Information was received promptly and within time frames. Great job and appreciated. I do however have to note (and with respect to Mr Routledges thorough Research and consideration) the lack of initiative to supply information that could be helpful to support good intentions is disappointing. The Office of the Ombudsmen has been informed the reason for not supplying certain information is based on assessors safety. However 30 November information sought since 2008 was released to another party which is contradictory to what the Ombudsman's Office has been led to believe while carrying out an official investigation.

The request could have been formatted more clearly, e.g. numbering each sub-part/aspect (as ACC have done in their reply). This makes it easier to refer to reference numbers by the agency responding.

There was a question around how ("best avenue") to respond to ethical concerns. If this was part of the request, then it should be included in it, otherwise you should set it aside at the bottom of the email under a new heading. Or alternatively, send an email to ACC as a separate issue.

The issue around the "definition of employee" is interesting. There are overlapping considerations here. One consideration is a legal definition, another consideration is information (or knowledge) held by ACC that defines what an employee is. ACC have interpreted your request as seeking "comment or opinion", rather than information. I can understand how they arrived at that interpretation, and it may be that proper wording of the request to make it clear to give the impression that information, and not an opinion, was being sought. However I do consider that the agency could have, and should have, in accordance with s.13 of Act (duty to assist), taken the step of contacting you to clarify this aspect of your request before responding (which supports Jordan's point about the unhelpfulness of the agency to supply the information).

There is nothing to preclude an agency from adding an opinion as additional information to an OIA request, to assist a member of the public with their desire to understand how best to proceed with an issue (raising ethical concerns, as in this case).

Thank you Luke for your helpful comments.

It would appear where the formalities are concerned when asking for such assistance and information one has to almost be as qualified as a Philadelphia lawyer. It is borderline pedantic for the ACC to expect layman New Zealanders to have such ability and foresight to predict all the possibilities that could be misunderstood.

Also given that(I dare say) a signification number of those requesting the assistance may have some form of impairment or basic knowledge when dealing with these type of request and formal matters.

I would hope The ACC may assist in directing whom to best forward formal concerns to ie Parliament, ACC Head Office or the like.

I/we welcome feedback such as yours, its encouraging and informative

Now I understand a little more about what this question is about - though the safety part is still unclear.

In my experience, you have to be very specific when asking ACC questions.

You have raised a valid issue related to the potential corrupt influence on opinion when ACC (and/or other insurers) are an assessor's sole or major source of income.

Have you asked how many assessments he has done per year for ACC over each of the past 5 years; and what was he (and/or the group he works with) were paid per year for him to do ACC assessments?
(and have you asked for comparison numbers with the top 5 assessors in his area of specialty - because that may be relevant)

Have you asked how many of the cases he was involved in for ACC have gone to review and how many have gone to Appeal? (with comparisons with the top 5 assessors in his area)

Have you asked in how many cases he was involved in (per year for the 5 years) did ACC decline cover or suspend or cease compensation?

Have you asked whether ACC has flown him around the countryside to do assessments (and if so where) - and compared that with the numbers of incumbent specialists in the same area?

These matters are of public interest - because they serve to show whether there likely is (or is not) a likelihood of Assessor bias.

Finally, have you asked ACC for a copy of his up to date curriculum vita - including his training, work history and continuing education (because that also addresses the issue of bias. If he is preferentially used, does not have a contract but can charge whatever he likes and is being flown around the country - then one would expect there is no one else of equivalent expertise- albeit that does not address the issue of the likelihood of bias).

ACC has been found to have used biased assessors in the past - check out the Trapski report.

Hi Jordan, My name is Tania Te Hae. I am in the same boat at the moment. I had no idea that John Collier has a history of this kind of thing. He was the very first Psychiatrist Assessment that ACC sent me to and then I just found out yesturday that he is a contracted Peer Reviewer for ACC. I have had 5 Assessments done and 5 times I have been declined for Compensation due to the approval of the Peer Reviewer stating that ACC has done all the appropriate processes to come to their decision. I have a pending Court hearing 8th July to challenge ACC and I have requested to adjourn it due to Conflict of Interest. I will be opening an investigation into Dr John Collier and I would appreciate it if you could jump on board with me to put your story out there too. Even if you still got what you wanted, I believe he should be held accountable and something needs to be done. I am on facebook so connect with me through there if you like. Thank you.

Hi Tania...at the risk of sounding cynical, Collier is very much well protected by loopholes, ignorance, constructive policy and a will by certain departments and agencies to permit him to conduct himself in such a manner

His history goes all the way back to Canada, I could only wish to be summoned to court to prove my case, alas him or the ACC have not done so, nonone has had the courage to bring a case for what I can only assume is fear they will be proven to be breaking the law

Please e mail me

wairoaboy@hotmail.co.nz

Given that Wayfinders is subsidized and funded solely by the ACC...Wayfinders will be engineered to fulfill the needs of the ACC

Personally, to be putting such and effort to expose someone like Collier with an ACC funded agency, would be hitting a brick wall as.many have done for so.many years already.

The ACC will not 'catch thier own Fox and hang that very Fox outside the Fox House'

I think your energy is best placed to non ACC funded agencies who deal with such issues. Of which, I'm yet to find. ACC is a creation immune to accountability...period.

There are many cases and complaints that prove this, many complaints made that have had a half truth reply and indirect apology.

This is from Wayfinders website:

Why is your service free?
Our navigation service is an ACC contract that we were successful in obtaining. ACC wanted to provide alternative ways for people to access information and advice about ACC and their claim.