Nick Smith has clearly deliberately misled his colleagues into telling rape victims that the Government is increasing support for them, Labour’s Victims Rights spokesperson Lynne Pillay says.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00419.htm
“I was today horrified to read a press statement from Simon Power and Paula Bennett telling rape victims that the Government was putting more support in place for them when in fact ACC Minister Nick Smith had reduced the amount of counselling available to them,” Lynne Pillay said.
“ACC Minister Nick Smith is clearly attempting to cover-up his complete inept handling of sexual abuse guidelines if he is prepared to stoop so low as to allow his colleagues to mislead rape victims.
“Under Nick Smith’s watch the vast majority of people who have been the victims of rape or sexual abuse are now being declined help from the Government.
“It is shocking that rape victims are being re-victimised by a Minister who is too arrogant to admit he got it wrong.
“Almost every professional body that provides counselling for sexual abuse and rape victims has said the Minister is wrong yet he claims that he has the support of GPs to continue to deny people help through ACC.
“Unfortunately the Minister seems to not understand that GPs don’t provide rape victims with ongoing psychological counselling.
“Nick Smith is clinging to anything that will slow down the reinstatement of ACC help for rape and sexual abuse victims.
“But while it’s one thing for Nick Smith to clearly try and mislead MPs on ACC sexual abuse guidelines, today’s claim by National that it was actually increasing support for rape victims is a complete disgrace.
“I am appalled that anyone who is part of a Government that allowed access to counselling for rape and sexual abuse victims to fall from 300 people per month to just six a month in February would claim they are increasing support.
“National has treated victims of rape and sexual abuse with disdain and Simon Power and Nick Smith need to urgently apologise for deliberately misleading victims of sex crimes,” Lynne Pillay said.
29 April 2010
Smith’s spin allows rape victims to be misled
A press release from the Labour Party by Lynne Pillay
Question to Minister: ACC sensitive claims clinical pathway review
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his recent statements on ACC’s new clinical pathway for victims of sexual abuse?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I do stand by my recent statements, but I did make one numerical error yesterday when I said that 70 percent or 260 claims in February had not been processed at the end of March. The 70 percent figure was correct, I misread the 260 figure, and the correct number was 206.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order flows from the answer the Minister has just given to the House. If he was aware that he made an error in answering a question, surely he should have come to the House before this point, at the first opportunity, to correct the answer. This is not the first opportunity to correct an answer he has given previously.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I only became aware of the error when I asked officials to go through all the answers that I had given and to check them. It could have been possible for me to take a point of order. I thought it was easier during the course of the question to put the record straight.
Mr SPEAKER: It seems a perfectly reasonable course of action.
Hon Darren Hughes: Except that the Standing Orders require Ministers to correct their answers immediately; as soon as they become aware of an error. The first available opportunity would have been at 2 o’clock today. We have based our questions on an exchange with this particular Minister about a difference of opinion in respect of the material he has been using. I think it is unfair on the questioner, who is trying to prepare supplementary questions to the Minster, to have to wait until a convenient time for him, not for the House, to correct the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is being a bit unreasonable. The question is high on the Order Paper. The Minister did not take up the time of the House; he can answer this question today. The question actually asks: does he stand by all his recent statements? A question like that is an excellent opportunity to make that minor adjustment—a misread figure—to the answer given yesterday. I think we can be a bit reasonable.
Lynne Pillay: Why does he continue to insist that there is a need for a review of these repugnant new guidelines when yesterday he said that the figure of six in terms of people who were accepted for counselling throughout New Zealand in February 2010 could be even double that, when any child could tell him that 12 people is still a shocking reduction from 300 people a month?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member referred to the guidelines as repugnant. I remind that member that they were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey.
Hon Trevor Mallard: No, they weren’t
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have tabled the picture. They were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in March 2008, so the premise of the member’s question is incorrect.
Dr Jackie Blue: What advice has the Minister received on the average time frames for processing sensitive claims before and after the changes were made in 2009?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The average time for claims to be processed prior to the changes was 63 working days. This has reduced to 47 working days, but that is still too long. A key issue for the review is that of how this can be further improved. The objective I would like to see met is that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) turn round the applications within 7 days of all the information being received from providers.
Lynne Pillay: Why does the Minister insist on chanting ACC’s rejection rate under Labour as some sort of argument for not facing facts today when rejection rates skyrocketed to 60 percent last year under his watch, even before imposing his new clinical pathway?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The point in making reference to the fact that the decline rate for sensitive claims grew from 4 percent to over 50 percent during Labour’s time—
Lynne Pillay: Now it’s 90 percent.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is right. What I am saying is that over 2,400 sensitive claims were declined in 2008 and not one Labour member raised the matter when Labour was in Government. I suspect that we should call that a double standard.
Dr Jackie Blue: Did the Minister offer to consult Labour members on the membership and the terms of reference for the clinical review of ACC’s sensitive claims management; if so, what was the result?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I did so in writing, but Labour rejected that offer. This illustrates that Labour has been far more interested in making politics of this issue than in actually providing the best standard of care for those with sexual abuse claims. I am surprised that members opposite are criticising the person chairing that review when Dr Disley was a mental health commissioner under the previous Government.
