The Green Party has developed a rehabilitation plan to bring ACC back on track, Green Party health spokesperson Kevin Hague said today.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00223/acc-rehabilitation-plan-announced.htm
The step-by-step plan released today sets out the key action points that will bring about the culture change required at ACC. It includes reviewing the legislation and recent activities of ACC, but would also put in some systemic changes such as further security on sensitive claims information, retraining of front line staff, and bringing medical information back to a high level of priority in decision making.
“ACC needs to return to its original purpose: to provide a world class public service and honour the social contract it was founded on,” said Mr Hague.
“There are clear steps that need to be followed to get back on track; I’ve pulled together the key activities for the next 100 days.
“This rehabilitation plan prioritises the needs of the people making claims, as they should be at the heart of ACC’s work.
"Ms Rebstock, or any other chair who is appointed, is welcome to follow my plan to shape her work for the next few months.
“This plan sets out how to shift from a profit driven insurance model back to one that provides the level of care that injured and vulnerable New Zealanders need and should expect from now on.
“ACC is a great institution that has a proud history and still has some very good people working in it. It has, however, been on the wrong path.
“The Minister for ACC needs to seize this opportunity to return ACC to its founding principles and a culture of excellent public service; ready to work for New Zealanders,” said Mr Hague.
Additional information:
The Green Party ACC rehab plan
17 June 2012
ACC rehabilitation plan announced
A press release from the Green Party by Kevin Hague
ACC 'cold blooded' to victims
An article from the Sunday Star Times by Danya Levy
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7117501/ACC-cold-blooded-to-victims
A survey around sensitive claims and the treatment of sexual abuse victims has raised more questions about the Accident Compensation Corporation.© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd
It comes as a senior manager's comments are being interpreted as confirming there was pressure from the board on staff to dump sex abuse claimants.
Allegations ACC had turned from rehabilitating clients to saving money have seen three board members, including chairman John Judge, and chief executive Ralph Stewart, quit.
Now, the man behind the survey of 146 health professionals and 72 abuse victims, psychotherapist and blogger Kyle MacDonald, says there has been a "cold-blooded" directive from the board to look after the "bottom-line" regardless of the cost to victims.
In 2009 ACC reinterpreted the rules around sensitive claims so a diagnosed psychiatric illness was required to determine mental harm. That left many people ineligible for help, and led to a public outcry.
A year later former ACC Minister Nick Smith urged the corporation to adopt recommendations from a review, but MacDonald says the survey shows only two have been adopted, five have not been, four have returned mixed results, and another four were not being measured. Now a transcript of a presentation by claims general manager Denise Cosgrove last November acknowledges the sensitive claims changes "didn't work so well", and appears to confirm ACC was removing "low-hanging fruit and easy gains" from the scheme.
"I get that constant message from the board every day," he said.
Green Party ACC spokesman Kevin Hague said the survey showed there was "wilful resistance" to the call to improve, and, because there was a "culture of disentitlement", the board should be replaced. Labour's Andrew Little said: "They will say it is legitimate to minimise costs, but the whole basis of ACC is treatment, compensation for the bulk of your losses and rehabilitation."
An ACC spokesman said MacDonald was only one of those giving feedback and there would be no comment until a final report, which was "imminent", but Cosgrove's comments referred to system improvements, not claimants.
MacDonald dismissed that. "It's hard to interpret in any other way than referring to specific cases and claims."
He said the issue for claimants was ACC refusing to accept the advice of clinicians working with victims, and insisting they be interviewed by its own assessors. "You are required to report intimate and distressing detail to a complete stranger", which had an "incredibly detrimental effect".
"There has been a very intentional aim of getting the longest and most expensive claimants out. It's cold-blooded. What has become clear is that ACC is being directed from ministerial and board level to focus on the bottom line and that has been at the expense of sensitive claimants."
A spokeswoman for ACC Minister Judith Collins said board comments were a matter for the board but the minister expected ACC to check claims veracity carefully and to treat all professionally.
