Ref: DOIA 2324-078

 

Kia ora AS Van Wey,

 

On behalf of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment I
acknowledge your email of 9 October 2023 requesting under the Official
Information Act 1982 (the Act), the following:

 

‘I am writing to you regarding the ACC and MBIE Briefing Paper: update on
the response  to the Miriam Dean Review and next phase of work to improve
disputes performance 12 December 2018).  This briefing paper specifically
states the following.

 

At p 5, para 10(b):

Finish implementing the remaining Miriam Dean work - procuring a
Navigation Service that will advocate on behalf of ACC claimants. This
will be followed by an evaluation after two years of operation in order to
ensure the service is achieving good outcomes for clients.

 

At p 11:Procurement of the Navigation Service 44. ACC is finalising the
model for the Navigation Service, which will be complementary to
independent review provider services. A competitive tender process is
planned to commence by the end of 2018. We expect the Navigation Service
to be up and running in 2018/19 and see about 4,000 claimants per year,
approximately four times the current number of claimants accessing
ACC-funded advocacy services. The service will have a focus on
accessibility to people of diverse cultural backgrounds, particularly
Mâori claimants, as well as people with different abilities and needs. The
tender process will be aligned with the tender process for independent
dispute resolution services.

 

At p 15, last para:   Access to representation • ACC is funding a free
independent navigation service to support claimants to dispute or review a
decision. The service will be capable of advocating for claimants’
interests; assisting them to raise complaints or disputes where
appropriate, and supporting them to prepare effectively for a review
hearing if required.

 

These changes were a response to the INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACCLAIM
OTAGO (INC) JULY 2015 REPORT INTOACCIDENT COMPENSATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION
PROCESSES. The consolidation recommendation (p 5) included:

 

Access to representation• A CC consider: -  increasing funding to existing
free advocacy services- funding a free nationwide advocacy service
modelled broadly on the Health and Disability Commission Advocacy Service 
which provided recommendations, such as described below:...  

 

19. Improvements Advocacy services: There is an urgent need for more
ACC-funded independent advocacy services to help claimants steer their way
through the dispute process. Broadly, consideration could be given to:

• providing more funding to existing free advocacy services so they can
expand • encouraging organisations with relevant or related expertise to
provide advocacy services • giving greater (and correctly placed)
prominence on ACC’s website to organisations offering advocacy services,
including details about the services they offer and how to contact them.

The review – like many interviewees – considers the Health and Disability
Commission Advocacy Service provides a valuable template with a nationwide
service. The Act provides – and clearly intended – that ACC support
claimants via ACC-funded advocacy  services. An expansion of such services
would give claimants the support and assistance they need. An ACC-funded
nationwide advocacy service would be a tangible demonstration of ACC’s new
vision and values(to be “customer focused” and put people before
process”). At the same time, ACC is likely to benefit: good advocates are
more likely to give claimants realistic advice and work co-operatively to
resolve disputes. 

 

My first question is whether ACC is actually funding free advocacy
services for claimants, as described in these reports. That is to say,
that ACC is funding free advocacy services, where the advocate will assist
a claimant in preparing for a review and advocate for the client prior to
a review and during a review. 

 

If so, I request the response from ACC to MBIE that ACC are doing so.

 

If ACC is funding advocacy services, please provide a list of service
providers who are contracted to ACC to provide free advocacy for
claimants. A reference to publicly available information would suffice.

 

Who is responsible at MBIE to ensure that the funds ACC has allocated for
"free advocacy services" for claimants are actually going to agencies who
provide "free advocacy services".

 

Who is responsible at MBIE to review the contracts between ACC and the
"navigation services" or "free advocacy services" to ensure that the
contract includes "advocacy" as one of the services provided by those
contractors and a definition of what advocacy means?

 

If it is MBIEs position that ACC has contracted the "navigation services"
to provide "free advocacy services", which includes please provide the
evidence that MBIE has received that shows the contracts between ACC and
these 'navigation services' providers include a clause for advocacy and a
definition of advocacy services.’

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible, and no
later than 7 November 2023, being 20 working days after the day your
request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request by then,
we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe.  If you have any
enquiries regarding your request feel free to contact us via email to
[1][MBIE request email].

 

 

Nâku noa, nâ

Ministerial Services

 

Corporate Services, Finance & Enablement

Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment

15 Stout Street, Wellington 6011 |  PO Box 1473 Wellington 6140

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[MBIE request email]

Kia ora

 

Please find attached document to this email.

 

Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment

15 Stout Street, Wellington, PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140

Email: [1][email address]

[2]www.mbie.govt.nz

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.mbie.govt.nz/