ACCforum: magnacarta - Viewing Profile - ACCforum

The ACC Minister wrote on 17 February 2020 (yesterday) that the ACC Act would benefit from a structural rewrite but it depends of resources and MBIE is responsible for the policy and legal teams.

Well, it is accepted that a structural rewrite of the Act is needed - but when??????

It is the Parliament who is constitutionally sovereign and makes the law to which we are all governed.

The ACC (and the Fairway Resolution Ltd reviewer’s) practice can be described as a constitutional coup.

The current system could almost be characterised as a self-perpetuating oligarchy and changes need to be made.

Indeed, who should make the law by which we are all governed?

Should it be made by electable, accountable politicians, answerable to their constituents and vulnerable to summary dismissal at elections, or by unelected ACC employees and reviewers?

There is a substantive issue arising of failing to give effect to the will of Parliament as expressed in legislation in ss 140, 141 and 142.

Section 141 prescribes:- “In the course of conducting a review a hearing must be held unless…..” This indicates a separate and sequential process to be followed; i.e. an investigative and informal review and then a formal hearing with representatives (if necessary).

It is logical that an investigative, informal review might resolve issues at the review level thereby creating no necessity for a formal (and costly and stressful) hearing to be held.

It is s142 that allows parties to be represented at the hearing indicating and it is only then that a formal hearing with representatives applies.

There has been no investigative informal review conducted as prescribed in s140.

I would have thought that ACC-instructed counsel, Mr McBride, would have advised ACC of that in compliance with his fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand.