Dear Minister of Justice,

According to a report published by Acclaim Otago (CRYING FOR HELP FROM THE SHADOWS: - The real situation in New Zealand: A summary of survey data for presentation to the UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE on the CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES to be considered at the 12th SESSION
(4 AUGUST 2014); "Two-thirds (68%) of respondents did not know they could request more time for the reviews."

ACC claimants who apply to Fairway Resolution Limited for review of the ACC's decisions are limited to 30 minutes review hearing duration. In this short space of time they are expected to make their verbal submissions, provide their evidence and question the ACC representative present at the review hearing. (The total time allocated to each review hearing is 1 hour and this is split into two 30 minute segments; the first 30 minutes for the ACC claimant/review applicant and the remaining 30 minutes for the ACC).

Nowhere is it published what the duration of Fairway Resolution Limited's ACC review hearings is, that there is even a limit placed on this time, or that the 1 hour time limit (split into two as abovementioned) can be extended on request. In fact, the ACC claimant/review applicant only gets told about the 1 hour hearing duration through receiving a standard letter written by Fairway Resolution Limited that confirms the hearing date and hearing time. This letter makes no mention of it being possible for the ACC claimant/review applicant to request an extension of the duration of review hearings, and there is no information provided regarding the particular grounds under which such a request can be made, or how such a decision can be appealed if the ACC claimant/review applicant does not agree with it.

The Fairway Resolution Limited reviewer is required under Section 140 of the AC Act to "comply with the principles of natural justice" in conducting review hearings. Section 27(1) of the NZ Bill of Rights enshrines the Principles of Natural Justice and affirms that;
"Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law."

Quoting from Guidelines on the Principles of Natural Justice published at the Ministry of Justice website;

"Policy triggers: do I need to consider section 27(1)?

You may need to consider whether your policy or practice complies with section 27(1) - if the policy that you are working on provides for, or the agency that you work for engages in a process of decision-making where the outcome affects or impacts on the interests of individuals (whether as part of the general public or a specific sector of the community). If so, you should ask: Does the policy or practice restrict the ability of a person likely to be affected by the outcome to participate in a hearing or the decision-making process? The types of restrictions on a person's ability to participate include: (inter alia) ... limiting the opportunities for a person to make written or oral representations to the decision-maker."

Limiting the review hearing duration to 30 minutes, and not providing for applications to be made for review hearing duration extension requests that take into consideration individual circumstances, and not providing an opportunity to appeal the decision where the ACC claimant/review applicant disagrees with it, is contrary to the intention and purpose of the abovementioned laws.

ACC claims for cover and/or entitlement are often complex matters. They are also mostly dynamic and once a claim for cover or entitlement has been declined there is often a lot of time that passes before the review application is heard by Fairway Resolution Limited. This can be due to a variety of different factors including seeking further medical evidence by one or both of the parties (with specialists frequently having long consultation waiting lists and taking additional time to produce their reports).

The ACC's and Fairway Resolution Limited's "one size fits all" policy does not take into consideration that there are many claims for cover and/or entitlement whose histories are long and complex, and which matters cannot possibly be effectively or adequately traversed at review hearings that are 30 minutes in duration.

While it is appreciated that Fairway Resolution Limited reviewers are required to conduct reviews in a "timely" manner this cannot be at the cost of the rights of applicants/claimants to procedurally fair review hearings that are of reasonable duration. In this regard, I again quote from the Ministry of Justice website; "The requirements of natural justice are flexible in practice, the scope and content of which adapts to particular situations." This is certainly not happening with ACC / Fairway Resolution Limited reviews and I believe this is one reason why the District Courts are being flooded with appeal applications from disgruntled ACC claimants/review applicants who have been told by Fairway Resolution Limited reviewers that their 30 minutes hearing duration has expired, they need to stop talking and allow the ACC to present its submissions and evidence.

I request under the OIA that you provide the following information:

1. A full explanation why ACC claimants/review applicants are being restricted to 30 minutes hearing time duration?

2. A full explanation why Fairway Resolution Limited has declined reasonable requests by ACC claimants/review applicants with lengthy and complex matters to extend the 30 minutes hearing time duration to say 2 or 3 hours duration (halved for each party).

3. Whether it is possible for ACC claimants/review applicants to request an extension of the review hearing duration, what law or policy or guideline allows for this, how such requests are made and decided, and under what law or policy or guideline are they made and decided?

4. A copy of the supply agreement between the ACC and Fairway Resolution Limited that sets out the policy and/or guidelines regarding the duration of review hearings.

5. A copy of the abovementioned agreement or any other document that provides for, and limits, review hearings to 1 hour duration (30 minutes for each party as outlined above).

6. A copy of the abovementioned agreement or any other document that provides for requests made by applicants/claimants to extend the 1 hour hearing duration (30 minutes for each party as outlined above), and that sets out the policy or guidelines regarding how such requests need to be made by the ACC claimaints/review applicants and responded to by Fairway Resolution Limited.

7. A copy of the abovementioned agreement or any other document that provides the policy, guidelines and/or criteria for deciding whether or not to approve requests made by ACC claimants/review applicants to extend the 1 hour hearing duration (30 minutes for each party as outlined above) ... e.g. explaining what individual circumstances can be and are taken into consideration in deciding an extension request.

I note that there is no time duration limit placed on mediation hearings.

Yours faithfully,

Lee M.