lies and tarts

The other day ACC Minister Ruth Dyson lied to the House in her first answer to Winston Peters question about ACC's rehabilitation policy. She said "The Corporation's philosphy is consistent with the legislation, and on that basis I am satisfied that its approach is well founded."

Really? The Corporation's philosophy is NOT consistent with the legislation and, in fact, goes behind the legislation whenever it can.

The proof? - A claimant signed and agreed to an individual rehabilitation plan on 19 June 2003 - to date (24 March 2004) that claimant has received none of the treatment and rehabilitation services as agreed to be provided - this despite Section 76 of the ACC Act which places ACC under a statutory liability to provide the agreed services -

I have been informed that the case manager concerned is heading for a misfeasance in public office claim against her as well as allegegations of intent to defraud both the levy-payers and the claimant plus a claim under Section 308 of the Act in that she is a "person" allegedly misleading the Corporation by willfully omitting to do anything in order to receive or continue to receive a "payment" (being wages and/or performance bonus)

Parliament has definitely distinguished between "payment" and "entitlement" in Section 308. The offence to mislead the Corporation applies to "persons" not just to claimants and, of course, case managers are "persons" and are not the Corporation.

In fact, under Section 165 the Corporation itself has a statutory duty to provide "entitlements" to persons who have cover. The case manager is allegedly committing the offence of misleading the Corporation by not doing that despite a signed and agreed IRP being extant.

In Section 308 (2) the Parliament said "for that person to receive or continue to receive payment OR entitlement."

Ruth DICson ( soft "c" y'unnerstand) is also the Minister of Woman's Affairs. So who's the tart again?