LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his answers to question for oral answer No. 12 yesterday?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : I stated yesterday that from 2000 to 2008 the rejection rate of sensitive claims grew from 5 percent to 41 percent, that 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that there is no record of any Labour member ever raising any concern about this. I have checked this again, and it is correct. I can also confirm that the new clinical guidelines—
Mr SPEAKER: I remind the Minister that the question simply asked: “Does he stand by all his answers to question for oral answer No. 12 yesterday?”. Unless there were some that he does not wish to stand by, I would have thought that the question could easily be answered just by saying “Yes”, rather than going through the great detail of it. Further information may be elicited by way of supplementary questions.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I wanted to clarify that I had checked also that the Hon Steve Maharey had launched the clinical guidelines on—
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How clear does it have to be? You gave very clear advice to the member, but he is persisting. A “Yes” or a “No” will suffice. Let us hear it.
Hon Rodney Hide: With the greatest respect, it is not the Speaker’s job, as you have often explained to us, to direct what a Minister’s answer should be and whether it should be a “Yes” or “No” answer. In fact, when one is asked a question, I think it is quite polite to the House to actually say “Yes” and to explain the answer. That was what I was enjoying.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member—[Interruption] I am on my feet—were to check the Standing Ordershe would find that the Standing Orders require that in answering questions Ministers provide the information necessary to answer the question and no more. The Minister does not have to say “Yes” or “No” to every question, but this question does not require a huge explanation, because it asked just whether the Minister stands by all his answers. There will be supplementary questions, I am sure, and the Minister will have the chance to explain further. But I do not believe we need to take up a lot of the time of the House because the information being given is not necessary to answer the question.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He still has not answered “Yes” or “No”.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister indicated in his answer that he was standing by his answers, so I invite the member to ask a supplementary question.
Lynne Pillay: What does he say to the woman who was so traumatised and depressed by the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC) treatment that she was admitted to intensive care, then returned home to find a long-awaited ACC psychiatrist’s report stating that she was in remission from depression?
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I say that I heard the primary question, I heard the answer, and I am struggling to see how the supplementary question relates to them.
Hon Trevor Mallard: We’re not responsible for your struggles.
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard. There have been many offences on the other side of the House, which means I cannot deal with that interjection any more than I dealt with those, but I ask members to be careful not to interject when a point of order is being considered. The supplementary question obviously relates to some of the subject matter of yesterday’s questions, but the Minister’s ability to answer that question will be very constrained because of a lack of a direct relationship to today’s primary question. I did not rule the member’s question out of order because I think the House just has to accept that the Minister’s ability to answer will be very limited because of the nature of the primary question. But I invite the Minister to answer in so far as he can.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The questions yesterday were very clear. They related to the dramatic drop in—
Mr SPEAKER: We will not have my ruling debated now. I assisted the member in getting an answer to a question. She should not press her luck too far. She asked a very particular primary question about whether the Minister stood by all his answers. I have assisted her in trying to get an answer to that, but to now expect the Minister to have detailed information on a particular case is not reasonable. I have said that the Minister is entitled to answer in so far as he can, but he may not have that information.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that there are thousands of sensitive claims each year. In fact, 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that member did not raise any concern about that. If the member has specific information about a case, I ask her to refer it to the independent clinical review that I announced at the beginning of the week.
Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday that information in my question—information suggesting that about 300 victims of crime had been approved for sexual abuse counselling in October 2008 and that that figure had fallen to 6 in February this year—was incorrect and untrue when it was directly sourced from his own answers in written questions to the House?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I told the member yesterday and I will tell him again that his numbers are incorrect. Let me—
Hon Darren Hughes: They’re the Minister’s numbers.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the members will be silent I will be happy to explain. The answer made plain that the question in respect of February claims was a question in March. In the same way as if he had asked Work and Income to compare the claim numbers for April this year with those of April last year, not all the claims had been processed. In fact, I say to Mr Goff, in that written answer I pointed out that 70 percent of the claims had not been processed. The number six is incorrect. The correct number is more than double that. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the controversy that exists around the question and the answer, and given your ruling yesterday, and that he said my figures were incorrect, I seek leave of the House to table written question No. 1883 (2009) and written question No. 01711 (2010), which point out that the figures I used were those of the Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Figures are often disputed because of concern about the time frames from which the figures are taken, and whether apples are being compared with apples. But I do not want us to get into the habit of seeking leave to table answers to written questions when those are available to members. I think there is a chance, with the way of asking questions today, to question the Minister in some detail on how he has answered the questions. The honourable Leader of the Opposition still has many supplementary questions available to him today to do that. I would rather see the House exercise a good period of intense questioning rather than see leave being sought to table material that is already available to the House.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you appreciate the dilemma of members in this House when they quote figures given to them by a Minister and that same Minister stands up in this House and says the figures are untrue and incorrect?
Mr SPEAKER: One of the things that our style of questioning these days allows is for members to ask further questions to elucidate that.
Hon Phil Goff: My question to the Minister—[Interruption]—if he just pauses and listens—
Mr SPEAKER: No. Please ask the supplementary question.
Hon Phil Goff: Well, I would like him to hear it. He is talking while I am asking it.
Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the supplementary question.
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that in October 2008, in an answer to a written question, he confirmed that 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for help through counselling, that by February 2010 that number had fallen to six, that in the previous month the number was 11, that the month before it was 32, and that in the month before that it was 44, so that there was a consistent downward trend to a situation where almost no people who were victims of sexual crimes were receiving help through ACC?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can confirm that the numbers the member claimed yesterday were different from those I had given in the written answer. The further point I would make very simply to the member is that when someone asks how many claims were lodged for February—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked the Minister to confirm the accuracy of the figures that I was reading to him and the sources from which they came.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. I say to the Minister that this question was not about yesterday’s answer. This question was asking about specific information that the member has received from the Minister. It would be more appropriate for the Minister to answer the question that was asked by the member.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s—[Interruption].
Mr SPEAKER: Before we go any further, I say that the Leader of the Opposition has asked a serious question. I have asked members, instead of seeking leave to table documents, to use question time to question Ministers. The Leader of the Opposition is doing that. I ask his colleagues to show the respect, then, of listening to the answer, rather than giving just a barrage of interjections when the Minister tries to answer.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason the member’s numbers are incorrect is that when one asks at the beginning of March for the number of February claims that have been approved, a large—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, for goodness’ sake!
Mr SPEAKER: No—a point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: I have read these figures directly from the Minister’s own answer, and now he is saying that the figures I am reading are incorrect. That cannot possibly be the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: This is a very interesting situation. The Minister, in answering his question, said “the reason the member’s figures are incorrect”. The member asked the Minister about a series of figures relating to one period, and then he went back for several months before that—forgive me, but I cannot recollect the dates or whether he went back about 6 months or 4 months prior to that—and to a pattern in the figures. He asked the Minister whether he could confirm those figures. What I will do to avoid any further confusion is to ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question.
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm his own figures, provided by written answer to the House of Representatives, that in October of 2008, 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for counselling, yet through the recent months of this year and last year, those figures dropped from 44 in November 2009 to 32 in December 2009, to 11 in January 2010, and to a derisory figure of just six in February 2010?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have the written answer in front of me, and it points out that of the 298 claims in February, at the beginning of March 260 were in the category “awaiting further information” or in the second category “awaiting assessment”. I say to the member that in exactly the same way that one needs to give—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, a point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: I asked the Minister to confirm that those were the numbers of people approved in that 4-month period from late last year to this year, compared with 2008. I am hearing a lot of other figures. I am simply asking the Minister to confirm that his own numbers were the numbers of victims of sexual crimes accepted for counselling.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had about four attempts at explaining the numbers, and every time the member opposite interjects with a point of order and stops me from being able to explain the context of the numbers. I simply ask to be given the time to answer the question the member is asking.
Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma we have is that this is question time. The member did not ask the Minister to explain the information; the member asked the Minister to confirm whether the figures were correct. The Standing Orders do not provide for Ministers to answer a different question. If the question asked why there is this pattern in the figures, then the Minister’s answer would be perfectly in order, but that is not the question that was asked. Ministers have to answer the question asked, not the one they might like to answer. I ask the Minister to answer the question asked.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The answer that was given at the beginning of March—that six February claims were approved—was correct at the beginning of March. But, of course, since then a substantially increased number of the February claims have been approved. If members want to compare the situation with the situation in October 2008, that would be the fair comparison.
Hon Annette King: Has he been made aware of the human tragedy that is unfolding for victims of sexual abuse since the change of policy—for example, the 11-year-old raped by her stepfather 2½ months ago, who is still awaiting assessment for counselling, or the 19-year-old raped by one man while being held down by two others 6 months ago, who is still waiting for—
Mr SPEAKER: I have been pretty tough on the Minister in respect of answering the question asked. The question the member is now asking is drawing a pretty long bow from the primary question, which asked the Minister whether he stood by his answers given yesterday. He cannot be expected to have detailed information on those particular cases, and that means that the member is seeking to make a political statement rather than ask a question. I have been tough on the Minister, asking him to answer the question asked. I ask the honourable member—hang on, I am on my feet—to ask a question within the Standing Orders, because I think that question was unfair. I have to make sure that if I am tough on the Minister and ask him to answer the question asked, I do not then allow members to ask questions that are outside the Standing Orders.
Hon Annette King: How does the Minister explain the delay in terms of the cases I have just given the House, and the human tragedy that is unfolding because of that delay?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I point out that in 2008, under the member’s Government, 2,400 sensitive claims for counselling and support were declined by ACC. I have been hesitant to interfere—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not possible for me to answer questions when there is that sort of berating from the Opposition benches.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister makes—
Hon Shane Jones: Chuck him out.
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Shane Jones to be careful. I was clearly on my feet when he made that loud interjection. I think members should be reasonable. I fully accept that this is a tense issue. It is a very serious and sensitive issue. The Minister is doing his best to answer questions sincerely, and I ask for some respect to be shown to the Minister when he is answering.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been very hesitant to interfere in clinical decisions in respect of sensitive claims, but I did announce on Monday an independent clinical review. If members opposite have cases where they are not satisfied with the clinical care, I invite them to refer them to that review.
Hon David Parker: Why will not the Minister admit that he and his Government have badly let down the victims of sexual crime; that he has failed to heed the consistent warnings from the Opposition, from the professional associations of psychotherapists and psychologists, and from Christian counsellors, social workers, rape crisis workers, and Massey University; that it is a matter of political responsibility; and that it could be fixed by reinstating the prior practice?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I again point out to that member that 2,400 claims were declined, and that during the term of the previous Government there was an eight-fold increase in the number of claims that were declined. I also draw to the member’s attention the statement from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners that strongly supports the clinical pathway that was adopted by ACC.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without revisiting the issue—and you will be aware that I discussed this matter with you off-line at some point—could I ask you to consider this matter in respect of your ruling about the tabling of documents, which I respect. It is simply that we have had quite an interchange over allegations of accuracy of information, or whatever. I ask you to consider—not here—that there may be a case for tabling, narrowly, when a member calls into question the accuracy or otherwise of, for instance, data contained within written or oral questions, even though the data are available readily to members who do research. The interchange that we have had today about accuracy, or lack of it, could be truncated somewhat if you, Mr Speaker, at your discretion, were to rule that the documents could indeed be tabled. Then they would sit on the Table in the House for everybody to see, and the issue might well be resolved.
Mr SPEAKER: I hear the point the member makes, and I appreciate that it is being made in good faith. Why I did not do so today is that where figures relate to different time periods, and there is debate about the figures, allowing these things to be tabled implies that someone is proving the other person wrong. The beauty of it being pursued through questions is that the questioner can pursue his or her concern about the figures, and the Minister has the chance to answer. That is what question time is all about. I think it was a very tense period of questioning, and that is what this House is all about.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not challenging that, because that is your interpretation. The only difficulty—and, Mr Speaker, you have said it repeatedly through question time, and you are right—is that an Opposition does indeed have further supplementary questions, but those supplementary questions are then chewed up in order to deal with a point that, again, could quite easily be dealt with. If the questioner is not relaying the facts accurately, he or she would be rather stupid to table documents that did not back up what he or she was saying. So that issue could be dealt with. The Opposition is left in the position where its members have to chew up their ammunition to verify a fact that could be tabled quite easily for the House to then further debate.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point, and I do not rule out that possibility. The member will recollect, in fact, that I did allow someone to table a press release recently.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Some things never change, though, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/5/9/c/49HansQ_20100428_00000007-7-Accident-Compensation-Sensitive-Claims.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment