Dear Minister for ACC,

Fairway Resolution Limited is a Schedule 4A company under the Public Finance Act. The ACC is a Crown Entity. Fairway Resolution Limited is also a Crown Entity with the Crown being the majority shareholder, and the Minister of Finance and the yourself being shareholding Ministers. Against this backdrop, Fairway Resolution Limited publicises at its website and informs ACC claimants in brochures, leaflets, correspondence, etc. that it is "independent" of the ACC.

As far as I am aware, the interpretation of the word "independent" is "free from outside control, not subject to another's authority", however, Fairway Resolution Limited is and cannot possibly be either of the aforementioned given the abovementioned conditions.

Under the OIA can you please provide me with any information that proves the "independence" of Fairway Resolution Limited from the ACC. Simultaneously, can you please provide me with any information that proves Fairway Resolution Limited is a statutory "tribunal".

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Lee M.

Dear N Kaye,

A response to this request was due on 11 August 2016. Can you please do this by close of business 19 August 2016 to avoid me needing to raise a complaint with the Ombudsman.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Lee M.

Dear Minister Kaye

Thank you for your letter dated 22 August 2016.

Between writing to you and awaiting your reply, the Ombudsman has confirmed in a determination that Fairway is not a “tribunal”, and so puts this issue to rest.

You have told me that Fairway is “to comply with the relevant requirements of the Accident Compensation Act 2001”. Can you please provide me with a list of the relevant sections that apply to Fairway. I stress this is not a request for legal advice. Rather it is a request for information regarding what sections of the AC Act apply to Fairway.

I have read the amendment and note that;

i. The proposed new Section 139(1)(a) and (b) sub-clauses are exactly the same wording that is used in the current Section 139(1) clause, with the only difference being a separation into two parts that are described as “(a)” and “(b)”

ii. The proposed new Section 139(1)(c) sub-clause is new wording and disallows the ACC from engaging as a reviewer a person who is currently employed or engaged by a subsidiary of the Corporation

iii. The current Section 139(3) clause that allows the ACC to engage a reviewer on a contract or service or contract for services is struck out

iv. The proposed new Section 139(3) will read; “The Corporation must not include in a contract with a reviewer any term or condition that could have the effect, directly or indirectly, of influencing the reviewer, when conducting a reviewer, in favour of the Corporation”.

While the Statutes Amendment Bill will broadly disqualify employees of ACC from undertaking a review, the proposed new Section 139(b) sub-clause will nonetheless allow the ACC to continue to engage as a reviewer a person who is currently engaged by it – in the capacity as a reviewer - to make decisions on claims, and, that the proposed new 139(3) enables this to continue happening by way of “a contract with a reviewer”. Accordingly, I am requesting under the Official Information Act that you provide me with a copy of “a contract with a reviewer” used by the ACC when it engages as a reviewer a person who is currently engaged by it to make decisions on claims in the capacity of reviewer. Of course it goes without saying that this document does exist since why else would there be a need for Section 139(3) that provides for "a contract with a reviewer".

Yours sincerely,

Lee M.

Dear John Roseveare,

Please ensure that I receive a response to this information request on or before the 20 day working deadline of 20 September 2016.

Your acknowledgement confirming the need to comply with the abovementioned deadline would be appreciated in response.

Yours sincerely,

Lee M.