ACCforum: Mcgreevy Writesacc Must Implement Current Act. - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Mcgreevy Writesacc Must Implement Current Act. no ability to revert to provisions of earlier acts.

#1 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 23 July 2007 - 08:51 PM

Attached File  McGreevy_says_prev_acts_do_not_apply.rtf (14.84K)
Number of downloads: 63 And he doesn't think the current provisions for justice are unfair.

letter feb 06.

Gloria.
0

#2 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 23 July 2007 - 09:55 PM

Of course McGravy cant see any shortcoming in ACC policy as he makes it!!!
GRRRR
0

#3 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 24 July 2007 - 08:28 AM

21 February 2006

Mrs G Mitchell
Dear Mrs Mitchell

1 refer to your recent email of 17 February 2006, addressed to the Chief Executive. Dr White has asked me to respond to the additional points in your letter that were not addressed by her letter of 16 February 2006.

You have asked for a return to the "1982 Act provisions /or ... cover and entitlements". I am sure that you will appreciate that the legislation under which ACC operates has been amended several times since 1982. On that basis, it would be completely inappropriate for the Corporation to attempt to frustrate the clear intent of Parliament

If your current action is predicated on the assumption that ACC will be persuaded to act ultra vires by ignoring the current legislation, then I advise that 1 cannot assist. ACC must implement the provisions of the current Act, and has no ability to revert to the provisions of the 1982 Act (which was repealed in 1992).

You have also requested the "abolishment" of the Initial Occupational & Medical Assessment processes. Again, 1 must provide the response that the assessments are a legislative requirement ACC cannot abolish the assessments, and must continue to apply the legislation as enacted, until it is changed by the legislative.

In respect to the review system, Disputes Resolutions Services Limited (DRSL) was incorporated to manage individual applications for review in an independent manner. Reviewers are, by virtue of the legislation, independent of both ACC and their employer, DRSL. Neither ACC nor DRSL can include any aspects within their employment contracts that constrains or influence Reviewers' decision-making.

I do not share your view that the current process is unfair, illegal, self-seeking, or unethical. As an option exists to appeal review decisions to the District Court, a proper process is currently in place for the judiciary to ensure decisions are made in accordance with the legislation.



You have also sought "an immediate investigation into the shoddy and degrading ... case management system." As noted by the Chief Executive, in her letter of 16 February 2006, the Auditor General published a report in 2004 following such an investigation. The report noted:

"Overall, ACC's case management practices are thorough and worked well, and ACC staff have a professional approach. ACC places emphasis on performing its legal functions ands duties, and sometimes claimants do not fully appreciate the legal limitations placed on ACC sla/jf, and what they can provide. However, we consider that there are some areas where ACC can improve, particularly in the way it communicates with claimants."

I acknowledge that the Auditor General's report included some recommendations on improving ACC's case management practices, and I am pleased to confirm that these recommendations have been adopted.

I trust that this letter, together with those sent to you on 15 & 16 February 2006, have addressed the matters you raised in your email of 17 February 2006.

I do not see any support for your accusations of impropriety by ACC. Should, however, you have incidences of inappropriate conduct by ACC, 1 am willing to consider any evidence you would like to submit to me, for my consideration and any necessary action.

Yours sincerely

Gerard McGreevy

General Manager, Rehabilitation Operations


0

#4 User is offline   Hardwired 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 18-February 07

Posted 24 July 2007 - 08:38 AM

ta flowers. what is .rtf ??
0

#5 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 24 July 2007 - 08:39 AM

That Auditors report of 2004 was a total sham in its self!

They sat down before hand and agree on what and where and how far the AG would look!

Hence the crap report!
0

#6 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 24 July 2007 - 09:38 AM

Hardwired .rtf should open up in word
0

#7 User is offline   Hardwired 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 18-February 07

Posted 24 July 2007 - 10:28 AM

it dont. my i mac wont read it,not much it wont play with but these rtf ones no.

I could do it in windows vista sysem on my intel mac but why let other crap/virus/ etc in from gates crap operating system
0

#8 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2007 - 10:39 AM

View PostHardwired, on Jul 24 2007, 11:28 AM, said:

it dont. my i mac wont read it,not much it wont play with but these rtf ones no.

I could do it in windows vista sysem on my intel mac but why let other crap/virus/ etc in from gates crap operating system



Opens fine for me on xp.

The main reason I left it as an attachment is because it shows as a scanned document. Exactly as it was written.

Anyone else have trouble opening it?

Gloria.
0

#9 User is offline   waddie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 25-August 06

Posted 24 July 2007 - 05:14 PM

Look! the Emperor has no clothes.
0

#10 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 24 July 2007 - 06:46 PM

.rtf = rich text format.

Basically word.
RTF is a document language used for exchanging text between different word processors and text-processing applications. RTF is much easier to generate than PDF or PostScript, and is more word-processor friendly than HTML. RTF has been around for over a decade, while hundreds of other binary formats have come and gone.
0

#11 User is offline   stumbla 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 07-March 06

Posted 24 July 2007 - 06:50 PM

Thanks for posting the letter Gloria.
McGreevy s answer seems fairly clear regards ACC policy and previous Acts.

The issue of date of cover and which Act applies appears to be a dead horse....well at least a bewildered and confused one!, IMHO.

