Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search

 

Howard's End: ACC Vs Natural Justice

Dispute Resolution Services Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACC who conducts reviews of ACC decisions, is coming under fire from claimants with one preparing to lodge a claim in the High Court alleging breach of natural justice and procedural fairness under the NZ Bill of Rights Act. Maree Howard writes.

Dispute Resolution Services Limited (DRSL) has an agreement with ACC to conduct reviews of ACC employee decisions that are in dispute.

The ACC legislation says that reviewers have a duty to act independently and disclose any previous involvement that the reviewer has had in the claim other than as a reviewer.

Lawyers had told Scoop that's fine, expect there are also the common law principles against bias and the requirements for procedural and substantive fairness under natural justice.

Judges have said in court cases over many years that natural justice means "properly and fairly." Natural justice has also been described by the Privy Council as "fair play in action."

DRSL General Manager, Neil McKellar, told Scoop: "Reviewers are employees of DRSL with employment agreements, and we sometimes engage reviewers on contract to provide services to help us address workload fluctuations."

However, claimants allege that at least one reviewer they are aware of is a former ACC employee and bias, real or perceived, are significant issues when they need to have an ACC decision reviewed.

They say there are likely to be more former ACC employees who are reviewers at DRSL and that needs to be settled.

They say justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, and that does not appear possible when the reviewers are employed by a wholly-owned subsidiary company of ACC whose decisions are being challenged.

Claimants reviewing an ACC decision have no other choice than to use and rely on a reviewer allocated from DRSL.

Scoop has been told of one recent instance where a claimant was speaking to a DRSL employee who was not able to handle her query so her phone call was then switched to the claimants local ACC office without her having to redial. She then spoke to her ACC case manager.

The allegation has been made that communications between ACC and DRSL and its employees are so inter-twined that bias can be the only possible conclusion. Scoop also understands that DRSL has access to the ACC computer system.

DRSL also provides monthly Adverse Decision Reports to ACC. In the June 2002 report which Scoop has, it says under "Trend analysis" - Of the 72 decisions in this report, 64 were quashed and 8 were modified and then gives reasons why ACC lost the review.

No details are provided of the number of reviews held or of the number ACC won and why.

Scoop made a request to ACC Ministerial Services for copies of the report from June onwards under the Official Information Act but they were not provided and Scoop has now asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

In June, Mr McKellar wrote to Scoop saying that reviewers operate in "the nature of a tribunal" but when questioned further Mr McKellar said: " I am not aware of the relationship between operating as a tribunal and certainty and consistency in decision-making."

Mr McKellar also told Scoop that reviewers decisions do not provide precedent value but District Court decisions do.

One North Island lawyer has since told Scoop that he is amazed with that statement because he has an instance where the reviewer made a decision which did not follow precedent which effectively overturned an earlier decision of the District Court.

DRSL reviewers are also required under the legislation to conduct a review but there is only ever a hearing conducted of some one hour duration.

Claimant's say it is like a David and Goliath scenario with mentally or physically disabled claimants being offered no assistance who are up against a giant well-resourced Corporation who can afford to bring lawyers and doctors to reviews.

Those claimants who can afford a lawyer seem to fair much better than those who cannot.

It is the most unequal and inequitable system that this Scoop correspondent has come across. The High Court now looks likely to review the whole system and set future terms. In that happens DRSL, of course, could find all of its review procedures and decisions under scrutiny by the judiciary - who are truly independent, and seen to be so.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 


Julian Assange: A Thousand Days In Belmarsh
Julian Assange has now been in the maximum-security facilities of Belmarsh prison for over 1,000 days. On the occasion of his 1,000th day of imprisonment, campaigners, supporters and kindred spirits gathered to show their support, indignation and solidarity at this political detention most foul... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: The Mauling Of Novak Djokovic
Rarely can the treatment of a grand sporting figure by officialdom have caused such consternation. Novak Djokovic, the tennis World Number One, has always had a tendency to get under skin and constitution, creating a large following of admirers and detractors. But his current treatment by Australian authorities, and his subsequent detention as an unlawful arrival despite being granted a visa to participate in the Australian Open, had the hallmarks of oppression and incompetent vulgarity... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: Voices Of Concern: Aussies For Assange’s Return

With Julian Assange now fighting the next stage of efforts to extradite him to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 of which are based on the brutal, archaic Espionage Act, some Australian politicians have found their voice. It might be said that a few have even found their conscience... More>>



Forbidden Parties: Boris Johnson’s Law On Illegal Covid Gatherings

It was meant to be time to reflect. The eager arms of a new pandemic were enfolding a society with asphyxiating, lethal effect. Public health authorities advocated various measures: social distancing, limited contact between family and friends, limited mobility. No grand booze-ups. No large parties. No bonking, except within dispensations of intimacy and various “bubble” arrangements. Certainly, no orgies... More>>

Dunne Speaks: Question Time Is Anything But
The focus placed on the first couple of Question Time exchanges between the new leader of the National Party and the Prime Minister will have seemed excessive to many but the most seasoned Parliamentary observers. Most people, especially those outside the Wellington beltway, imagine Question Time is exactly what it sounds... More>>



Gasbagging In Glasgow: COP26 And Phasing Down Coal

Words can provide sharp traps, fettering language and caging definitions. They can also speak to freedom of action and permissiveness. At COP26, that permissiveness was all the more present in the haggling ahead of what would become the Glasgow Climate Pact... More>>