Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

I am writing to request under the Official Information Act the Government Services Senior Advisor's Name that prepared the memorandum to Dave Allard on 28 September 2015 under file reference Min 15/0341.

The Senior Advisor who ended up drafting the final copy Paul Goldsmiths letter made the accusation that since February 2012 (in their own words) which I quote;

"He has had 51 claims lodged with ACC since then."

This is substantively and wholly untrue. I would like to know how a señior government services advisor, could make such a factual error, and would like to be advised of the government services senior advisors name so I can consider addressing the defamatory nature of the false information that they provided to the associate minister of ACC.

In addition Mr Goldsmiths letter was returned with the following comment which I assume the same government advisor also drafted;

"I note that you advised of previous correspondence to the Minister for ACC dated 30 July 2015. We have been unable to locate any earlier correspondence from you."

and given that the following response being returned to me on the 30/07/15,

RE: David Lawson: Request for oversight and assistance with review process.

N Kaye
Reply|
To:
David Lawson <[email address]>; ... 30/07/2015
From:
N Kaye ([email address])
Sent: Thu 30/07/2015 10:38 a.m.
To:
David Lawson ([email address]);
Thank you for contacting the office of Hon Nikki Kaye. The Minister receives a high volume of correspondence and will respond to you as soon as possible.

Thank you once again for your message,

Kind regards,

Office of Hon Nikki Kaye
T: 04 817 8227
[email address]

in response to my email correspondence of the same date 30/7/15 as follows;

David Lawson: Request for oversight and assistance with review process.

David Lawson
Reply|
To:
[email address];
[email address]; Cc:
[email address];
[email address];
[email address];
[email address];
[email address]; ... 30/07/2015
Sent Items
Documents
D Lawson Review.pdf
3 MB

D lawsonReviews.pdf
236 KB

Show all 2 attachments (3 MB) Download all Save all to OneDrive - Personal
Dear Hon Nikki Kaye,

My name is David Lawson and I am currently going through the process of appealing 4 of ACC's decisions through Fairway Resolution Limited, and have written to you to in the first instance to highlight a matter that has arisen which has raised a barrier for me to be fairly heard and in turn receive natural justice through this appeal process.

Background;

I had been allocated two review hearings to apply for the review of ACC's decisions under the review numbers listed below. ACC and Fairway had accepted 4047587 (loss of entitlements), ACC and Fairway had accepted 4047586 (ACC's decision to decline funding for my GP's referral for orthopedic review), and decisions 4066110 and 4049595, which ACC are contending involve jurisdictional issues, for which I have challenged in writing to Fairway and ACC, and were to be heard on 30 July 2015 between 10 and 11 am. Written acceptance and timing of these accepted review hearings and decisions are attached.

Initial Review Hearings;

30 July 2015 10.00-11.00 am review decisions to be heard 1) 4049595, 2) 4066110, 3) 4047586
30 July 2015 11.00-12.00 am review decision to be heard 1) 4047587

Request for adjournment;

I requested adjournment for the above review hearings. My reason for the adjournment request was related to me not having been supplied by either ACC or Fairway Resolution my full claim file prior to review. Since the timing of the receipt of the balance of my ACC client files is not within my control having already requested them, this left me in the position that I had to seek an adjournment to await this information from ACC.

Adjournment accepted however;

My request was granted to allow for ACC to provide me with my client records, however this is where the issue that I am seeking your oversight and assistance comes in.

While Fairway Resolution Limited has accepted the adjournment, they came back and stated that I can only now appeal on one decision, being the loss of entitlements and a single review hearing of 1 hour proposed.

I challenged Fairway's amended terms requesting that the above 4 reviews, in the manner they were set out for in 30/07/14, be simply rescheduled as is, at a later date, of course allowing for ACC to provide me with the balance of my client file, and a reasonable amount of time to review and incorporate relevant information into my review application submission.

Fairway have come back to me again and stated that all the matters are to be settled in 1 face to face review (whatever a face to face review is), and has subsequently put forward a date. This would leave me only 30 minutes to be heard on 4 complex review matters. It appears that Fairway are now only prepared to really hear my application for review of the loss of entitlements. So my right to receive natural justice and have the ability to be fairly heard on the 3 other decisions will have been removed by Fairway Resolution Limited if the hearings are not scheduled in the manner the 4 adjourned hearings of 30 July 2014 were set, barring of course new dates and times of the two separate review hearings.

There is no reason that I have initiated that should have lead to the two review hearings covering 4 decisions totaling 2 hours, being incorporated into one review hearing over 1 hour, and the new advice from Fairway Resolution that there is a single reviewable decision. It is noted however, that on 27 July 2015, Cara Hartland ACC's lawyer lodged ACC's submissions for the 4 decisions that had been set down for review across the two hours between 10 am and 12, 30/7/14 in a single submission, and contested that 4047586 (ACC's decision to decline funding for my GP's referral for orthopedic review) was not valid and 4066110 and 4049595 are jurisdictional issues.

These were matters that have already been set and accepted for review, with permission for me to be able to challenge at review, and the terms should not now be amended at this point by Fairway Resolution, especially without my submission having been heard (for which I am waiting on ACC to supply me records to complete). ACC's written submissions that were to be heard today (prior to adjournment) reflect exactly what has happened in terms of Fairways, illegal(?) downsizing of my review hearings. The reviewer, or a Fairway staff member has read ACC's submission and has restructured these review hearings and decisions;

Initial Review Hearings;

30 July 2015 10.00 am review decisions to be heard 1) 4049595, 2) 4066110, 3) 4047586
30 July 2015 11.00 am review decision to be heard 1) 4047587

to best suit and reflect what ACC has indicated in their review submission as;

Amended Review Hearing (suggested date)

20 August 2015 2.00-3.00 pm review decision to be heard 1) 4047587 (loss of entitlements).

Given that the only reason that the reviews have been adjourned is a matter that could, and should have been resolved by ACC, by sending the balance of my client file in a timely manner, there is no other reason on my part that my right to be fairly heard be further restricted in the manner Fairway Resolution is attempting to do, thus placing a barrier on me being able to receive any form of natural justice.

Fairway's decision also has financial repercussions for me, since I have paid privately for medical imaging that supports that my surgeon has misplaced a screw causing new and ongoing symptoms which surgery was supposed to address. Review 4047586 (ACC's decision to withhold funding for my GP's orthopedic referral) which both ACC and Fairway Resolution had accepted for review, is the legal means by which I can recover the money that I have spent on the imaging.

ACC in November 2014 withdrew funding for me to be able to be orthopaedically assessed by my surgeon on a related matter, and this is the decision I am challenging under review number 4047586, and for which Fairway Resolution are now saying, since granting an adjournment that I can no longer appeal on, and halving the previous 2 reviews of 1 hour each to a single 1 hour review allowing me 30 minutes if I am lucky. ACC and Fairway had already accepted for review under review number 4047586. Since the disclosure regarding the medical imaging, 3 of my 4 reviews that have already been accepted, and for which I believe I have a strong case for, Fairway are now attempting to prevent from being heard.

I am therefore also respectfully asking for your assistance and oversight as the Minister for ACC, (and with ACC having a substantial shareholding in Fairway Resolution Limited) to seek redress on my behalf for the matter I outline above which can be simply resolved by Fairway Resolution Limited rescheduling the dates and times for the 4 decisions that were set for review on 30 July 2015 over two separate review hearings, in the same manner they were set down for prior an adjournment, adjusted for the date and times of the two separately scheduled reviews for example;

20 August 2015 2.00-3.00 pm review decisions to be heard 1) 4049595, 2) 4066110, 3) 4047586
20 August 2015 3.00-4.00 pm review decision to be heard 1) 4047587

With my review applications being set down, heard and adjudicated upon for decisions 4049595, 4066110, 4047586 and 4047587, leaves me with the ability to further challenge through the District Court in my continued attempt to receive a fair hearing and natural justice, in the event ACC's decisions are upheld.

I truly appreciate your time and look forward to your comments and hopefully assistance in ensuring that my voice is fairly heard through this review process.

Thank you and kind regards,
David Lawson

I am therefore requesting under the section 23 of the OIA 1982, a written statement as why the decision was made not respond to my request for assistance to the Hon Nikki Kaye, the Minister of ACC in matters that centered around the actions of Fairway Resolution that appeared to be biased toward ACC, at the expense of my personal, health and human rights.

I also request a written statement under section 23 of the OIA 1982 which confirms to me where my original email correspondence dated 30 July 2015 is currently being stored, also requesting a copy for my records.

Please forward your response to my home address noted below, r alternatively to my email address [email address]

Yours faithfully,

David Lawson
116A Lynwood Road, New Lynn, Auckland

Dear Mr Paul Holmes Head of Privacy and Government Services for ACC

I refer to Government Services' response through FYI and Government Services letter received 12 May 2016 through ACC's Jane Harding's email and I copy in the text from both letters Jane Harding attached to her email received 12 May 2016.

The first letter being Government Services response to part of my OIA, and the second letter was a letter dated 17 August 2015 from Hon Nikki Kaye, for which I have never seen, let along received, via courier, email or post. I also refer to Government Services correspondence dated 12 May 2016 supplied via FYI in relation to these matters.

I have addressed my correspondence to you directly today since my initial information request of 13 January 2016 to which you partially responded to on 4 March 2016 requested pursuant to the terms and conditions under d) of Matter 1 of my request for information dated 13 January 2016 from ACC the following;

d) all communication between ACC and the Hon Nicki Kaye and MP Mr Paul Goldsmith,

To which I only received by way of email on 11 March 2016 from Government Services, copies of selected personal information/official information in relation to Hon Paul Goldsmith. This information included;

1. a covering letter from Government Services' Anna Mildenhail dated the same (which dispels ACC's reliance on section 9 (2) (a) of the Privacy Act in reposnse to my request for disclosure of the senior advisor for whom provided the memo to Mr Dave Allard which contained inaccurate and defamatory information and for which I respond to fully later in my request).

2. a copy of my email to Hon Nikki Kaye dated 12 August 2015 at 5.50 p.m. and various other emails, which was received by Karen Gardner and forwarded to Dave Allard and Vicky Holmes. (which dispels ACC's attempted reliance on holding back copies of ACC's email that took receipt of my email to Hon Nikki Kaye dated 30 July 2015, and which I further expand upon later).

3. a memo to Dave Allard from the senior advisor for whom I request be named so that I can consider my options for the defamatory comments in the memo, and

4. a copy of the letter the senior advisor drafted and which was signed by Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Government Services failure in their duty to respond appropriately to my request for all communication between ACC and Hon Nikki Kaye dating back to 13 January 2016, in their email received 11 March 2016, meant that I was further required me to follow my initial request up 41 working days after my request, at the same time widening my request.

I include copies of the two letters received from Jane Harding yesterday from Government Services, to which I respond to each separately thereafter;

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Official Information Act request

We write further to our letter dated 12 May 2015 posted to fvi-request-3895-8b8c09890requests.fvi.orq.nz.

Our response to remaining 'matters'

Correction to number of claims lodged

As noted by you, a memorandum for the ACC Private Secretary to

Hon Paul Goldsmith, dated 28 September 2015 recorded you had lodged 51 claims with ACC since February 2012.

This was incorrect as you have a total of 51 claims lodged with ACC. Of these, 17 claims have been lodged since February 2012.

ACC apologises for this error and advises a correction will be provided to the ACC Private Secretary for Hon Goldsmith's information.

Correspondence with Minister for ACC's office

In your email dated 13 April 2016, you set out a copy of earlier correspondence with the Minister for ACC, Hon Nikki Kaye's office dated 30 July 2015. The Associate Minister, Hon Goldsmith recently wrote to you and advised that there was no record

of that email.

Minister Kaye's office has since advised ACC that while your email was received and acknowledged; it was forwarded on to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to draft a ministerial response. The Minister replied to your

30 July 2015 email on 17 August 2015. A copy is attached.

Requests for section 23 written statements

Under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act); you seek two section 23 written statements of reasons.

In order for section 23 of the Act to apply, the request must be:

o about a decision or recommendation by ACC in respect of issues actively considered

a decision or recommendation specifically about you, in your personal capacity.

Section 23 will not apply to:

• a decision or recommendation regarding some other person or class of persons more generally, or decisions on policies or public issues more

generally; or

the administrative steps or actions taken toward reaching a decision or recommendation.

ACC Corporate Office / Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street, Wellington / PO 242, Wellington 6140 / New Zealand

Ph (04) 81S 7400 / Yvv.w.acc.co.nz

ACC has determined that your two requests (set out below) do not fall within the scope of section 23 of the Act.

I) why the decision was made not to respond to my request for assistance to the

Hon Nikki Kaye, the Minister of ACC in matters that centered around the actions of Fairway Resolution that appeared to be biased toward ACC, at the expense of my personal, health and human rights."

2) " which confirms to me where my original email correspondence dated 30 July 2015 is currently being stored.. "

This is due to the fact that neither request is connected to a decision or recommendation that has been made (by ACC).

As explained above, your email of 30 July 2015 was responded to on 17 August 2015. Minister Kaye's office forwarded your email to MBIE to provide a response on behalf of the Minister for ACC. This is due to MBlE's role to advise on

accident compensation policy and their responsibility for monitoring a range of Crown entities and agencies - including FairWay Resolution Limited.

