Police mental injury cover is being throttled — and injured NZ police workers are paying for a provider employment dispute

Injured NZ police workers and their families rely on police mental injury cover that is supposed to be ACC-equivalent, lawful, and focused on safe rehabilitation. When that system blocks authorised advocacy, recovery slows, risk rises, and trust collapses.

That matters even more in an integrity climate already under strain. The McSkimming saga has shown what senior governance failure looks like and how quickly it poisons confidence across the police service and its welfare systems (The Guardian, 12 November 2025). When integrity wobbles at the top, injured people feel it first.

What has happened

The police ACC provider delivering ACC-equivalent functions under the Police ACC Programme has imposed a blanket restriction preventing the Blue Hope Foundation from communicating with delegated case managers in police mental injury claims.

The provider’s 17 November letter alleges privacy breach/defamation, “tone,” and “interference,” and then uses those claims to justify a system-wide communications ban. Members have seen the letter. What matters now is the operational effect: lawful, consented advocacy has been shut down for injured NZ police workers as a group.

Why the provider’s narrative doesn’t stack up

This is not a legal finding. It is a defensive story built to justify a gag.

The trigger was simple: the Foundation challenged unsafe template language in a PTSD cover-extension context because it implied claimant fault for administrative delay. Instead of fixing the communication, the provider treated being pushed to act lawfully and trauma-safely as the problem. Call it an internal staff blow-up, an employment dispute, or a case of professional “hurt feelings” getting promoted into policy — either way, it is not a claimant-driven risk, and it is not a lawful basis to throttle advocacy access.

Why the blanket restriction is unlawful

Even if the police ACC provider is managing an internal employment dispute, it cannot lawfully do so by removing claimant safeguards.

A delegated ACC-equivalent decision-maker must:

1. Respect the right to representation and communication. Injured NZ police workers can authorise advocates to communicate directly with decision-makers. A blanket block removes that right in practice.

2. Avoid blanket rules that fetter discretion. Delegated public functions cannot impose across-the-board “no advocacy contact” policies regardless of consent or circumstance. That is an unlawful fetter and a denial of natural justice.

3. Use targeted, proportionate safety controls. If there is a real staff-safety risk, the lawful response is targeted controls for that specific risk — not a system-wide gag that shifts the burden onto disabled claimants.

Put plainly: a provider’s internal employment problem cannot be managed by switching off injured NZ police workers’ lawful supports inside an ACC-equivalent scheme.

Why this is a PTSD safety issue, not admin noise

PTSD recovery depends on predictability, clarity, and safe system navigation. Authorised advocacy is the buffer that stops the process itself from becoming a trigger.

When that buffer is blocked:

• isolation increases,

• delay and uncertainty expand, and

• stress load rises at the exact point where rehabilitation should be reducing it.

That is not theoretical. It is a foreseeable harm pathway for injured NZ police workers and their families.

What the Foundation has done

The Blue Hope Foundation exists to protect injured NZ police workers and prevent avoidable system harm. Since this restriction was imposed:

• We have put Police governance on formal notice that the blanket ban is incompatible with safe rehabilitation and increases foreseeable psychological harm.

• We have lodged a systemic complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA Ref: 25-30689).

• We have raised a public-interest integrity complaint with the Public Service Commission about the legality and ACC-equivalence of delegated delivery while advocacy is obstructed.

• While the restriction remains, we are routing claim advocacy through ACC oversight and Police governance channels to reduce delay pressure and keep stabilising support in place.

This is a safety and integrity ladder, not a “fight.” The point is to restore lawful, claimant-safe delivery before further harm occurs.

Why every member should care

Some members deal only with ACC and aren’t currently in the Police ACC Programme. This still matters to you because:

• It sets the standard. If advocacy can be switched off here, the practice can spread.

• Pathways change. A safeguard lost now may not be there when you or your family need it later.

• Rights removed for some, weakened rights for all. This is about whether injured NZ police workers keep lawful access to representation and safe communication across police mental injury cover.

Injured NZ police workers and families deserve a mental injury cover system that is lawful, trauma-safe, and genuinely ACC-equivalent in effect. A blanket advocacy ban imposed to manage a provider employment dispute fails that test.

The Foundation will keep pressing until authorised advocacy access and safe communication are restored — because that is what prevents harm, protects families, and honours service.