SURVEY
Counsellors
40.4 per cent say ACC has done "very little" to protect client safety
37.8 per cent say ACC has done "very little" to protect client therapeutic relationship
42.5 per cent say ACC has done "very little" to implement changes
Claimants
29.3 per cent say ACC has "not at all" protected their safety
38.1 per cent say ACC has "not at all" protected their therapeutic relationship
50.6 per cent say ACC has "not at all" implemented changes
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7117501/ACC-cold-blooded-to-victims
14 June 2012
Labour: Stop filthy fleecing ACC claimants
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10812920
The political firestorm over ACC intensified yesterday with the resignation of chief executive Ralph Stewart triggering an urgent parliamentary debate over the changes needed at the state-owned accident insurer.© 2012 APN Holdings NZ Ltd
Mr Stewart, the former head of investment company AXA NZ, became chief executive of ACC only in September but left yesterday morning after just nine months in the job.
His departure comes hard on the heels of ACC chairman John Judge's resignation on Tuesday and confirmation that directors Rob Campbell and John McCliskie have been told they will not be reappointed.
"I am deeply frustrated that the benefits of the scheme and the great work we do has been overshadowed by recent events," Mr Stewart said.
Those events included the police decision last week not to lay charges against Bronwyn Pullar and TV3's 60 Minutes on Sunday which implied it was ACC managers who first suggested a deal with her for the return of leaked data about thousands of clients.
ACC Minister Judith Collins said Mr Stewart told her on Tuesday "he felt it was time for him to move on".
She said she felt sorry for Mr Stewart. "He's had a tough time."
Greens ACC spokesman Kevin Hague said Mr Stewart's resignation cleared the way for Mrs Collins to lead the process for refreshing ACC by steering it away from what he and others claim has been a focus on denying claims to save money and bringing it back to the principles on which it was founded.
"We need to reverse this culture of disentitlement that's taken hold since 2009 and with those key players - [former ACC minister] Nick Smith, John Judge and Ralph Stewart - gone we've got the environment to do that."
Mr Hague said there were serious questions Mrs Collins needed to answer about her role in the Bronwyn Pullar affair.
But Labour's ACC spokesman, Andrew Little, said Mrs Collins should be the next to go as Mr Stewart's resignation confirmed the depth of the crisis.
"It is an absolute disgrace, and it is entirely the responsibility of that Government", he told the House, and accused Mrs Collins and Dr Smith as her predecessor of driving ACC "into the ground".
Mr Little said ACC now needed a minister who was focused on the needs of ACC claimants rather than on the Government's "tawdry, nasty, filthy little strategy of trying to fleece people and get people to lose their entitlements".
Mrs Collins said it was time for a culture change at ACC but her concerns were about treatment of claimants and their privacy.
"I want to have a situation where ACC has a culture whereby its staff look at their claimants and they ask themselves, 'How would I like to be treated? How would I like my information to be treated?', or, even more so, 'How would I like my mother's information to be treated?"'
Meanwhile, former ACC minister Nick Smith has broken his silence on ACC whistle-blower Bronwyn Pullar.
Dr Smith was forced to resign from Cabinet earlier this year after it was revealed he offered Ms Pullar his support in her long-running fight with the corporation.
Dr Smith told Newstalk ZB opposition and media views on Ms Pullar had been contradictory - while two months ago people were saying she was a villain, she was now being portrayed as a hero.
"And either of those things are true. Bronwyn is a sad case of a very capable person who's had an accident and actually well illustrates the dilemma for many New Zealanders involved in ACC as to what is the appropriate time of rehabilitation," he said.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10812920
13 June 2012
Question to Minister
10. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What responsibility does she take for failures at ACC since the 2011 Election?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): I take ministerial responsibility for ACC from the date I received my ministerial warrant, which was on 14 December 2011. In accordance with the Cabinet Manual, I take ministerial responsibility for the direction and the priorities of the organisation.
Andrew Little: What discussions did she have with ACC Chairman John Judge, ACC Chief Executive Ralph Stewart, or her staff about referring allegations made about Bronwyn Pullar in their 16 March report to her to the police before that reference to the police occurred?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I received a briefing from the chairman and the chief executive, and I can recall that my comment to them was that any decision that they made must be theirs and that I would stand by whatever decision they made, as is something that a Minister should do.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she say, when questioned about the leak: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag”; if so, was she indicating that Ms Boag was a possible source of the leak?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually having the full context of that alleged statement, it would be difficult to answer, because I have learnt from experience not to take everything that is said at face value, from that member.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is she denying that she said, when asked about the fact that she had passed the email on to Mr Judge and Mr Stewart: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag, so there are possibilities.”; will she deny saying that?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually receiving and having a look at any transcript, I cannot answer that question that way. The fact is that without it in writing, and without proof of it, I cannot take that member as having put that supposed comment in context.
Kevin Hague: Is the Minister giving the House a categorical assurance that she neither instructed nor approved nor suggested that ACC make a complaint to the police concerning Bronwyn Pullar?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My comments to the chair and the chief executive were that they must make their own decision. It is not for me to be involved in those individual decisions.
Hon Members: You said you backed them.
Hon Members: Back them or sack them?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Do they want to hear or not? [Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My statement was very clear to them: they must make their own decisions, and that I would back those decisions, whatever they were. Those decisions were made after they received their own legal advice, and I have since seen a legal opinion, prepared by Mr Judge’s Queen’s Counsel, which is after the event but which obviously took into account all of the events, which backed the decision of the board to refer that matter to the police for advice. The police were the right and proper authority to look at this issue.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, in terms of her ministerial responsibility, as to this, from a letter written by Michelle Boag, a former head of the National Party: “You will see in the correspondence attached to the email I am forwarding that while Mr Murch asked for the return of the data, he did not acknowledge that this would be contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties, which was our understanding.” That is from someone who was guilty, and convicted, of seeking to pervert the course of justice in a commission of inquiry. Is this not extortion—straight out?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not have ministerial responsibility for the actions of Ms Boag or of Ms Pullar.
Kevin Hague: Further to her answer to my earlier question, is she telling the House that Mr Judge had his own personal counsel working on the matter of the complaint to the police, as opposed to an ACC counsel?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not sure that that is in fact what I am telling the House. I am telling the House that there was legal advice. The board—[Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can say that Mr Judge has advised me that he had legal advice not only from ACC and ACC’s lawyers but from his own Queen’s Counsel in this matter. I have seen the opinion and it backs up Mr Judge.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is an operational matter but I would also say that—
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is an operational matter. It is hardly setting the policy or the direction of the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question: what knowledge does she have? That is her responsibility. It is not an operational matter. Matters that are the Minister’s knowledge are her responsibility—something she is trying to shift.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the member to repeat the supplementary question.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers are regularly briefed by the board, orally and in writing, as to the activities of the board. Those matters then become their knowledge, for which they are answerable here.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter that was raised in the supplementary question is in fact an operational matter. It may not satisfy the member, but the member has an answer.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked about what her knowledge was. That is not a matter of departmental responsibility. She was asked what her knowledge as Minister was. The answer may well be that she had none, and that would be a proper answer. But it is fair to ask her what knowledge she had of that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek some advice. Order! I have given a ruling, and I am going to stand by that. Members have further supplementary questions if they wish to pursue that. Members are seeking to actually litigate a ruling by further points of order.
Kevin Hague: If it is true that the Minister did not instruct, approve, or suggest the complaint to the police, and the matter was entirely an operational ACC matter, then why was the legal opinion sought by John Judge shown to the Minister?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a very good question. Mr Judge sent it to me last week, because he was concerned about a story in the Dominion Post that made allegations against him. Rather than refer to the editorial policy of the Dominion Post, he felt it was right to send me the opinion that he had received.
Andrew Little: Is the Minister denying to this House that she knew that ACC has been spending money on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending money on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have no knowledge of any polling being paid for, and I do not know why I would have.
Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether she is denying that she knows that the money is being spent. It is not about her knowledge of the polling; it is about money being spent by ACC on that activity.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think that the polling was related to the expenditure of money, and the member does have an answer.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00178/questions-and-answers-june-13.htm
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): I take ministerial responsibility for ACC from the date I received my ministerial warrant, which was on 14 December 2011. In accordance with the Cabinet Manual, I take ministerial responsibility for the direction and the priorities of the organisation.
Andrew Little: What discussions did she have with ACC Chairman John Judge, ACC Chief Executive Ralph Stewart, or her staff about referring allegations made about Bronwyn Pullar in their 16 March report to her to the police before that reference to the police occurred?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I received a briefing from the chairman and the chief executive, and I can recall that my comment to them was that any decision that they made must be theirs and that I would stand by whatever decision they made, as is something that a Minister should do.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she say, when questioned about the leak: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag”; if so, was she indicating that Ms Boag was a possible source of the leak?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually having the full context of that alleged statement, it would be difficult to answer, because I have learnt from experience not to take everything that is said at face value, from that member.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is she denying that she said, when asked about the fact that she had passed the email on to Mr Judge and Mr Stewart: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag, so there are possibilities.”; will she deny saying that?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually receiving and having a look at any transcript, I cannot answer that question that way. The fact is that without it in writing, and without proof of it, I cannot take that member as having put that supposed comment in context.
Kevin Hague: Is the Minister giving the House a categorical assurance that she neither instructed nor approved nor suggested that ACC make a complaint to the police concerning Bronwyn Pullar?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My comments to the chair and the chief executive were that they must make their own decision. It is not for me to be involved in those individual decisions.
Hon Members: You said you backed them.
Hon Members: Back them or sack them?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Do they want to hear or not? [Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My statement was very clear to them: they must make their own decisions, and that I would back those decisions, whatever they were. Those decisions were made after they received their own legal advice, and I have since seen a legal opinion, prepared by Mr Judge’s Queen’s Counsel, which is after the event but which obviously took into account all of the events, which backed the decision of the board to refer that matter to the police for advice. The police were the right and proper authority to look at this issue.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, in terms of her ministerial responsibility, as to this, from a letter written by Michelle Boag, a former head of the National Party: “You will see in the correspondence attached to the email I am forwarding that while Mr Murch asked for the return of the data, he did not acknowledge that this would be contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties, which was our understanding.” That is from someone who was guilty, and convicted, of seeking to pervert the course of justice in a commission of inquiry. Is this not extortion—straight out?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not have ministerial responsibility for the actions of Ms Boag or of Ms Pullar.
Kevin Hague: Further to her answer to my earlier question, is she telling the House that Mr Judge had his own personal counsel working on the matter of the complaint to the police, as opposed to an ACC counsel?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not sure that that is in fact what I am telling the House. I am telling the House that there was legal advice. The board—[Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can say that Mr Judge has advised me that he had legal advice not only from ACC and ACC’s lawyers but from his own Queen’s Counsel in this matter. I have seen the opinion and it backs up Mr Judge.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is an operational matter but I would also say that—
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is an operational matter. It is hardly setting the policy or the direction of the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question: what knowledge does she have? That is her responsibility. It is not an operational matter. Matters that are the Minister’s knowledge are her responsibility—something she is trying to shift.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the member to repeat the supplementary question.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers are regularly briefed by the board, orally and in writing, as to the activities of the board. Those matters then become their knowledge, for which they are answerable here.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter that was raised in the supplementary question is in fact an operational matter. It may not satisfy the member, but the member has an answer.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked about what her knowledge was. That is not a matter of departmental responsibility. She was asked what her knowledge as Minister was. The answer may well be that she had none, and that would be a proper answer. But it is fair to ask her what knowledge she had of that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek some advice. Order! I have given a ruling, and I am going to stand by that. Members have further supplementary questions if they wish to pursue that. Members are seeking to actually litigate a ruling by further points of order.
Kevin Hague: If it is true that the Minister did not instruct, approve, or suggest the complaint to the police, and the matter was entirely an operational ACC matter, then why was the legal opinion sought by John Judge shown to the Minister?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a very good question. Mr Judge sent it to me last week, because he was concerned about a story in the Dominion Post that made allegations against him. Rather than refer to the editorial policy of the Dominion Post, he felt it was right to send me the opinion that he had received.
Andrew Little: Is the Minister denying to this House that she knew that ACC has been spending money on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending money on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have no knowledge of any polling being paid for, and I do not know why I would have.
Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether she is denying that she knows that the money is being spent. It is not about her knowledge of the polling; it is about money being spent by ACC on that activity.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think that the polling was related to the expenditure of money, and the member does have an answer.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00178/questions-and-answers-june-13.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)