Consequently, we will not be providing written statements of reasons in either case.

Request for copy of your email dated 30 July 2015

As you incorporated a copy of your email dated 30 July 2015 into your email dated 13 April 2016, we do not consider it necessary to provide you a copy of this email.

Queries or concerns

We trust the information provided in our response is of assistance to you.

You have the right to complain to the Office of the Office of the Ombudsmen regarding our decision regarding your requests under section 23. This can be done by calling 0800 802 602, 9am to 5pm weekdays, or writing to: The Office of the Ombudsmen, P O Box 10 152, WELLINGTON 6143

Yours sincerely

Government Services

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I address each of the so called "remaining matters" that you have chosen to address in your staff's letter dated 12 May 2016 in the order that one of your staff, which may be you, have raised them;

1)
Correction to number of claims lodged

I do not accept your staffs attempt to justify the previous senior advisor's inflated advice that I had lodged 51 claims since February 2012 through until when they provided misinformation to Dave Allard, when once again another senior advisor misrepresents the number of claims I have had which is not 51 as your staff member claims, this is another misrepresentation of fact that has been fabricated in an attempt to justify the senior advisors behavior which I suggest was highly inappropriate.

In addition the previous senior advisor made comment on me lodging a treatment injury claim, and then lodging one two days latter. Had the senior advisor checked ACC's David Wheeler's email for 20 July 2015, which provided him with full details of the information and treatment injury claims, that I had intended to lodge both on the 20 July 2015, and had it not been for the GP that I was seeing me at the time, incorrectly advising me that I could not lodge two claims in one GP visit (after lodging two claims 8 months previously on the same day). We were not pushed for time in the GP visit and so my GP should have registered the two claims on the same day. It was on record with David Wheeler from ACC that my stated intention was to lodge the TI claims at the same time on 20 July 2015.

The memo the senior advisor generated for Dave Allard on 28 September 2015, provided evidence that they had skimmed over the issues that I had raised.

Throughout all of my other correspondence this is the first time ACC has attempted to withhold the name of the person for whom provided such a misrepresented account of the situations and matters that I had raised with the Hon Minister Nikki Kaye.

I therefore repeat today repeat my request for the disclosure of the senior advisor's name that provided inaccurate and defamatory comment in regard to myself to Dave Allard in August 2015, whilst at the same stage did not even investigate throughly my complaint and request for Hon Nikki Kaye's assistance.

I challenge ACC's attempt at withholding the senior advisors name through the use of section 9(2)(a) if the Act for the following reasons and respectfully request that ACC disclose the senior advisors name that prepared the memo to Dave Allard dated 28 September 2015;

a)
Both of my requests for assistance to the Hon Nikki Kaye, centre around the inappropriate lack of independence in the review process, involving both Fairway Resolution, and also David Wheeler who was overseeing my claims management from 24 December 2014 onwards.The 23 December 2014 was the day that I submitted several Statutory Declarations with associated attachments and it is noted on ACC's system for the 23 December 2014, with a discussion with: Leanne MacDonnell it is noted under Discussion :IMPORTANT: ANY contact from client must be referred to David Wheeler

This directive was without my knowledge, including the physio's acknowledgement of the adverse reaction to his acupuncture emailed to Leanne MacDonnell on 23 January 2015 which included the physio's provision of an addendum for the acupuncture, becoming involved in a treatment injury claim when Morgan Finlayson transferred a treatment injury claim to David Wheeler on 23 July 2014 as noted on the ACC Notes for that day: *CVR: Triage[Claim Update] Claim Transferred to another unit ~ Successful ^ client case managed- transferred claim to branch
The reason the Treatment Injury claim was transferred to David Wheeler was because he was case managing my case. David Wheeler was fully aware that the physio was an acc approved treatment provider well before the treatment injury claim was received by himself. Had it not been for me catching David Wheeler out he would have retained the T/I claim in excess of the period he had, whilst continuing to do nothing on the claim which should be strictly handled by the T/I claims unit.
This amounts to interference in the treatment injury claim from the very person whom was overseeing my review applications, and whom would have been responsible for ensuring that the 5 statutory declarations and their full attachments that were lodged in December 2014 were not processed to their correct claim numbers in full. All of this information was available to the senior advisor on the claim file for the acupuncture treatment injury.

b)The misrepresentation of the number of claims, along with the implied issue with me lodging treatment injuries two days apart without looking into why this happened has lead to the inaccuracies being of a defamatory nature, especially when I an seeking the assistance of the Hon Nikki Kaye on matters of impropriety related to David Wheeler. The senior advisor had a duty of care to me to have ensured that the information was accurate, current, and the investigation of the issues that I raised through. This however was not the case.

c) my privacy and health related rights have been significantly prejudiced by the actions and misrepresentations of this ACC senior advisor in misrepresenting my history.

d) with me not having been supplied with the information in full from ACC and MBIE in response to my requests for my full personal, health and official information first requested 13/01/16 in regard to all correspondence associated with the Honourable Nikki Kaye,

e) the senior advisor had a duty of care to me to have provided contemporaneous, accurate and up to date information to the Minister, with a level of investigation beyond reproach due to the impropriety of Fairway Resolutions actions made known to the Minister in my email and attachments forwarded to the Minister on 30 July 2015

2)
Requests for section 23 written statements

I note your decision to decline to respond to my 2 requests under section 23 of the OIA, so in light of the sparse information provided to me yesterday, I please find my amended but related requests under section 23 of the OIA and request the following information;

2 (a)
Under section 23 of the OIA Act, please advise me in a written statement as to why ACC has withheld from me a copy of my original email to Hon Nikki Kaye forwarded by email to by me on 30 July 2015, showing receipt of the email by ACC Government Services.

I would like a copy of this communication and request to be advised in a written statement as to when I will be supplied with a complete copy, since the email will show me when, where the email was received, along with who received it, and since it is altered in that sense is not my original email, but evidence that ACC has taken receipt of my request for assistance and oversight on the part of the Hon Minister I would like to know when I will be provided with a copy of this correspondence that was requested originally in my letter to yourself Mr Holmes dated 13 January 2016. Please ensure that the copies of the information show what information that I supplied in my email of 30 July 2016, and how and whether this full information was transferred to MBIE when my request for assistance was forwarded to MBIE.

2(b)
Under section 23 of the OIA Act, please advise me in a written statement as to why ACC has additionally withheld copies of of all subsequent communications that have taken place upon the receipt of my email to Hon Nikki Kaye on 30 July 2015, in regard to my request for Hon Nikki Kaye's over site and assistance in matters of impropriety in the handling of the process of reviews, through until and including the correspondence associated with the alleged transference of my request through to MBIE.

I would like copies of all of this communication and request to be advised as to when I will be supplied with a complete copies of this correspondence that was requested originally in my letter to yourself Mr Holmes dated 13 January 2016.

2 (c)
Under section 23 of the OIA Act, please provide a written statement to me as to why ACC Government Services upon transferring my request for Hon Nikki Kaye's assistance and oversight into the matters that I raised in my correspondence dated 30 July 2017, did not notify me in writing of this action and also did not provide me with a point of contact within MBIE to follow up my request, as is standard complaint resolution best practice.

2 (d)
Under section 23 of the OIA Act, please provide a written statement to me as to why my request for all information in regard to my communications to Hon Nikki Kaye and all communications thereafter, in light of ACC Government Services yesterday notifying me for the first time that MBIE was involved, why ACC did not therefore take the initiative and transfer my requests for my full personal, health and official information associated with my email to Hon Nikki Kaye forwarded on 30 July 2015, on to MBIE for the balance of my personal information to be provided to me by MBIE, that has not been retained by ACC, and or the Minister of ACC's office.

The transference under Agency is required within 10 working days under the Privacy Act 1993, the Health Information Code 1994 and the OIA 1982. That means that I should have had been advised on or before the 26 January 2016 that part of my privacy act request in regard to the Hon Nikki Kaye would be satisfied by ACC Government services (receipt of email of 30/07/15 together with all and complete communications that occurred between ACC Government Services and any and all third parties right up until the request was transferred to MBIE), and the balance would be provided by MBIE, with a point of contact provided to me from both Govt Services and MBIE.

As Head of Privacy and Govt Services at ACC Mr Holmes, please instigate the transference under Agency of my requests dating back to 13 January 2016, for complete copies of all my personal, health and official information that MBIE has in connection with my email dated 30 July 2015 to Hon Nikki Kaye, inclusive from all parties and advise me when this has been done (I request that this is actioned under urgency within the next 3 working days, since ACC Government Services inaction has already prejudiced me significantly). I request you clarify the delay to date and respectfully request that MBIE also provide copies of the full information to me within 5 working days of your request for transfer.

2 (e)
Due to my request for assistance from Hon Nikki Kaye on 30 July 2015 centering around documented impropriety on the part of Fairway Resolution Limited, I find that it would be extremely unlikely that information would not have had been shared between ACC Govt Services and MBIE for consideration to be given for the decision to have been made that Hon Nikki Kaye should not instigate a ministerial inquiry into the situation that arose last year and is repeating itself again presently. This information would also have been inclusive to my request for personal, health and official information on 13 January 2016 to yourself Paul. Under section 23 of the Official Information Act please provide me a written statement as to why this information has not been provided to me and also confirming as to when I will be provided with this information in full.

2 (f) under section 23 of the OIA Act 1982, please provide me with a written statement as to whether Minister Kaye's Office, being the Hon Minister responsible for ACC, retains a copy of all communications between ACC and MBIE, and if so please include in your written statement as to why copies of these communications in full have not yet been provided to me, which I request that they are now, along with your confirmation of the transference of my request to the MBIE for the balance and complete copies of all communications that they have been involved with in regards to my personal, health and official information request of 13 January 2015, and amendments thereafter including today's OIA requests.

2(g) please also transfer my request for a written statement from MBIE into what method of delivery was used by MBIE to forward the alleged letter dated 17 August 2015, for which I sighted for the first time yesterday when Jane Haarding supplied me a copy by email, was the letter emailed, posted or couriered?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Mr David Lawson
[email address]

Dear Mr Lawson

Thank you for your email of 30 July 2015 about the scheduling of accident compensation reviews by FairWay Resolution Limited (FairWay). I am sorry to hear about the difficulties you have experienced with the review process.

To preserve the integrity and independence of the review process, I am unable to intervene directly in an individual case as Minister for ACC or shareholding Minister

for FairWay.

The Accident Compensation Act 2001 (AC Act) governs the review process. ACC has a duty under the AC Act to administer the dispute resolution provisions and has contracted FairWay to undertake reviews of ACC decisions. ACC monitors the contract including FairWay's treatment of clients and is responsible for ensuring that FairWay complies with the requirements of the Act.

I have therefore referred this matter to ACC and asked ACC to ensure that FairWay is complying with the requirements of the AC Act that apply to the review processes.

I will also inform FairWay so that they are aware of our correspondence.

You may also wish to contact ACC's complaints service at [email address] as ACC may be able to assist you with your issues.

As you are probably aware you also have the right to appeal any decision that FairWay makes on your claim in the District Court if you do not agree with the decision. You have 28 days after the date the reviewer gives a copy of the review decision to you to appeal. You can find information about the District Court process at http://www.acc.co.nz/making-a-claim/what... I hope you find this information useful.

Yours sincerely

Hon Nikki Kaye

Minister for ACC

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The following information which your staff alleges was drafted by MBIE, is substantively wrong in the sense that Hon Minister Kaye has the ability to request a ministerial inquiry as to why Fairway and ACC have been acting in manner that involves impropriety on each of their parts that has the potential to have a significant detrimental impact to myself and the carriage of natural justice;

Thank you for your email of 30 July 2015 about the scheduling of accident compensation reviews by FairWay Resolution Limited (FairWay). I am sorry to hear about the difficulties you have experienced with the review process.

To preserve the integrity and independence of the review process, I am unable to intervene directly in an individual case as Minister for ACC or shareholding Minister

This is because I had documented to Hon Nikki Kaye the breaches in independence and the integrity of the handling of my claim by David Wheeler, and Fairway Resolutions inappropriate actions in terms of review allocations, with both matters impinging significantly on my personal, health and official information rights.

I thank you for you time and assistance and look forward to receiving your acknowledgement of my request for the review of you position on matters advised on 12 May 2016, in light of the new information provided in challenge of action 9(2) (a), and my amended and revised OIA requests that are related from my primary OIA requests you responded to on 12 May 2016. Due to the time that has already passed I respectfully request that Urgency be applied to my requests, and that when you transfer my request to MBIE, as should have already been done,that you request MBIE to action my requests under urgency. In the event that any of my requests are more suited under the Privacy Act 1993 and or the Health Information Privacy Code 1994, I welcome you initiating the appropriate responses to my requests today that will lead to the provision in full of the information requested.

Under s16(2) of the Official Information Act, my preferred way of receiving a response is by email to the address from which Accident Compensation received the original request, not by post, with the sole exclusion being copies of the original two letters supplied by email by ACC's Jane Harding for which I respectfully request are forwarded to my home address noted below.

Yours sincerely,

David Lawson

116a Lynwood Road
New Lynn
Auckland†