Question to Minister: ACC

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader — Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint programme of 12 August 2010: “I’m not satisfied that ACC has handled the issue of counselling services for sensitive claims that well. I’m going to await the final report from the independent clinical panel before drawing final conclusions”; if so, why?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Yes, I do. I have been consistently cautious about interfering in the clinical decisions of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in this sensitive area. But given the level of concern from colleagues and the public I have established an independent clinical panel to review the corporation’s approach. That panel is doing a very professional and thorough job.
Hon Annette King: Does he now accept that he was warned by clinicians, by survivors, by he National Council of Women, and by 3,976 people who, last October, signed a petition that stated: “By doing nothing and allowing these changes to occur unhindered you are choosing to make recovery from horrific abuse harder for some of the most vulnerable members of this society.”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I draw the member’s attention to the advice from the Royal New Zealand Colleague of General Practitioners, and I quote what it said in November last year: “All the clinical evidence suggests that the new approach ACC is adopting will be in the best interests of the patient”. Given that sort of advice I have been cautious about getting involved in a clinical debate where I am not well qualified, but in response to the concerns of colleagues like Chester Borrows, Jackie Blue, and Nikki Kaye, I have set up an independent clinical panel and I will be ensuring that the advice of that panel is taken by the ACC to ensure that we are providing proper care for people who are sexually abused.
Hon Annette King: Did the ACC advise him that the process to change the clinical framework or clinical pathway was started under a Labour Government as he has claimed many times; if so, when?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, that is the advice I have received. There was concern in the research that was commissioned in 2003, at Massey University, by the previous Government. The key element — and I am not an expert on the clinical issues — is that the clinical concern in that research was that unlimited counselling would do more harm than good for sensitive claimants. I am advised by the ACC that the changes in the pathway were begun in 2008.
Michael Woodhouse: What steps has the Minister taken to try to have the issues over sensitive claims addressed as quickly as possible?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The independent clinical panel wrote to me on 16 July seeking an extension of time until September to enable it to provide a comprehensive report. My concern was that this delay would put back the addressing of the problems in relation to providing for sensitive and vulnerable claimants. I agreed to the extension until mid-September subject to the panel providing interim recommendations. On receiving those recommendations I immediately wrote to the ACC board seeking their implementation as quickly as possible, which the board has done.
Hon Annette King: In light of the Minister’s answer to my previous question, is he saying that the ACC was not telling the truth when less than 1 month ago, in answer to an official information request, it said: “No work was undertaken on either the clinical framework or the clinical pathway prior to 2009”, and when it also said that the clinical framework was developed by the clinical services directorate in 2009, long after a Labour Government had left?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I stand—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. I believe that the member has asked a serious question, and the member’s colleagues should listen to the answer.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I stand by the advice I have been given by the ACC, which is that the work on the clinical pathways began in 2008, prior to the change of Government, as those documents make plain. Labour has tried to politicise this issue, but the changes in sensitive claims have been totally driven by the ACC’s clinicians, not by Ministers. They have not been driven by Cabinet but by clinicians trying to do their very best for sensitive claimants.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a document from the ACC, dated 30 July 2010, that points out that no work was done on the clinical framework or clinical pathway prior to 2009.
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 Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said that he had quoted from official documents from the ACC. I ask that he table them.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not believe that the Minister had an official document in his hand when he was answering that question.
Michael Woodhouse: What were underlying concerns that the ACC had that led to the changes, and has the Minister received any advice on whether those concerns were valid?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The concern that the corporation’s clinicians had, backed up by comprehensive research, was that ongoing unlimited counselling of victims of sexual abuse could lead to more harm than good. The clinical panel has confirmed the validity of this research and the need for professional oversight by psychiatrists and psychologists to ensure that long-term counselling is both beneficial and appropriate. I am advised by the clinical panel that where the corporation erred was in requiring such an assessment for all claimants when insufficient professional support was not available, resulting in unacceptable delays in providing care. I am confident that with the support and advice of the independent clinical panel we can improve the support provided for sensitive claimants.
Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During that exchange, and prior to it, the member Darren Hughes questioned whether the Minister was telling the truth, quite a few times. Members cannot do that; all members are honourable. I ask that the member reflect on that and withdraw.
Mr SPEAKER: The member has taken offence, and, strictly, the member should not imply—
Hon Darren Hughes: I was very careful in what I said, Mr Speaker. I—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will not repeat what he said. I heard very clearly what the member said. Another member has taken offence. A member should not imply that another member is not telling the truth. I ask the Hon Darren Hughes to stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Darren Hughes: I withdraw and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: Lynne Pillay; a supplementary question. [Interruption] I say to the Labour front bench that I have called one of their colleagues. I expect them to show some courtesy to their own colleague.
Lynne Pillay: Will the Minister now require the ACC to identify the estimated 2,000 people who were unable to participate in his Government’s accident compensation process because it was too traumatic; and will he offer them counselling?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As of Monday the corporation is offering 16 counselling sessions for those people who seek the services of counsellors. The corporation will work through a final solution when the full report is available from the independent clinical panel. I point out to the members opposite who are interjecting that way in excess of 2,000 accident compensation claimants were turned down for counselling during the time of the previous Government. In fact, when Labour was in Government, half of those who sought counselling were turned down.
Hon Annette King: When the Minister said in the Nelson Mail last week that “Some days I’m in politics and I think, ‘What the hell am I doing?’”, will he now accept that the victims of his bungled policy are asking the same question?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is a pity that the member chooses to selectively quote. The overwhelming point I would make—[Interruption] Well, the comment was made in reference to visiting an oil rig in Tasman Bay, and I am not sure that that is particularly relevant to the issue of sensitive claims. Members opposite have attempted to play politics with this highly sensitive issue. [Interruption] They have—they have played it for all it is worth, when all the papers show that this issue is, in essence, a clinical issue in which neither I as Minister nor the board, for that matter, has made substantive decisions.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1008/S00258/questions-and-answers-17-august-2010.htm