Lees-Galloway Iain: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17228. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to theMinister for ACC: On what date did ACC adopt the policy to stop paying compensation to people who refused to provide a signed unaltered copy of the ACC167 form?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): The policy in respect of stopping paying weekly compensation to clients who refused to provide a signed unaltered copy of the ACC167 form was first agreed to by the Hon Ruth Dyson in March 2006 in a briefing paper signed by her as Minister for ACC after discussions with officials. I seek leave to table the 2006 briefing paper to Minister Dyson on the ACC policy of declining ACC167 forms—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular briefing. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Iain Lees-Galloway: If that was the case why were claimants able to provide informed consent on a case by case basis in lieu of signing the ACC167 form prior to 2009 but from 2009 onwards ACC began writing letters to those claimants threatening to cut off their compensation payments?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The question is in relation to the ACC167 form and the policy’s adoption. It was adopted by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I do not have details on any other details he has asked for.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider whether that addressed the supplementary question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It did because the Minister said that she did not have that amount of information with her in the House. That is quite acceptable.Jami-Lee Ross: What did the court find in the recent decision in respect of ACC’s form ACC167?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The court found that the form ACC was asking clients to sign was not illegal but went beyond statutory requirements. Therefore ACC could not decline entitlements simply because a client declined to sign the consent form. The court upheld ACC’s right to collect relevant medical and other records. I have advised ACC that I expect it to improve the form so that there is no impression given that a person has no options about what information is provided. The form does not explicitly state that only relevant information is required but it does explicitly refer to the Privacy Act.Iain Lees-Galloway: When did she become aware that the ACC167 form posed a privacy risk and that by cutting off payments to those who refused to fill it in ACC may have been acting illegally?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Given that the courts have in the past upheld many disputes relating to the form on Friday afternoon ACC’s Chief Executive Scott Pickering reported to me that two recent decisions of the District Court had overturned ACC’s decision to suspend entitlements as a result of the client’s refusal to sign an unmodified ACC167 form. At that time I was not alerted to the potential significance of the issue. On Monday I had told the acting chief executive that I believed that ACC should look at the issue more broadly and that it appeared to me as a lawyer that the current form needed fundamental review. I am assured that ACC is revising these forms to address the matters raised by the court and that it is now also including my recommendation to look at the wider implications of the form. I am aware that ACC had three requests under the Official Information Act since 2011 that related to the ACC167 form.Iain Lees-Galloway: How many claimants were threatened with having their compensation cut off if they did not fill in the ACC167 form?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well given that Ruth Dyson was the Minister in charge when it first started I cannot give an answer to that.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does she think that it is acceptable for ACC to retain information it had no legal right to collect and is she concerned that that information will be used in future to deny access to treatment and compensation?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No and no.