[Alan Thomas]

The ACC has a FRAUD UNIT whose mission is to investigate claimants entitlements which is achieved by sub contracting out to private investigators.

The FRAUD UNIT confesses that it knows very little about the ACC act and that the private investigators are given no instructions whatsoever as to what is and what is not relevant information. Generally private investigators create a rudimentary hypothesis that is not quality controlled by the ACC at all before claimants are threatened to surrender their entitlements will face prosecution.

Those of us who have been affected by this gross bungling have seen similar pattern is emerging whereby it is obvious that the ACC is operating to a pattern of behaviour which itself must be investigated as the same fact evidence indicates a practice of a conspiracy to commit perjury for the pecuniary advantage of the ACC. These allegations are of the most serious type that without doubt must result in the incarceration of key ACC staff members and numerous private investigators. Key to the evidence are those who have been wrongly prosecuted, ACC staff members signing off that the entitlements don't exist even though no information support of that notion, the contracts ACC have with the private investigators and other such material evidence.

It is now time that the "FRAUD UNIT" is itself investigated!

Attached File(s)

•  ACC_Fraud_Unit_Review.doc (147.5K)
  Number of downloads: 84

[Spacecadet]

The biggest ACC frauds in the past have been perpetrated by ACC senior executives; resulting two CEOs and a Branch Manager being charged, and numerous minions quietly removed.

The biggest frauds currently being perpetrated is by the ACC Fraud Unit, so an enquiry into their affairs is long overdue.

I am already up to page 50 of my submissions -

[Alan Thomas]

Review of ACC’s Fraud Unit

1 Purpose

1.1 The purpose of this review is to undertake an independent assessment of ACC’s Fraud Unit in relation to its:

• Structure (including an interfaces with other internal business units),
• Reporting arrangements,
• Culture,
• Operating approach (including methodology, application of that methodology and mechanisms to share learnings), and
• Capability and capacity.

1.2 This review should take into account any across-Government initiatives or innovations in this area (e.g. NZ Police), and consider relevant best practice where appropriate.

2 Background

2.1 ACC has recently developed a new desired culture and agreed a set of Corporate Values. This, together with recent public concerns about ACC’s fraud management practices, means that it is timely to review the way the ACC Fraud investigation services are organised and provided.

2.2 ACC currently has a dedicated Fraud Unit as part of its Risk & Assurance and Fraud Team. This Unit is responsible for the implementation of fraud detection and investigation practices, and for undertaking prosecution and/or other actions in situations where any potential significant provider, staff or claimant fraud is suspected. In addition, the Unit also supports ACC line managers in fraud prevention and education programmes.

2.3 There are 29 staff in the Fraud Unit, which is headed up by the Risk & Assurance and Fraud Manager. The members of the Unit are located in 7 sites across New Zealand.

2.4 The Fraud Unit interfaces with other business units in ACC, especially the Provider Monitoring Unit and the Operations Business Units. However, there has been a lack of clarity and communication between these interfaces in the past. In addition, the process for sharing any learning arising from actual or potential frauds is not consistently implemented within ACC.

2.5 An independent assessment of the structure, reporting arrangements, culture, operating approach, and capability and capacity of the Unit is therefore sought. This independent assessment will inform the Chief Executive of possible ways forward. This work may also form the basis for future consultation with staff in the Unit.

3 Key Deliverables

3.1 There is one key deliverable from this work:
a) The completion of a report for ACC’s Chief Executive which details key findings from the review and proposes suggested future actions, if necessary.

4 Indicative timeframes

4.1 It is anticipated that this work will commence mid May and be completed by 30 June 2007. The following indicative timeframes are provided:

a) Completion of independent assessment, including interviews with key stakeholders, review of
relevant background materials and research into best practice. 8 June 07

Preparation of a draft report for discussion with the Chief Executive. 22 June 07

c) Completion of the final report (may include presentation of findings). 30 June 07

5 Scope

5.1 The scope of this review will primarily focus on ACC’s Fraud Unit, however consideration of other key investigative business units which interface with the Fraud Unit may be required.

5.2 Analysis of business needs from key stakeholders, e.g. Operations Group management, may also be required.

5.3 Examination and consideration of any across-Government initiatives or innovations in the Fraud area, e.g. NZ Police, should also be given.

6 Key Contacts

6.1 The following people are the key contacts for this review.

Dr Jan White
Chief Executive
PO Box 242
Wellington
04 918 7801

Denise Cosgrove
General Manager Human Resources
PO Box 242
Wellington
04 918 4284

[Witchiepoo]

Excuse me people - CAN I HAVE A SLICE OF THIS ???? Count me in, I HAVE SUBMISSIONS !!! Whooo hooooo eeeeee haaaaaa

[Alan Thomas]

Those of us who have been harmed or potentially could be harmed by the incompetence or dishonesty of the ACC Fraud Unit it would be best that we make a coordinated series of submissions. To achieve this objective please touch base with me by a personal message to add your names to the existing list.

[Spacecadet]

The time frame in the terms of reference show that this inquiry in being conducted in what can only be described as "INDECENT HASTE".

I would like to make submissions and present them at the enquiry in person. If anyone needs any help with their submissions email me.

[magnacarta]

Agree spacecadet,

In my view this timeframe amounts to inadequate consultation which is an administrative law matter. I don't recall seeing this review on the COG agenda either as part of the ACC/COG relationship protocol.

[Al9lifes]

So whats happening then?

Where do I sign up ? The ACC fraud tried it on me and I am still sore.

[Spacecadet]

magnacarta, on May 28 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

Agree spacecadet,

In my view this timeframe amounts to inadequate consultation which is an administrative law matter. I don't recall seeing this review on the COG agenda either as part of the ACC/COG relationship protocol.

And in terms of ACC speak, GOGs is a group representing stakeholders - one required to have an input to such reviews!

[MG]

Two things concern me about this:
1. Information sharing - if this "review" is anything like the one carried out by the Auditor general a couple of years back all it will recommend are more "efficient" ways to shaft claimants. As it happens, the fraud squad regularly send scraps of prejudicial information to branches with recommendations as to how they can be used to disentitle claimants. I suspect a few, deniable, phone calls are made to GPs once the branch gets hold of anything that can be twisted and used against claimants to show they are less incapacitated then their medical certificates indicate. It's always interesting when a GP suddenly stops backing their patient.
2. "Key stakeholders" - obviously claimants are not included.
I suspect another whitewash here. ACC/the Minister may have panicked after the TV3 item (although I understand ACC managed to get some of the more damning footage suppressed).

[Spacecadet]

ACC Fraud Review.

My public submission

After studying the "Terms of Reference" document for the review, I am afraid that it appears we have been sold a pup on this one. The terms of reference relate to "an independent assessment of the structure, reporting arrangements, culture, operating approach, and capability and capacity of the Unit"

Who is doing this independent assessment?

This remains known only to Jan White and her key advisers, and they are definitely not interested in submissions from the riff raff of ACC claimants; and clearly those doing the assessment wish to remain independent and anonymous to the claimants who they intend to shaft.

What is the purpose of this review?

The answer to this is found in recent public concerns about ACC's fraud management practices. (see Background, 2.2). So, the submissions to the Judicial review into physiotherapy, plus Huggy & Hazel's appearance on TV3 has definitely got the attention of Jan White. Clearly, Jan White does not like this sort of publicity so there is a definite need to sweep these matters under the carpet.
(Keep up the good work team!)

Consultation with Stakeholders.

The terms of Reference for the review talks about key stakeholders. This term comes from the "paint by numbers" management style currently used by ACC and other similarly poor performing Government departments. The key stakeholders in ACC are "the levy payers", "the claimants", the Medical providers and the Government. However, none of these are being consulted in this review.
So, who are the stakeholders referred to?
The Terms of Reference document refers to other business units of ACC, especially the Provider Monitoring Unit and the Operation Business Units. This being so, the review is immediately downgraded to an ACC internal administrative review, whose sole immediate purpose appears to be a damage control exercise.

The use of the term "stakeholder" in the terms of reference for this review reflect the culture within ACC, one where the pigs are now running the farm and believe they own it, to the exclusion to all others.(applogies to George Orwell)

Timeframe.

The indicative timeframes which require the independent assessment to be completed by the 8th of June, and the completion of the final report by the 30th June show indecent haste on behalf of ACC. From this one can only conclude that the recent inability of the Minister, Ruth Dyson, to answer questions in Parliament about the operations of her own department have put pressure on Dr White to produce a flurry of paper in the pretence of doing something about the situation.

In conclusion,

This Terms of Reference document for a review of the Fraud Unit show that the review is but a window dressing exercise to get the Minister off the hook, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the transgressions of the Fraud Unit. As such, this review has nothing but my contempt and confirms my view, shared by an ever increasing section of the public, that ACC is a corrupt organisation.

[Al9lifes]

ACC is looking for something or someone to blame I think.

The system was flawed or the implementation was flawed .

"We only did our best" kinda thing.

Blame the tools or the workers or the plan or the plan makers or policy or legislation and always seek to cure or fix the "problems" discovered while having an internal review conducted about incidental crap and avoiding the issues altogether the internal review will fix nothing and reveal nothing new.

Yeah right
Jan White
Panic mode ?
OR JUST A FRIGHT.

[BLURB]

Just saw Huggie on the box

Why not make an issue out of not being able to make subbmissions ... tv3 may follow up on it because it is in relation to Huggies tiff with his old mate NOT the pi ... well, we know that even thou they at the acc said on the box it wasn't!

[ruralkiwi]

BLURB, on May 29 2007, 06:41 PM, said:

Just saw Huggie on the box

Why not make an issue out of not being able to make subbmissions ... tv3 may follow up on it because it is in relation to Huggies tiff with his old mate NOT the pi ... well, we know that even thou they at the acc said on the box it wasn't!

Yes I am sure there are many claimants who have been intimidated and placed under duress by these arseholes who should be given the opportunity to make submissions. ACC will be trying to make it look as if they are doing something about their corruption and hope that it goes out of the public eye. We all need to band together and put a stop to their illegal activities for once and for all

[Spacecadet]

Read my public submission!

I made this because there is no possibility of any claimant making a submission to this review, and the forum is the only option to air my views in public - and also to be read by ACC.

[Alan Thomas]

I telephoned the number on the terms of reference to the Review of ACC Fraud Unit and spoke to Michael Spraggon. I expressed my concerns that the terms of reference is more likely to deliver the results that the ACC would like to hear rather than the results that the end user and potential end user might like to hear.

I suggested that the terms of reference need to be expanded so as to have regard for the historical evidence demonstrating the capability and capacity of the ACC Fraud Unit.

[arthur]

That's good that he listened to you. Well done for making the call. Who is Michael in relation to the review - someone that might be able to make a difference?


Did he give you information on why the review is going to be completed so quickly?


Were you able to persuade him to allow us to make submissions?

[Alan Thomas]

Michael Spraggon is the person assigned to take the calls for the ACC Fraud Unit Review. His historical involvement has been in the capacity of Northern Regional Manager for many years before being promoted to Wellington in more recent times.

Coincidentally I had initiated a criminal prosecution against Michael Spraggon for withholding a single piece of correspondence relating to an ACC Fraud Unit matter. The ACC had written to Dr Monash in order to obtain a medical report without the inconvenience of providing the doctor with medical information or making myself available for clinical examination. The fact the letter indicates undue haste in secrecy in order to plug a hole in an ACC fraud conviction so as not to discover the perjury of ACC staff during a seven-week trial.

Michael Spraggon had possession of this letter as was confirmed by the Ministerial Unit Manager. Obviously such a letter should have been on the file.

Michael Spraggon also wrote a letter confirming that the ACC had never calculated any overpayment even though an overpayment was alleged and stated that the calculation was still in the processes of being done three years after a criminal conviction had already taken place. Even now the calculations still hasn't taken place and the Review Hearing appeal is only three weeks away.

Michael Spraggon won't make any difference simply because he is a senior staff member who follows instructions from above rather than performing a meaningful function.

Michael Spraggon attempted to suggest that the review of the ACC Fraud Unit was a routine matter. Of course it was Michael.

It is not Michael Spraggon is decision as to who makes submissions. Someone above him has already preconfigured what is to be contained in the report by the independent assessor. If you want an independent report to say what you want you do exactly the same thing as you did with the above medical report.

It is the culture that is being reviewed and is it issue. If the culture at issue is setting the parameters of the assessment how can it possibly identify any problems?


Magnacarter has very clearly and eloquently identified the reality in secrecy of the situation.

"In my view this timeframe amounts to inadequate consultation which is an administrative law matter."

[Headlines]

If it was a 'routine' matter, then what have been the results from the past routine enquiries?!

[Al9lifes]

Quote

14 February 2005
It might also be of interest to you to know that ACC intends, as a result of this investigation, to review a number of its practices and policies relating to its fraud investigations, and it is my intention to remain informed of progress in that regard.

I wish you well for the future .
.-----
MelSmith
Ombudsman

 14_February_2005_Mel_Smith.pdf (916.93K)
Number of downloads: 26