LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Is he satisfied new sexual abuse clinical guidelines will not further injure sexual abuse victims?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : Yes, because the guidelines have been put together by skilled clinicians. I have noted members’ concern, and I have invited MPs to a briefing by Dr Peter Jansen, senior medical adviser in the clinical services directorate of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), to brief members on the care that ACC is taking in the sensitive claims area. I am surprised that the member who has raised these questions has not accepted my invitation to be briefed by those clinicians.
Lynne Pillay: Does the Minister realise that the majority of the 4,000 petitioners calling for a halt to the new guidelines are the professionals who provide counselling, including the researchers who took part in the Massey guidelines upon which it is claimed the new ACC sensitive claims process is based?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been hesitant to interfere in what is clinical best practice. I acknowledge that there has been some professional debate between the view of counsellors and psychotherapists, and the view of psychiatrists and psychologists. I acknowledge that difference, but, as a politician, I simply say that we should be hesitant to interfere in clinical decisions.
Michael Woodhouse: What trend has there been since 2000 in the acceptance rates by ACC of sensitive claims?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is very interesting, given all the noise that has come from the Opposition, that 5 percent of sensitive claims were declined in 2000, but this figure grew in every single year that Labour was in Government, to the point where 40.5 percent of sensitive claims were declined last year. In fact, last year, 2,378 sensitive claims were rejected by the previous Government. These facts show how the Opposition has crudely used this sensitive issue for political gain.
Lynne Pillay: Can the Minister explain the blowout in the number of pending claims and the rising proportion of declined claims with regard to the sensitive claims unit—for example, in Auckland in December 2008, of 114 claims, fewer than four were awaiting a decision, and in August 2009, of 110 claims, 103 are awaiting a decision?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would note that during the period from 2000 to 2008, when that member was a member of the previous Government, the number of claims that were declined grew from 5 percent to 40 percent—an eightfold increase. That is why I ask members opposite to please not make politics out of people who are the victims of sexual abuse.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very, very specific. The Minister has made no attempt whatsoever to answer it.
Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma I have with the member’s question relates to the fact that she made a very major assertion in her question. If I recollect correctly, she cited figures relating to certain cases in front of ACC that were waiting to be decided in a certain year compared with cases in another year. Strictly speaking, members cannot make that kind of assertion when they ask questions, because members are meant to ask a question. They could ask the Minister whether the figures are correct. But to make the bulk of the question an assertion like that leaves me with little opportunity to be able to ask the Minister to give any particular kind of answer, because the Minister can, if he chooses to, just dispute the figures. I do not see how I can assist the member on this occasion. I will briefly hear the member further.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you may be able to assist me. I was seeking to table a response to my written question from the Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: Is the member seeking leave to table a document?
Lynne Pillay: Yes. I can quote from the document.
Mr SPEAKER: Hang on a moment. I just want to find something out. If the member is now seeking leave to table a document, I need to know what the document is.
Lynne Pillay: It is a response from the Minister to a written question, showing that the increases—
Mr SPEAKER: We get to the same difficulty. There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings that make it very clear that answers to questions for written answer are outside the kind of material that should be tabled in this House, because they are already available to all members. I presume the member wishes to seek leave to table this document to make a political point. That is not the purpose of seeking leave to table a document. The purpose is to provide information for the House that the House does not have available to it. In this case the House has that information available to it, unless the question was lodged several years ago and it was something particularly unusual. But if it was lodged in the last few months, it clearly is totally outside the Standing Orders.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry. I may not have been clear. What I want to table is the exact figures that I have just asked in my question.
Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me. If the figures are from an answer to a written question, I will not put the seeking of leave to table that document, because it absolutely wastes the time of Parliament. Parliament has that information. If the figures are from a different source, I apologise to the member, and I will be very happy to put the leave. But if they are from information that has been provided through an answer to a written question, I will not take the time of the House for that. The House has that information. There is no way it can be within the Standing Orders to seek leave to table material that the House already has available to it.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, I say “ibid.” to my previous comments as to your moving the rulings without the support of the Standing Orders Committee. I think there is an additional point in this particular case. You said you would not follow up on the question because of a lack of authentication. Now, I am a realist. I do not expect you to follow every question for written answer or to keep all those facts and figures in your head. But the figures are before the House—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat, because he cannot use a point of order to debate that. If Ms Pillay wants to go back to the Standing Orders, she will see that I could have ruled the question out. A member cannot ask a question in that manner. The member can ask the Minister about the figures on cases and the decisions that are waiting to be made on them in a certain year and a certain other year. It is fine to ask that question, but to make an allegation of information into a question is not the purpose of question time. If the member is looking puzzled, I suggest that she reads the relevant Standing Order. It is not very difficult. It spells it out very clearly. Now, I do not normally enforce that Standing Order, because it wastes too much time of the House to do so. Where I will draw the line is where members seek leave to table documents that are answers to written questions. Members have that information. If the member is seeking leave to table information that members already have, that is out of order. That is clearly out of order, and that is why I am not putting the seeking of leave.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have made a decision on the matter. If the member wishes to challenge me, there will be consequences, but I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I can understand that you will not be happy, but I want to take you back through your argument. You ruled something out for not being authenticated. My submission to you—
Mr SPEAKER: I will not listen to—[Interruption] The member will resume his seat right now. Supplementary questions do not require authentication, because they are meant to ask questions. They should not inject new material. I do not think I can put it in any more simple words than that. The Standing Orders require supplementary questions to ask questions. They should not inject new material at all. We do allow them, but when members put in new material, they cannot object when Ministers do not answer the question in the way members might wish. Arguing that material that might be before the House—[Interruption] I can hear that the member is muttering, which he should not be doing. Arguing that material has been provided by way of written question is still no excuse for seeking to inject material into a supplementary question that is not in front of the House either as part of an answer that a Minister has given to previous supplementary questions, or contained in the original question, because the original question has been authenticated. When members seek to inject new information by way of a supplementary question, I allow it, because I do not want to be ruling members out, but members cannot be too precise about the way Ministers handle such questions. I apologise to the member, but I will not permit leave being sought to table an answer to a written question when the House has that information. That is the end of the matter.
Lynne Pillay: Given that National MPs Nicky Wagner and Michael Woodhouse have today committed on the Minister’s behalf to listen to clinicians’ concerns, will he now delay the implementation of the guidelines due to come into effect today?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have made it plain to this House that I am satisfied that ACC is using the best of clinical expertise in the development of policy in this sensitive area, and that I as a politician do not intend to interfere in clinical decisions.
Michael Woodhouse: What steps has the Minister taken to reassure New Zealanders that the clinical decisions in this area are in the best interests of those who have been victims of sexual abuse?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I acknowledge the concern from a number of genuine professionals around the sensitive claims area and the changes being made to the scheme. For that reason I have asked ACC to consider an independent clinical review of the new policy. I am pleased to advise the House that ACC has agreed to do that, and it will be done in 6 months’ time, to ensure that what is being done in this area is putting to the forefront the needs of those people who have been victims of sexual abuse.
Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table the copy of the petition to delay the implementation of changes to the accident compensation sensitive claims schemes, signed by 3,973 petitioners, as presented to National MPs today.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. There is a normal process for dealing with petitions that are tabled by the Clerk’s Office, which is in respect of every petition that is presented to this House. It seems to be a strange mechanism for us to be asserting that through the mechanism of tabling a document. I want clarification as to whether the process that member is adopting will usurp the normal process for dealing with a petition before the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Before I take this matter any further, I will seek advice from the Clerk as to whether this document has already been tabled in the House. We are not aware that this petition has been tabled.
Lynne Pillay: This petition is not to the House of Representatives, but to the Minister for ACC, Dr Nick Smith.
Mr SPEAKER: I understand. The member has sought leave to table this document. This is a genuine document. It is a petition. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to table the official figures from ACC showing that the percentage of claims that have been declined has grown from 5 percent in 2000 to 40 percent in 2008.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you ask members about documents they wish to table, I ask that you are consistent and that you ask Ministers as well as members on this side of the House as to whether documents are already publicly available. That document apparently was.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not need an argument on this matter. I say to members that where Ministers seek leave to be helpful by tabling official documents, or documents from officials, I believe that is helpful to the House. Now if a mistake is made and a document may already have been made public or tabled, members can object. It is perfectly within their right to object. But I believe that the whole process to table documents is to make more information available to members of this House. In respect of official documents, members normally go to a great deal of effort to try to require them under the Official Information Act. I thought it would have been helpful for members, where leave is sought, to provide those documents without that hassle.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/c/2/2/49HansD_20091027_00000001-Questions-for-Oral-Answer-Questions-to-Ministers.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment