A needed correction

An editorial from the Southland Times

A storm of reproach has rightly prevailed and ACC's shabby cutback of sexual abuse counselling has been reversed, writes The Southland Times in an editorial.
The idea that only victims with a diagnosed mental injury resulting from sexual abuse or assault should be covered for the counselling drew compelling criticisms from victim advocates. These simply could not be rejected as the self-serving whines of vested interest groups. Rather, they were an emphatic message from seasoned clinicians and were endorsed by an independent panel appointed by minister Nick Smith.
ACC portrays the backdown as, in effect, evidence that it can listen and react to a strong case. Dr Smith, to some extent, can portray it as a case of him intervening usefully.
It's arguable that some encouragement can be taken from this for the southern campaign against the proposal to strip Dunedin of its neurosurgery unit, which is also at the "minister's panel" stage. Certainly the case is no less strong.
What we now have, with ACC, is a stopgap provision by which up to 16 hours' counselling will be available for victims of rape and other sexual abuse "sensitive claims". The panel's final report isn't due to be released until the middle of next month and something more permanent may result from that. Popular opinion is that it better.
This doesn't exactly take the heat off Dr Smith, however. He says he was concerned when he saw an increase in claims being turned down and that the Government had not asked for cuts in the sensitive claims area. Of course it hadn't. Governments hardly ever do anything as plain as saying "do less for victims of sexual abuse".
What they do, as many a health board can attest, is make more generalised requirements for funding cutbacks that leave the boards to make the sharply focused decisions like this, and then cop the criticisms.
In cases such as this, the Government gets to wade in like this and insist that, well, obviously, this wasn't what it had in mind. There really is a short distance politically, from an instruction that is no more detailed than the ridiculously generalised Nike slogan – "just do it" – to the outraged specificity of a "you did what"? And sure enough, Dr Smith says ACC handled this matter badly.
Now opposition parties, notably the Greens, are fully entitled to say other changes that ACC has made should also be given pointy scrutiny by independent reviews.
Such reviews would be rather spoilt for choice. Not so much the decision to push the date by which ACC is fully funded back five years to 2019, which is widely accepted as sensible, but sore changes to the work assessment regime, the diminished entitlements for seasonal workers and the tougher standards before people can get hearing aids. Less likely, purely for populist reasons, is that there will be a revisitation of the decision taking away compensations for criminals in jail.
But surely there can be a rethink of the notion that the families of suicide victims might need ACC help. Given, as we have lately been reminded by the Chief Coroner, that the suicide rate is far worse than the road toll, it doesn't take much of an imaginative leap to see a real need, if not in all cases, then certainly a substantial number, for some practical assistance to be given. And by the State.
The suspicion that ACC is being privatised by stealth still lingers.

© 2010 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/opinion/4024289/A-needed-correction