a petition. They could simply print this petition off, if they agree, put their name and address on it, sign it and take it to an MP and ask them to table it in the House.

Remember an individual MP does not have to table your petition nor, if they do, agree with it.

The wording of a petition can be the choice of each individual petitioner - Afterall it is the principal petitioner who is seeking redress of grievances (any other signatories merely agree).

I have tried to provide a template above. However, whatever the wording of your petition the central theme of each petition should be the same - i.e seeking an inquiry into ACC claims management and the grounds relied on.

KEEP THE GROUNDS AS BRIEF AS IS HUMANELY POSSIBLE - TWO PAGES MAXIMUM
0

#5 User is offline   Limoges 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-November 04

Posted 26 February 2006 - 10:21 AM

To everyone who is a member of this Forum,

Please take this template of Magnacarta's and use it as your Petition to Parliament for an Inquiry into ACC. As you are aware I am unable to send a Petition because I live outside NZ and therefore have no MP representing me. Magnacarta has given SO much of his time to this Forum in guiding and supporting us all for which no doubt we are all extremely grateful. Take this help with two hands and use it to your best advantage.

If everyone just sits around and does nothing but whinge on the Forum and elsewhere about what is going on with the management of their claim , nobody will get what we are all crying out for - a fair and honest deal from ACC. Together we stand - divided we fall. Do not sit back in the hope that others will do the work for you as some are - that is a coward's way of seeking the help that we all need. Yes, some are more leaders whilst others are prepared to follow, but whichever you are, please do what is needed.

Even though it is exhausting, demoralising and exacerbates my symptoms in attempting to get a fair deal from ACC, it has been worth every bit of pain (and cost) I have suffered in doing so. I have had five (5) decisions from ACC reversed in the past 11 months, with a 6th one hopefully soon in the box so to speak. Without the effort it has taken to have these ill-conceived decisions reversed, I would have been on a Disability benefit, something which would be so grossly wrong when I am "significantly disabled" with this Medical Misadventure I sustained in 1991, as well as the initial disc problems! Further, my Lawyer and I have recently won a case of having been underpaid for the past 13 years - I am talking about many, many thousands of dollars which I have been underpaid since 1993! I was correctly paid initially, however ACC in their 'wisdom' went to the IRD, and changed my Tax Code to reflect what they then wanted to pay me!! Whenever I have attempted to right the wrong with ACC (several times over the years), their policy of deny, deny applied. With a Lawyer writing the letter - voila - ACC has capitulated! Yes, and I even had the denial that my ERC was wrong from the Minister herself a few years back! Does this not confirm to all that she believes the spin from ACC staff, something which we beg her not to.......... or is there something more insidious going on?

If one puts the effort in, one does receive the benefits of having done so!
0

#6 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 26 February 2006 - 10:48 AM

template of Magnacarta's.
I agree that magnacartas template is spot on and we will use it if that is OK
further more i would like to bring our 4 pages and whatever more we can get in this area down to Wellington to hand to MPs
A letter to Dyson, the member for national, and greens , and NZfirst to ask then to receive this petition.

the more the merrier to assemble in wellington to get this message across.

this time we may win .
the year of the claiment
0

#7 User is offline   hillsy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 19-July 05

Posted 26 February 2006 - 11:45 AM

Good morning all,

please note the flowchart at the end of this PETITIONING THE HOUSE guide.

http://www.accforum.org/forums//index.php?...e=post&id=25836

There is a stage in the petition's progress where the principal petitioner and/or interested parties may be invited to make submissions.

1. Where may I find examples of previous submissions to assist in the compilation of a comprehensive submission for this round of petitioning?

2. How does one ensure one will be invited to make a submission on a petition?


I do not wish my pettition to be sidelined by the usual petition busting tricks.

Peace
Hillsy
0

#8 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:16 PM

Greetings,
Copy of M.C.'s suggestion here... on word for download...

Attached File(s)


0

#9 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 26 February 2006 - 12:33 PM

as requested

petition forms

http://www.accforum.org/forums//index.php?...ype=post&id=219
0

#10 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 26 February 2006 - 01:07 PM

Thanks for that guys! Will deliver mine to my MP DYSON tomorra, wait for the explosion?!!
Percy
0

#11 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 26 February 2006 - 04:30 PM

Some petitioners will also have the issue for their petition that:

ACC's failure to provide social rehabilitation or assessments in a timely manner; and

the failure of ACC's appointed social rehabilitation assessors to involve and confirm with the spouse/partner of the injured person before issuing social rehabilitation needs assessments to ACC;

has left ACC open to a real risk of litigation for damages from the spouse/partner who was left carrying an unfair and avoidable burden.

Don't forget to say that you also wish to be heard on your petition.
0

#12 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 27 February 2006 - 05:37 AM

I have established that if our overseas forum members retain the right to vote in a New Zealand election they are able to approach an MP (via email) asking the chosen MP to table their petition to the House.

Just because you live overseas does not abrogate your rights as a New Zealand citizen - particularly as a directly affected party to ACC's conduct, actions and omissions.
0

#13 User is offline   Limoges 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-November 04

Posted 27 February 2006 - 09:59 AM

Brilliant news Magna.....
Thankyou! I have voted from over here. So.... who is the most likely to say..... yes, I will put your Petition forward? Please advise.

Have just checked my replies from the November 2005 letter sent to Parliamentarians and have chosen Judy Turner, Deputy Leader United Future NZ. She stated in her reply letter to me that she has ".....in the past experienced the difficulties you mention when advocating to ACC on behalf of distressed constituents. Your letter summaries the concerns well and so I have sent a letter to the Minister asking for her advice."

Enough said to let her table the Petition!
0

#14 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:15 AM

Limoges, IMHO choosing an MP who is likely to table your petition is like putting your hand into a bag full of snakes and hoping you don't get bitten.

Throw a dart at the dart board - there are 120 of them - take your pick
0

#15 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 27 February 2006 - 07:53 PM

:wub: Hi everyone ... you summed it all up well magnacarta ... putting your hand in a bag of snakes and hopefully don't get bitten ...

From the first posting that started this thread, I fully acknowledge the time effort and energy gone in , but appears to me no-one wants to accept the petition and are full on playing pass the hot potatoe ... delay , deny , decline , destroy , destruction , death ... bugger.

:D Could we not ask our Prime Minister who do we give the Petition to?
0

#16 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 28 February 2006 - 12:49 PM

I have not confirmed this but I understand Sue Bradford and the guy Brown from NZ First will table the petitions.

Perhaps someone can confirm this and also advise who else they have given petitions to.

Limoges has Judy Turner from United Future.

Exactly which MP your petition is given to is not that crucial - I think the minor parties all agree that there should be a bi-partisan approach to the ACC issue - and for that I thank them.
0

#17 Guest_lorilye_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:56 PM

Well Limoges,

If you can get an acknowledgement out of Judy Turner, then you are a better man than I Gunga Din.

Two very important letters have this year languished unmarked upon.

Having had personal contact with this lady in the past....I had expected more of her....well.... polititian now.......all froth and bubble seems to have lost the fervor with which she had been previously noted.

I am very disappointed.

Lori.
0

#18 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 28 February 2006 - 05:58 PM

Simple question.. Can the original be resubmitted with additional
names added?.
0

#19 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:45 PM

Greg, simple answer, No - it's been dealt with by Parliament (allegedly) - and you don't need any other signatures to a petition than your own plus name and address.

Tomcat has posted a suggested petition earlier on this thread.

With respect guys, can we stop making this issue of a petition into a Cecil B DeMille production - after all, we are not producing the Ten Commandments.
0

#20 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 02 March 2006 - 12:51 PM

In order of priority I think the petition to Parliament is more important than the conference.

This is because a select committee is empowered to refer a petition to the Ombudsmen for full inquiry.

Members may also recall that the Ombudsmen were about to conduct an "own motion" inquiry into ACC pursuant to the Ombudsmen's Act before the Auditor-General became involved and then produced his very limited report.

A select-committee can refer our petition to the Ombudsmen and even we can ask the Ombudsmen to conduct an "own motion" inquiry into ACC under the Ombudsmen's Act.

You petition is crucial at this point so please do so.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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