His comments in the letter would have been of some interest with your postings in Topic 3704 ...5 months later?. http://www.accforum....?showtopic=3704

I commend you on your questions and suggestions directed at ACC source; it appears a weakness on their part to fall back ....as usual ...to the 2004 Auditor General Report.
0

#12 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 24 July 2007 - 10:01 PM

View Poststumbla, on Jul 24 2007, 07:50 PM, said:


I commend you on your questions and suggestions directed at ACC source; it appears a weakness on their part to fall back ....as usual ...to the 2004 Auditor General Report.



Sorry about that mate.....its a load of bullshit of course.....however I do not ever remember receiving that letter, I stumbled across it in my latest update to filecopy and pathways just the other day while trying to re-organise my files.

I have found that the filing cabinet causes me more physical probs than it solves - in my effort to get papers filed away......the lidded plastic boxes with the file volumes in them are actually much easier for me to access....just by the by FYI.

Oh yes, if you check section 365 of the 2001 Act and then the section 60 of the 1982 that it directs you to you can see how much bull his arguments in the letter are. The (censored) doesn't appear to have read the legislation for himself, or have any idea what it contains insafar as claimants rights and acc's obligations go.

Gloria.
0

#13 User is offline   MG 

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

Posted 25 July 2007 - 10:46 AM

of course McGreevy's letter is bullshit - it illustrates the legal fiction that Parliament, comprised of the people's representatives, makes the law, while the executive branch, comprised of loyal but neutral public servants like Mr McGreevy, faithfully apply it without any consideration at all for their own personal or institutional interests, while the judiciary, comprised largely of rich, elderly, white men who spent their careers helping the rich to shaft the poor, faithfully interpret the law without any consideration at all for their class interests. In fact, as any fool knows, big business drives the government, while the bureaucrats capture the MPs and see to it that the system never changes. Answers like Mr McGreevy's, IMHO, demonstrate the utter contempt that the bureaucracy has for New Zealand citizens who pay their extravagant salaries and perks. Bring on the revolution. Where did we store that guillotine now?
0

#14 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

Posted 25 July 2007 - 01:53 PM

Attached File  behead_guillotine.gif (4.96K)
Number of downloads: 3

Found it!

Attached File  bullshit_meter.gif (2.93K)
Number of downloads: 3
0

#15 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 25 July 2007 - 02:37 PM

"I do not see any support for your accusations of impropriety by ACC. Should, however, you have incidences of inappropriate conduct by ACC, 1 am willing to consider any evidence you would like to submit to me, for my consideration and any necessary action.

Yours sincerely

Gerard McGreevy

General Manager, Rehabilitation Operations"


mmmm this guy Gerard McGreevy is an absolute wanker isn't he?

Won't be long now until he's out on his arse and in the High Court .... we'll even apply to the Court to lock his bank acounts before hand .... because that's our rehab money he's got stashed away!
0

#16 User is offline   stumbla 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 07-March 06

Posted 10 October 2007 - 10:28 AM

View PostGloria Mitchell, on Jul 24 2007, 11:01 PM, said:



Sorry about that mate.....its a load of bullshit of course.....however I do not ever remember receiving that letter, I stumbled across it in my latest update to filecopy and pathways just the other day while trying to re-organise my files.

I have found that the filing cabinet causes me more physical probs than it solves - in my effort to get papers filed away......the lidded plastic boxes with the file volumes in them are actually much easier for me to access....just by the by FYI.


Gloria.


No worries Gloria, thats fine, I'm used to the old "lost files", "misplaced files", "incomplete files" story when dealing with ACC and Govt depts.

Please stay away from the "Dead Horse" paddock, that S60 tin of worms belongs with other ambiguous and confusing repealled Act legislative issues.
These can be interpreted differently by many lawyers, advocates, ACC branches, Judges and certainly by many here; especially by those that may have dealing with Acc for a long time.
0

#17 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 10 October 2007 - 12:38 PM

Quote

No worries Gloria, thats fine, I'm used to the old "lost files", "misplaced files", "incomplete files" story when dealing with ACC and Govt depts.

Please stay away from the "Dead Horse" paddock, that S60 tin of worms belongs with other ambiguous and confusing repealled Act legislative issues.
These can be interpreted differently by many lawyers, advocates, ACC branches, Judges and certainly by many here; especially by those that may have dealing with Acc for a long time.



Am I hearing that the transitional section of the 2001 Act has lost, through the courts, any protection it had for Long Term Claimants with claims dating from the earlier acts?


Gloria.

P.S. I see the letter hasn't got a street number on its header....it probably never got to me to comment on.....and wouldn't that be typical!
0

#18 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 16 July 2012 - 10:28 PM

Excerpt from Gerard McGreevy's letter in post #1.

Well, well, well Mr McGreevy would you care to explain your role in your staff at the time "culling" files & putting derogatory remarks, false & misleading statements in them to knowingly & intentionally mislead third parties?

He who was a director of Brandons Lawyers who were contracted to
http://www.acc.co.nz and had shares of Disputes resolution Servioces Limited.

Conflicts of Interest, unethical & unlawful conduct in many ways on you & your staff part is it not?


Gerard McGreevy I do not share your view that the current process is unfair, illegal, self-seeking, or unethical. As an option exists to appeal review decisions to the District Court, a proper process is currently in place for the judiciary to ensure decisions are made in accordance with the legislation.
0

#19 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 17 July 2012 - 12:30 AM

pity mcgreevy was'nt still with the ACC because he'd have many questions to answer
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