LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Is he satisfied that the new sexual abuse clinical guidelines used in ACC’s Sensitive Claims Unit are offering “the best treatment possible”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): The new guidelines are a consequence of work initiated under the previous Labour Government. The launch of the Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand was done by Steve Maharey in 2008. I have consistently refused to interfere in clinical decisions in this sensitive area, other than to emphasis the importance of Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) complying with the Act and ensuring these vulnerable claimants receive the best possible clinical treatment. To ensure I am satisfied, this month I am initiating a clinical review.
Lynne Pillay: When will the Minister admit that the new imposed ACC guidelines were not designed by *Massey University, which has publicly disassociated itself from those guidelines; and that those new guidelines do not give the best treatment possible; rather, they re-victimise victims of crime?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is quite the contrary, I assure the member that ACC’s clinical guidelines were based on the research report launched by Steve Maharey and done at Massey University.
Michael Woodhouse: Who has he offered to consult on the membership and terms of reference for the independent clinical review of ACC’s sensitive claims?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the House and in writing I have offered to consult with the Labour Opposition on both the personnel and the terms of reference for the clinical review. I am disappointed that Labour has refused input, and this shows that Labour is more interested in politics than the genuine clinical care of sexual abuse victims.
Lynne Pillay: Does the Minister not understand that Labour will not participate in this sham review of the ACC pathway, because it would be a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money, given that ACC’s figures show that 18 months ago some 300 people were approved for counselling each month and now fewer than 12 people are approved in a month?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think what might differ between members of the Government and the Opposition is our view that clinical decisions should be made by clinicians. I am disappointed that when the Opposition was offered a role in the appointment of the independent clinical review, it refused. When I offered to consult with the Opposition about the terms of reference of the review, it refused. It is a bit rich for those members to say the review is a sham when it has not even started.
Lynne Pillay: Is the Minister aware that the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists passed a unanimous resolution at its annual conference calling for the imposed ACC sensitive claims pathway to cease and to return to a system that ensures that survivors of sexual abuse receive the support they need and deserve?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I get different views from different clinical professionals. The view I have taken is that my expertise is not in this sensitive area. That is why I have said that the best way forward is an independent clinical review of those guidelines that were launched as a consequence of work, including that by Steve Maharey, done when Labour was in Government.
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Lianne Dalziel.
Lynne Pillay: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise. The member was calling a point of order, but it is withdrawn.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister saying—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that Lynne Pillay had the call prior to Lianne Dalziel.
Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is the sole judge of who will be called. I apologise for that interruption.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister saying that in fact there has been no change to the operation of the guidelines since the National Government has been in place, and has he received any representations from the Minister of Justice about the impact the changes in implementation have had on the work he has been doing in respect of victims of sexual violence?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I make is that the Government, as in Ministers, has had absolutely no influence on the work of the clinical guidelines, because I have taken the quite appropriate view as a Minister that it is not for me to be involved in setting—
Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very straight question: “Is the Minister saying that the guidelines are being implemented exactly as they were prior to the change in Government?”. The Minister is attempting to talk about whether he has had any interference. There was nothing in my question that asked whether there was ministerial interference. I would have to assume that that would be—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. The member’s point of order is perfectly fair up until that point—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: —I am on my feet—questioning whether the Minister was answering her question. The question asked whether the implementation of the guidelines changed, as I understand it, from those being administered by the previous Government. The member wanted to raise a point of order in response, and I will hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The difficulty with the member’s question is that she asserted that the Government had changed the process of the guidelines, implying that Ministers had. I wanted to make it plain to the House that that assertion—
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is entering into debate. I suggest that the easiest way to resolve this is to ask the member to repeat her question without penalty and for her to keep it brief. If she adds further phrases to it, the Minister is at liberty to pick on whatever part he chooses.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister saying that the guidelines are being implemented exactly as they were being implemented prior to the change of Government, and has he received any representations from the Minister of Justice about the impact that the change in implementation has had on the work that is being done with victims of sexual violence?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have had a number of discussions with the Minister of Justice about this sensitive area. In respect of the guidelines, the new ACC guidelines were based on the guidelines developed by Massey University, which were launched by Steve Maharey in March 2008.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: The Minister has done exactly the same thing again. I asked whether—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. I listened very carefully to the member’s question. I have warned the member about adding two parts to a question. The Minister picked up on the second part of the question and answered it perfectly fairly and properly, and that is as far as I can assist the member. The remedy is in members’ hands when asking questions.
Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table a copy of a resolution that was passed unanimously by psychotherapists calling for a halt to the imposed ACC pathway, and a return to—
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.
Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table my correspondence to the Hon Nick Smith stating that Labour would not participate confidentially in an ACC review process—
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table correspondence from Massey University* stating the rules for sexual abuse claims were not developed by Massey University, but by ACC itself.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00029.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment