Question to Minister: ACC - Minister's statements

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his recent statements on ACC?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : Yes.
Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his claim on 6 May in Parliament that the College of Psychiatrists had issued a statement strongly in support of the changes that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) had made to the sensitive claims guidelines; if so, is the College of Psychiatrists not telling the truth in a letter it released on 10 May, stating that the college had not supported the new ACC pathway, and that, indeed, it had declined to release a press release in support of it? Will he now address this little inconsistency in his answer to Parliament?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I said that the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners had issued a statement that “ACC’s practice guidelines for sexual abuse and mental injury will strengthen these results still further. All the clinical evidence suggests the new approach ACC is adopting will be in the interests of the patient.” The advice I received from ACC was that the College of Psychiatrists had made statements to ACC in support of the guidelines and the change.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you do not wish to have Hansard tabled in this House. I based my question on the Minister’s answer on 6 May, in which he named the College of Psychiatrists as having issued a statement.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.
Hon Annette King: Yes, Mr Speaker. I have the Hansard. The Minister is saying no, but I seek leave to table the Hansard.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the statement issued by the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners dated 2 November 2009.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Lynne Pillay: Why, in the face of overwhelming opposition throughout New Zealand to the ACC-imposed clinical pathways introduced under his watch, does he not simply reinstate the previous process? Even visiting American sexual abuse expert Dr Mike Lew says that ACC’s new criteria is a “real tragedy that would cause tremendous suffering,”.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I understand that that statement was made in respect of the requirement that for a person to receive accident compensation support, he or she is required to have a diagnosed mental injury. It is a requirement of the law that Labour put in place in 2001.
Melissa Lee: Are claims that there has been a dramatic decrease in the amount ACC is spending on sensitive claims since the new guidelines came into effect correct?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, such claims are grossly misleading. The amount ACC has spent on sensitive claims for the year to date is $45.7 million, which compares with $46.7 million for the exact same period last year. The amount spent on counselling per month has been consistent over the last 3 years at $900,000. The average amount spent on sensitive claims counselling is $905,000 per month over the last 3 months.
Lynne Pillay: Does he agree that when a young woman is held at knifepoint for 15 hours and repeatedly raped it is outrageous that she should wait weeks before earnings-related accident compensation can be paid, which is what his colleague Chris Tremain told the media in 2006? How does he reconcile Mr Tremain’s outrage then with the fact that rape victims are now waiting months or indefinitely just for counselling to be approved by ACC?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The average time for processing sensitive claims at the moment, I understand, is about 20 days. That is unacceptably long. It is one of the reasons that I have established a clinical review of management of sensitive claims. I want ACC to work with clinicians and professionals to ensure that the best possible counselling support within the law is provided to those claimants.
Hon Annette King: Why did he tell the House on 6 May when I asked him whether he had heard of a group of survivors of sexual assault called Courageous Women, who are challenging the changes to accident compensation guidelines, that “I’ve heard of the group only through the newspaper” when at that point during question time he had full knowledge of the group, he had had a phone call with its spokesperson Louise Nicholas 3 days earlier, and he had had time to arrange staff members to listen in on that conversation with Ms Nicholas and make records of that conservation? Would he now like to address that little inconsistency in his answer to Parliament?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. What I take to be a serious question has been asked of the Minister; if the Opposition members wish to hear an answer they should respect the Minister.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When I had advised the House that I knew of the group, Courageous Women, through the media, I was stating a fact. Louise Nicholas had a conversation with me as a formal advocate for victims of sexual abuse. I did not know that she was formally connected to that group, and, quite frankly, I do not think there is any big deal about how I might have found out that this particular group, called Courageous Women, exists.
Hon Annette King: Does he recall these words on 6 May in answer to a question from me: “the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the College of General Practitioners have issued statements strongly supportive of the changes that ACC has made.”, and would he know like to apologise to the House for saying he did not say those words in this House?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each time the member has used the quote she has quoted the words slightly differently. I will be very clear for the member—
Hon Trevor Mallard: But it’s your Hansard.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, previously the member opposite used a different set of words. For the member’s benefit I will be very clear. The College of General Practitioners issued a written statement. I was advised by ACC—and I would be happy to table the report from ACC—that the College of Psychiatrists formally advised ACC that it supported the guidelines.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member offered to table a document. I make clear and put on the record that if that is the case, the Opposition wants to see it.
Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that it is up to the Minister to table a document, unless he was quoting from an official document, which appears not to have been the case.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the Hansard of 6 May, in which the Minister claimed that he had a statement from the College of Psychiatrists in support of his changes. The college has denied that it ever issued such a statement.
Mr SPEAKER: Because of the controversy, I will put that leave to the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/a/1/0/49HansQ_20100518_00000003-3-Accident-Compensation-Minister-s-Statements.htm