Lynne Pillay: What advice did he provide to Simon Power before his statement today at the rape prevention symposium that “The Government has already taken some steps to provide survivors with greater support”, when he knows that that statement is clearly not true?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I commend the work that Simon Power, Paula Bennett, and Tariana Turia are doing and the announcements they made today about the most effective way in which New Zealand can deal with sexual abuse and assault, and that is by preventing it from occurring in the first place. That is why I think that everybody in this House should welcome the announcement from Simon Power.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00427.htm
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I do stand by my recent statements, but I did make one numerical error yesterday when I said that 70 percent or 260 claims in February had not been processed at the end of March. The 70 percent figure was correct, I misread the 260 figure, and the correct number was 206.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order flows from the answer the Minister has just given to the House. If he was aware that he made an error in answering a question, surely he should have come to the House before this point, at the first opportunity, to correct the answer. This is not the first opportunity to correct an answer he has given previously.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I only became aware of the error when I asked officials to go through all the answers that I had given and to check them. It could have been possible for me to take a point of order. I thought it was easier during the course of the question to put the record straight.
Mr SPEAKER: It seems a perfectly reasonable course of action.
Hon Darren Hughes: Except that the Standing Orders require Ministers to correct their answers immediately; as soon as they become aware of an error. The first available opportunity would have been at 2 o’clock today. We have based our questions on an exchange with this particular Minister about a difference of opinion in respect of the material he has been using. I think it is unfair on the questioner, who is trying to prepare supplementary questions to the Minster, to have to wait until a convenient time for him, not for the House, to correct the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is being a bit unreasonable. The question is high on the Order Paper. The Minister did not take up the time of the House; he can answer this question today. The question actually asks: does he stand by all his recent statements? A question like that is an excellent opportunity to make that minor adjustment—a misread figure—to the answer given yesterday. I think we can be a bit reasonable.
Lynne Pillay: Why does he continue to insist that there is a need for a review of these repugnant new guidelines when yesterday he said that the figure of six in terms of people who were accepted for counselling throughout New Zealand in February 2010 could be even double that, when any child could tell him that 12 people is still a shocking reduction from 300 people a month?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member referred to the guidelines as repugnant. I remind that member that they were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey.
Hon Trevor Mallard: No, they weren’t
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have tabled the picture. They were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in March 2008, so the premise of the member’s question is incorrect.
Dr Jackie Blue: What advice has the Minister received on the average time frames for processing sensitive claims before and after the changes were made in 2009?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The average time for claims to be processed prior to the changes was 63 working days. This has reduced to 47 working days, but that is still too long. A key issue for the review is that of how this can be further improved. The objective I would like to see met is that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) turn round the applications within 7 days of all the information being received from providers.
Lynne Pillay: Why does the Minister insist on chanting ACC’s rejection rate under Labour as some sort of argument for not facing facts today when rejection rates skyrocketed to 60 percent last year under his watch, even before imposing his new clinical pathway?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The point in making reference to the fact that the decline rate for sensitive claims grew from 4 percent to over 50 percent during Labour’s time—
Lynne Pillay: Now it’s 90 percent.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is right. What I am saying is that over 2,400 sensitive claims were declined in 2008 and not one Labour member raised the matter when Labour was in Government. I suspect that we should call that a double standard.
Dr Jackie Blue: Did the Minister offer to consult Labour members on the membership and the terms of reference for the clinical review of ACC’s sensitive claims management; if so, what was the result?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I did so in writing, but Labour rejected that offer. This illustrates that Labour has been far more interested in making politics of this issue than in actually providing the best standard of care for those with sexual abuse claims. I am surprised that members opposite are criticising the person chairing that review when Dr Disley was a mental health commissioner under the previous Government.
Lynne Pillay: What advice did he provide to Simon Power before his statement today at the rape prevention symposium that “The Government has already taken some steps to provide survivors with greater support”, when he knows that that statement is clearly not true?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I commend the work that Simon Power, Paula Bennett, and Tariana Turia are doing and the announcements they made today about the most effective way in which New Zealand can deal with sexual abuse and assault, and that is by preventing it from occurring in the first place. That is why I think that everybody in this House should welcome the announcement from Simon Power.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00427.htm
Dr Smith continues to defend the indefensible
A blog entry from Red Alert by David Parker
Dr Smith may be good at obfuscating, but its not an admirable skill. This week he claimed the figures used by Phil Goff at question time to highlight the drastic reduction in (mainly) women accessing counselling following sexual crimes were incorrect. They were Dr Smith’s own figures, in answers to parliamentary questions. Phil rounded the historic monthly ACC approvals for October 2008 down from 312 to 300 and contrasted it to the patently unjustifiable 6 approvals in February 2010. Only to the extend of the rounding to 300 – which was to the advantage of the government! - were the figures ‘incorrect’, as Dr Smith stated.Read the rest of this entry at http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/04/29/dr-smith-continues-to-defend-the-indefensible/
Review of ACC's sex abuse policy
An article from the Taranaki Daily News by Lyn Humphreys
An independent review into ACC's controversial new assessment process for sexual abuse victims has been welcomed by those at the coalface.http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/3635822/Review-of-ACCs-sex-abuse-policy
ACC Minister Nick Smith announced this week that an independent clinical review panel had been appointed to investigate the guidelines put in place in October to manage sexual abuse victims' claims.
The new system, which requires the abused person to be suffering from a mental illness diagnosed by a psychologist or psychiatrist, incensed many professionals working in the field.
They predicted that the sexually abused, who were not mentally ill but traumatised, would not meet the new criteria and they would no longer come forward for help to restore their lives. Those predictions appear to have been valid.
Dr Smith revealed this week that ACC figures show just 32 sexual abuse claims for counselling were approved in the first two months of this year compared with 472 in January and February 2009.
Dr Smith said he had been hesitant to interfere in clinical decisions but conceded that the changes had been controversial.
"That is why I have initiated this independent clinical review to ensure best possible practice in this sensitive area," he said.
One of the most outspoken against the new regime has been Taranaki's experienced sexual abuse counsellor, Bob Stevens.
Last year he threatened to return his Queen's Service Medal in protest.
Mr Stevens challenged Dr Smith's claim of best practice.
"I believe the minister is being obtuse and it almost smacks of deceit," Mr Stevens said.
"How can he suggest best clinical practice for sexual abuse when the claims aren't being accepted? Since when did you become mentally unwell following a sexual assault?"
Mr Stevens said none of the people who had come to him since October for counselling for sexual abuse had been accepted by ACC.
One, a man who was severely depressed and in obvious need of immediate help, was still waiting after five months for ACC support, Mr Stevens said.
"Children, adolescents and adults are being denied what I believe is their right under the legislation. It is being denied them under a reinterpretation of the law that has been their right since 1974 [when ACC was first established]," Mr Stevens said.
Dr Smith has appointed Mental Health Commissioner Barbara Disley to lead the review accompanied by clinical psychologist Clive Banks, consultant Ruth Herbert and psychiatrist Professor Graham Mellsop.
Mr Stevens asked why there was no professional appointed to the review panel that was doing coalface sexual abuse work.
"Who is better qualified to talk about the stresses they are meeting at the coalface doing the work? But they are not represented."You are going to get a clinical academic view that is devoid of the human impact on those who have been abused."
A spokesman for Dr Smith said the panel's task was to assess the implementation and impact of ACCs new clinical pathway for sensitive claims. It was impossible for the panel to include representatives of every perspective, the spokesman said.
28 April 2010
Help at last on the horizon for sexual abuse victims
An article from Te Waha Nui by Kayla Langhorne
Sexual abuse victims are hoping a review of ACC’s Sensitive Claims Pathway will finally bring them the counselling they need.http://www.tewahanui.info/wordpress2/?p=3101
The pathway, implemented on October 27 last year, introduced a requirement for victims to prove mental injury with a clinical diagnosis, often requiring them to undergo multiple assessments before a decision on their claim was made. The system has been widely contested by professionals who say the guidelines effectively prevent victims from accessing counselling services.
Accident Compensation Minister Nick Smith announced the review yesterday. In an announcement on the Beehive website the Minister said: “I have been very hesitant as a politician to interfere in clinical decisions but acknowledge the changes have caused controversy. That is why I have initiated this independent clinical review to ensure best possible practice in this sensitive area.”
Paulette Benton-Greig, agency development manager for Auckland Sexual Abuse Help (ASAH), says many people who had contacted the agency were distressed and anxious because they were unable to get help under the existing pathway. “They feel that they are being invalidated and they’re having to deal with a really difficult system.”
Benton-Greig says a woman who was abducted, raped and assaulted was denied ACC-funded counselling on the grounds that she required more information to justify the claim, despite having a medical assessment that confirmed the assault.
Labour list MP Lynne Pillay has her doubts about the review, saying it is a “sham” and that she is concerned as to how long it will take and how meaningful it is. Pillay says the pathway needs to cease now. She says she has heard from victims contemplating suicide because they are unable to receive help. “At this very time hundreds and hundreds of people are not receiving the treatment and support that they need.”
Benton-Greig also said the current pathway needs to be “abandoned”. “They need to work with service providers to find a system that works and is effective and doesn’t harm people who need access.”
Auckland psychotherapist Kyle MacDonald, who organised the 4000-strong petition that contributed to the Government’s decision to have the review, says he would like to see a rigorous review of the system. “I think there needs to be an investigation as to how all of this has actually occurred.
“This has been a hatchet job and it has destroyed a system that thousands of vulnerable New Zealanders rely upon for psychological support.”
Benton-Greig says ASAH have been compiling anecdotal evidence from clients outlining their experiences with the current ACC pathway. “We will be using that information to submit to that review, to support our argument that the changes have lead to serious impacts on survivors [of sexual abuse].”
The review panel consists of Dr Barbara Disley, clinical psychologist Clive Banks, consultant Ruth Herbert and psychiatrist Professor Graham Mellsop. They are expected to report back to the Minister by the end of July.
Question to Minister: ACC sensitive claims clinical pathway review
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his answers to question for oral answer No. 12 yesterday?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : I stated yesterday that from 2000 to 2008 the rejection rate of sensitive claims grew from 5 percent to 41 percent, that 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that there is no record of any Labour member ever raising any concern about this. I have checked this again, and it is correct. I can also confirm that the new clinical guidelines—
Mr SPEAKER: I remind the Minister that the question simply asked: “Does he stand by all his answers to question for oral answer No. 12 yesterday?”. Unless there were some that he does not wish to stand by, I would have thought that the question could easily be answered just by saying “Yes”, rather than going through the great detail of it. Further information may be elicited by way of supplementary questions.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I wanted to clarify that I had checked also that the Hon Steve Maharey had launched the clinical guidelines on—
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How clear does it have to be? You gave very clear advice to the member, but he is persisting. A “Yes” or a “No” will suffice. Let us hear it.
Hon Rodney Hide: With the greatest respect, it is not the Speaker’s job, as you have often explained to us, to direct what a Minister’s answer should be and whether it should be a “Yes” or “No” answer. In fact, when one is asked a question, I think it is quite polite to the House to actually say “Yes” and to explain the answer. That was what I was enjoying.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member—[Interruption] I am on my feet—were to check the Standing Ordershe would find that the Standing Orders require that in answering questions Ministers provide the information necessary to answer the question and no more. The Minister does not have to say “Yes” or “No” to every question, but this question does not require a huge explanation, because it asked just whether the Minister stands by all his answers. There will be supplementary questions, I am sure, and the Minister will have the chance to explain further. But I do not believe we need to take up a lot of the time of the House because the information being given is not necessary to answer the question.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He still has not answered “Yes” or “No”.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister indicated in his answer that he was standing by his answers, so I invite the member to ask a supplementary question.
Lynne Pillay: What does he say to the woman who was so traumatised and depressed by the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC) treatment that she was admitted to intensive care, then returned home to find a long-awaited ACC psychiatrist’s report stating that she was in remission from depression?
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I say that I heard the primary question, I heard the answer, and I am struggling to see how the supplementary question relates to them.
Hon Trevor Mallard: We’re not responsible for your struggles.
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard. There have been many offences on the other side of the House, which means I cannot deal with that interjection any more than I dealt with those, but I ask members to be careful not to interject when a point of order is being considered. The supplementary question obviously relates to some of the subject matter of yesterday’s questions, but the Minister’s ability to answer that question will be very constrained because of a lack of a direct relationship to today’s primary question. I did not rule the member’s question out of order because I think the House just has to accept that the Minister’s ability to answer will be very limited because of the nature of the primary question. But I invite the Minister to answer in so far as he can.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The questions yesterday were very clear. They related to the dramatic drop in—
Mr SPEAKER: We will not have my ruling debated now. I assisted the member in getting an answer to a question. She should not press her luck too far. She asked a very particular primary question about whether the Minister stood by all his answers. I have assisted her in trying to get an answer to that, but to now expect the Minister to have detailed information on a particular case is not reasonable. I have said that the Minister is entitled to answer in so far as he can, but he may not have that information.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that there are thousands of sensitive claims each year. In fact, 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that member did not raise any concern about that. If the member has specific information about a case, I ask her to refer it to the independent clinical review that I announced at the beginning of the week.
Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday that information in my question—information suggesting that about 300 victims of crime had been approved for sexual abuse counselling in October 2008 and that that figure had fallen to 6 in February this year—was incorrect and untrue when it was directly sourced from his own answers in written questions to the House?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I told the member yesterday and I will tell him again that his numbers are incorrect. Let me—
Hon Darren Hughes: They’re the Minister’s numbers.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the members will be silent I will be happy to explain. The answer made plain that the question in respect of February claims was a question in March. In the same way as if he had asked Work and Income to compare the claim numbers for April this year with those of April last year, not all the claims had been processed. In fact, I say to Mr Goff, in that written answer I pointed out that 70 percent of the claims had not been processed. The number six is incorrect. The correct number is more than double that. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the controversy that exists around the question and the answer, and given your ruling yesterday, and that he said my figures were incorrect, I seek leave of the House to table written question No. 1883 (2009) and written question No. 01711 (2010), which point out that the figures I used were those of the Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Figures are often disputed because of concern about the time frames from which the figures are taken, and whether apples are being compared with apples. But I do not want us to get into the habit of seeking leave to table answers to written questions when those are available to members. I think there is a chance, with the way of asking questions today, to question the Minister in some detail on how he has answered the questions. The honourable Leader of the Opposition still has many supplementary questions available to him today to do that. I would rather see the House exercise a good period of intense questioning rather than see leave being sought to table material that is already available to the House.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you appreciate the dilemma of members in this House when they quote figures given to them by a Minister and that same Minister stands up in this House and says the figures are untrue and incorrect?
Mr SPEAKER: One of the things that our style of questioning these days allows is for members to ask further questions to elucidate that.
Hon Phil Goff: My question to the Minister—[Interruption]—if he just pauses and listens—
Mr SPEAKER: No. Please ask the supplementary question.
Hon Phil Goff: Well, I would like him to hear it. He is talking while I am asking it.
Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the supplementary question.
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that in October 2008, in an answer to a written question, he confirmed that 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for help through counselling, that by February 2010 that number had fallen to six, that in the previous month the number was 11, that the month before it was 32, and that in the month before that it was 44, so that there was a consistent downward trend to a situation where almost no people who were victims of sexual crimes were receiving help through ACC?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can confirm that the numbers the member claimed yesterday were different from those I had given in the written answer. The further point I would make very simply to the member is that when someone asks how many claims were lodged for February—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked the Minister to confirm the accuracy of the figures that I was reading to him and the sources from which they came.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. I say to the Minister that this question was not about yesterday’s answer. This question was asking about specific information that the member has received from the Minister. It would be more appropriate for the Minister to answer the question that was asked by the member.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s—[Interruption].
Mr SPEAKER: Before we go any further, I say that the Leader of the Opposition has asked a serious question. I have asked members, instead of seeking leave to table documents, to use question time to question Ministers. The Leader of the Opposition is doing that. I ask his colleagues to show the respect, then, of listening to the answer, rather than giving just a barrage of interjections when the Minister tries to answer.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason the member’s numbers are incorrect is that when one asks at the beginning of March for the number of February claims that have been approved, a large—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, for goodness’ sake!
Mr SPEAKER: No—a point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: I have read these figures directly from the Minister’s own answer, and now he is saying that the figures I am reading are incorrect. That cannot possibly be the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: This is a very interesting situation. The Minister, in answering his question, said “the reason the member’s figures are incorrect”. The member asked the Minister about a series of figures relating to one period, and then he went back for several months before that—forgive me, but I cannot recollect the dates or whether he went back about 6 months or 4 months prior to that—and to a pattern in the figures. He asked the Minister whether he could confirm those figures. What I will do to avoid any further confusion is to ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question.
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm his own figures, provided by written answer to the House of Representatives, that in October of 2008, 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for counselling, yet through the recent months of this year and last year, those figures dropped from 44 in November 2009 to 32 in December 2009, to 11 in January 2010, and to a derisory figure of just six in February 2010?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have the written answer in front of me, and it points out that of the 298 claims in February, at the beginning of March 260 were in the category “awaiting further information” or in the second category “awaiting assessment”. I say to the member that in exactly the same way that one needs to give—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, a point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: I asked the Minister to confirm that those were the numbers of people approved in that 4-month period from late last year to this year, compared with 2008. I am hearing a lot of other figures. I am simply asking the Minister to confirm that his own numbers were the numbers of victims of sexual crimes accepted for counselling.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had about four attempts at explaining the numbers, and every time the member opposite interjects with a point of order and stops me from being able to explain the context of the numbers. I simply ask to be given the time to answer the question the member is asking.
Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma we have is that this is question time. The member did not ask the Minister to explain the information; the member asked the Minister to confirm whether the figures were correct. The Standing Orders do not provide for Ministers to answer a different question. If the question asked why there is this pattern in the figures, then the Minister’s answer would be perfectly in order, but that is not the question that was asked. Ministers have to answer the question asked, not the one they might like to answer. I ask the Minister to answer the question asked.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The answer that was given at the beginning of March—that six February claims were approved—was correct at the beginning of March. But, of course, since then a substantially increased number of the February claims have been approved. If members want to compare the situation with the situation in October 2008, that would be the fair comparison.
Hon Annette King: Has he been made aware of the human tragedy that is unfolding for victims of sexual abuse since the change of policy—for example, the 11-year-old raped by her stepfather 2½ months ago, who is still awaiting assessment for counselling, or the 19-year-old raped by one man while being held down by two others 6 months ago, who is still waiting for—
Mr SPEAKER: I have been pretty tough on the Minister in respect of answering the question asked. The question the member is now asking is drawing a pretty long bow from the primary question, which asked the Minister whether he stood by his answers given yesterday. He cannot be expected to have detailed information on those particular cases, and that means that the member is seeking to make a political statement rather than ask a question. I have been tough on the Minister, asking him to answer the question asked. I ask the honourable member—hang on, I am on my feet—to ask a question within the Standing Orders, because I think that question was unfair. I have to make sure that if I am tough on the Minister and ask him to answer the question asked, I do not then allow members to ask questions that are outside the Standing Orders.
Hon Annette King: How does the Minister explain the delay in terms of the cases I have just given the House, and the human tragedy that is unfolding because of that delay?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I point out that in 2008, under the member’s Government, 2,400 sensitive claims for counselling and support were declined by ACC. I have been hesitant to interfere—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not possible for me to answer questions when there is that sort of berating from the Opposition benches.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister makes—
Hon Shane Jones: Chuck him out.
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Shane Jones to be careful. I was clearly on my feet when he made that loud interjection. I think members should be reasonable. I fully accept that this is a tense issue. It is a very serious and sensitive issue. The Minister is doing his best to answer questions sincerely, and I ask for some respect to be shown to the Minister when he is answering.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been very hesitant to interfere in clinical decisions in respect of sensitive claims, but I did announce on Monday an independent clinical review. If members opposite have cases where they are not satisfied with the clinical care, I invite them to refer them to that review.
Hon David Parker: Why will not the Minister admit that he and his Government have badly let down the victims of sexual crime; that he has failed to heed the consistent warnings from the Opposition, from the professional associations of psychotherapists and psychologists, and from Christian counsellors, social workers, rape crisis workers, and Massey University; that it is a matter of political responsibility; and that it could be fixed by reinstating the prior practice?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I again point out to that member that 2,400 claims were declined, and that during the term of the previous Government there was an eight-fold increase in the number of claims that were declined. I also draw to the member’s attention the statement from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners that strongly supports the clinical pathway that was adopted by ACC.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without revisiting the issue—and you will be aware that I discussed this matter with you off-line at some point—could I ask you to consider this matter in respect of your ruling about the tabling of documents, which I respect. It is simply that we have had quite an interchange over allegations of accuracy of information, or whatever. I ask you to consider—not here—that there may be a case for tabling, narrowly, when a member calls into question the accuracy or otherwise of, for instance, data contained within written or oral questions, even though the data are available readily to members who do research. The interchange that we have had today about accuracy, or lack of it, could be truncated somewhat if you, Mr Speaker, at your discretion, were to rule that the documents could indeed be tabled. Then they would sit on the Table in the House for everybody to see, and the issue might well be resolved.
Mr SPEAKER: I hear the point the member makes, and I appreciate that it is being made in good faith. Why I did not do so today is that where figures relate to different time periods, and there is debate about the figures, allowing these things to be tabled implies that someone is proving the other person wrong. The beauty of it being pursued through questions is that the questioner can pursue his or her concern about the figures, and the Minister has the chance to answer. That is what question time is all about. I think it was a very tense period of questioning, and that is what this House is all about.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not challenging that, because that is your interpretation. The only difficulty—and, Mr Speaker, you have said it repeatedly through question time, and you are right—is that an Opposition does indeed have further supplementary questions, but those supplementary questions are then chewed up in order to deal with a point that, again, could quite easily be dealt with. If the questioner is not relaying the facts accurately, he or she would be rather stupid to table documents that did not back up what he or she was saying. So that issue could be dealt with. The Opposition is left in the position where its members have to chew up their ammunition to verify a fact that could be tabled quite easily for the House to then further debate.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point, and I do not rule out that possibility. The member will recollect, in fact, that I did allow someone to table a press release recently.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Some things never change, though, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/5/9/c/49HansQ_20100428_00000007-7-Accident-Compensation-Sensitive-Claims.htm
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : I stated yesterday that from 2000 to 2008 the rejection rate of sensitive claims grew from 5 percent to 41 percent, that 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that there is no record of any Labour member ever raising any concern about this. I have checked this again, and it is correct. I can also confirm that the new clinical guidelines—
Mr SPEAKER: I remind the Minister that the question simply asked: “Does he stand by all his answers to question for oral answer No. 12 yesterday?”. Unless there were some that he does not wish to stand by, I would have thought that the question could easily be answered just by saying “Yes”, rather than going through the great detail of it. Further information may be elicited by way of supplementary questions.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I wanted to clarify that I had checked also that the Hon Steve Maharey had launched the clinical guidelines on—
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How clear does it have to be? You gave very clear advice to the member, but he is persisting. A “Yes” or a “No” will suffice. Let us hear it.
Hon Rodney Hide: With the greatest respect, it is not the Speaker’s job, as you have often explained to us, to direct what a Minister’s answer should be and whether it should be a “Yes” or “No” answer. In fact, when one is asked a question, I think it is quite polite to the House to actually say “Yes” and to explain the answer. That was what I was enjoying.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member—[Interruption] I am on my feet—were to check the Standing Ordershe would find that the Standing Orders require that in answering questions Ministers provide the information necessary to answer the question and no more. The Minister does not have to say “Yes” or “No” to every question, but this question does not require a huge explanation, because it asked just whether the Minister stands by all his answers. There will be supplementary questions, I am sure, and the Minister will have the chance to explain further. But I do not believe we need to take up a lot of the time of the House because the information being given is not necessary to answer the question.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He still has not answered “Yes” or “No”.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister indicated in his answer that he was standing by his answers, so I invite the member to ask a supplementary question.
Lynne Pillay: What does he say to the woman who was so traumatised and depressed by the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC) treatment that she was admitted to intensive care, then returned home to find a long-awaited ACC psychiatrist’s report stating that she was in remission from depression?
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I say that I heard the primary question, I heard the answer, and I am struggling to see how the supplementary question relates to them.
Hon Trevor Mallard: We’re not responsible for your struggles.
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard. There have been many offences on the other side of the House, which means I cannot deal with that interjection any more than I dealt with those, but I ask members to be careful not to interject when a point of order is being considered. The supplementary question obviously relates to some of the subject matter of yesterday’s questions, but the Minister’s ability to answer that question will be very constrained because of a lack of a direct relationship to today’s primary question. I did not rule the member’s question out of order because I think the House just has to accept that the Minister’s ability to answer will be very limited because of the nature of the primary question. But I invite the Minister to answer in so far as he can.
Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The questions yesterday were very clear. They related to the dramatic drop in—
Mr SPEAKER: We will not have my ruling debated now. I assisted the member in getting an answer to a question. She should not press her luck too far. She asked a very particular primary question about whether the Minister stood by all his answers. I have assisted her in trying to get an answer to that, but to now expect the Minister to have detailed information on a particular case is not reasonable. I have said that the Minister is entitled to answer in so far as he can, but he may not have that information.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that there are thousands of sensitive claims each year. In fact, 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that member did not raise any concern about that. If the member has specific information about a case, I ask her to refer it to the independent clinical review that I announced at the beginning of the week.
Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday that information in my question—information suggesting that about 300 victims of crime had been approved for sexual abuse counselling in October 2008 and that that figure had fallen to 6 in February this year—was incorrect and untrue when it was directly sourced from his own answers in written questions to the House?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I told the member yesterday and I will tell him again that his numbers are incorrect. Let me—
Hon Darren Hughes: They’re the Minister’s numbers.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the members will be silent I will be happy to explain. The answer made plain that the question in respect of February claims was a question in March. In the same way as if he had asked Work and Income to compare the claim numbers for April this year with those of April last year, not all the claims had been processed. In fact, I say to Mr Goff, in that written answer I pointed out that 70 percent of the claims had not been processed. The number six is incorrect. The correct number is more than double that. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the controversy that exists around the question and the answer, and given your ruling yesterday, and that he said my figures were incorrect, I seek leave of the House to table written question No. 1883 (2009) and written question No. 01711 (2010), which point out that the figures I used were those of the Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Figures are often disputed because of concern about the time frames from which the figures are taken, and whether apples are being compared with apples. But I do not want us to get into the habit of seeking leave to table answers to written questions when those are available to members. I think there is a chance, with the way of asking questions today, to question the Minister in some detail on how he has answered the questions. The honourable Leader of the Opposition still has many supplementary questions available to him today to do that. I would rather see the House exercise a good period of intense questioning rather than see leave being sought to table material that is already available to the House.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you appreciate the dilemma of members in this House when they quote figures given to them by a Minister and that same Minister stands up in this House and says the figures are untrue and incorrect?
Mr SPEAKER: One of the things that our style of questioning these days allows is for members to ask further questions to elucidate that.
Hon Phil Goff: My question to the Minister—[Interruption]—if he just pauses and listens—
Mr SPEAKER: No. Please ask the supplementary question.
Hon Phil Goff: Well, I would like him to hear it. He is talking while I am asking it.
Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the supplementary question.
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that in October 2008, in an answer to a written question, he confirmed that 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for help through counselling, that by February 2010 that number had fallen to six, that in the previous month the number was 11, that the month before it was 32, and that in the month before that it was 44, so that there was a consistent downward trend to a situation where almost no people who were victims of sexual crimes were receiving help through ACC?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can confirm that the numbers the member claimed yesterday were different from those I had given in the written answer. The further point I would make very simply to the member is that when someone asks how many claims were lodged for February—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked the Minister to confirm the accuracy of the figures that I was reading to him and the sources from which they came.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. I say to the Minister that this question was not about yesterday’s answer. This question was asking about specific information that the member has received from the Minister. It would be more appropriate for the Minister to answer the question that was asked by the member.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s—[Interruption].
Mr SPEAKER: Before we go any further, I say that the Leader of the Opposition has asked a serious question. I have asked members, instead of seeking leave to table documents, to use question time to question Ministers. The Leader of the Opposition is doing that. I ask his colleagues to show the respect, then, of listening to the answer, rather than giving just a barrage of interjections when the Minister tries to answer.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason the member’s numbers are incorrect is that when one asks at the beginning of March for the number of February claims that have been approved, a large—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, for goodness’ sake!
Mr SPEAKER: No—a point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: I have read these figures directly from the Minister’s own answer, and now he is saying that the figures I am reading are incorrect. That cannot possibly be the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: This is a very interesting situation. The Minister, in answering his question, said “the reason the member’s figures are incorrect”. The member asked the Minister about a series of figures relating to one period, and then he went back for several months before that—forgive me, but I cannot recollect the dates or whether he went back about 6 months or 4 months prior to that—and to a pattern in the figures. He asked the Minister whether he could confirm those figures. What I will do to avoid any further confusion is to ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question.
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm his own figures, provided by written answer to the House of Representatives, that in October of 2008, 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for counselling, yet through the recent months of this year and last year, those figures dropped from 44 in November 2009 to 32 in December 2009, to 11 in January 2010, and to a derisory figure of just six in February 2010?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have the written answer in front of me, and it points out that of the 298 claims in February, at the beginning of March 260 were in the category “awaiting further information” or in the second category “awaiting assessment”. I say to the member that in exactly the same way that one needs to give—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, a point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: I asked the Minister to confirm that those were the numbers of people approved in that 4-month period from late last year to this year, compared with 2008. I am hearing a lot of other figures. I am simply asking the Minister to confirm that his own numbers were the numbers of victims of sexual crimes accepted for counselling.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had about four attempts at explaining the numbers, and every time the member opposite interjects with a point of order and stops me from being able to explain the context of the numbers. I simply ask to be given the time to answer the question the member is asking.
Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma we have is that this is question time. The member did not ask the Minister to explain the information; the member asked the Minister to confirm whether the figures were correct. The Standing Orders do not provide for Ministers to answer a different question. If the question asked why there is this pattern in the figures, then the Minister’s answer would be perfectly in order, but that is not the question that was asked. Ministers have to answer the question asked, not the one they might like to answer. I ask the Minister to answer the question asked.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The answer that was given at the beginning of March—that six February claims were approved—was correct at the beginning of March. But, of course, since then a substantially increased number of the February claims have been approved. If members want to compare the situation with the situation in October 2008, that would be the fair comparison.
Hon Annette King: Has he been made aware of the human tragedy that is unfolding for victims of sexual abuse since the change of policy—for example, the 11-year-old raped by her stepfather 2½ months ago, who is still awaiting assessment for counselling, or the 19-year-old raped by one man while being held down by two others 6 months ago, who is still waiting for—
Mr SPEAKER: I have been pretty tough on the Minister in respect of answering the question asked. The question the member is now asking is drawing a pretty long bow from the primary question, which asked the Minister whether he stood by his answers given yesterday. He cannot be expected to have detailed information on those particular cases, and that means that the member is seeking to make a political statement rather than ask a question. I have been tough on the Minister, asking him to answer the question asked. I ask the honourable member—hang on, I am on my feet—to ask a question within the Standing Orders, because I think that question was unfair. I have to make sure that if I am tough on the Minister and ask him to answer the question asked, I do not then allow members to ask questions that are outside the Standing Orders.
Hon Annette King: How does the Minister explain the delay in terms of the cases I have just given the House, and the human tragedy that is unfolding because of that delay?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I point out that in 2008, under the member’s Government, 2,400 sensitive claims for counselling and support were declined by ACC. I have been hesitant to interfere—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not possible for me to answer questions when there is that sort of berating from the Opposition benches.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister makes—
Hon Shane Jones: Chuck him out.
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Shane Jones to be careful. I was clearly on my feet when he made that loud interjection. I think members should be reasonable. I fully accept that this is a tense issue. It is a very serious and sensitive issue. The Minister is doing his best to answer questions sincerely, and I ask for some respect to be shown to the Minister when he is answering.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been very hesitant to interfere in clinical decisions in respect of sensitive claims, but I did announce on Monday an independent clinical review. If members opposite have cases where they are not satisfied with the clinical care, I invite them to refer them to that review.
Hon David Parker: Why will not the Minister admit that he and his Government have badly let down the victims of sexual crime; that he has failed to heed the consistent warnings from the Opposition, from the professional associations of psychotherapists and psychologists, and from Christian counsellors, social workers, rape crisis workers, and Massey University; that it is a matter of political responsibility; and that it could be fixed by reinstating the prior practice?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I again point out to that member that 2,400 claims were declined, and that during the term of the previous Government there was an eight-fold increase in the number of claims that were declined. I also draw to the member’s attention the statement from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners that strongly supports the clinical pathway that was adopted by ACC.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without revisiting the issue—and you will be aware that I discussed this matter with you off-line at some point—could I ask you to consider this matter in respect of your ruling about the tabling of documents, which I respect. It is simply that we have had quite an interchange over allegations of accuracy of information, or whatever. I ask you to consider—not here—that there may be a case for tabling, narrowly, when a member calls into question the accuracy or otherwise of, for instance, data contained within written or oral questions, even though the data are available readily to members who do research. The interchange that we have had today about accuracy, or lack of it, could be truncated somewhat if you, Mr Speaker, at your discretion, were to rule that the documents could indeed be tabled. Then they would sit on the Table in the House for everybody to see, and the issue might well be resolved.
Mr SPEAKER: I hear the point the member makes, and I appreciate that it is being made in good faith. Why I did not do so today is that where figures relate to different time periods, and there is debate about the figures, allowing these things to be tabled implies that someone is proving the other person wrong. The beauty of it being pursued through questions is that the questioner can pursue his or her concern about the figures, and the Minister has the chance to answer. That is what question time is all about. I think it was a very tense period of questioning, and that is what this House is all about.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not challenging that, because that is your interpretation. The only difficulty—and, Mr Speaker, you have said it repeatedly through question time, and you are right—is that an Opposition does indeed have further supplementary questions, but those supplementary questions are then chewed up in order to deal with a point that, again, could quite easily be dealt with. If the questioner is not relaying the facts accurately, he or she would be rather stupid to table documents that did not back up what he or she was saying. So that issue could be dealt with. The Opposition is left in the position where its members have to chew up their ammunition to verify a fact that could be tabled quite easily for the House to then further debate.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point, and I do not rule out that possibility. The member will recollect, in fact, that I did allow someone to table a press release recently.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Some things never change, though, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/5/9/c/49HansQ_20100428_00000007-7-Accident-Compensation-Sensitive-Claims.htm
27 April 2010
As advertised
A blog entry from Kiwipolitico by Lew
Late last year, when the ACC ructions were underway, the professionals working in the sector warned that people would die as a consequence of the reforms mandated by the new Clinical Pathway on the assessment and treatment of sexual abuse victims.Read the rest of this entry at http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/04/as-advertised/
Since then, and on the basis of the pathway, ACC has taken to declining claims despite publicly claiming consistently throughout the past six months and as recently as today that there was no cost-cutting imperative.
Smith continues to mislead on sexual abuse guidelines
A press release from the Labour Party
Victims of sexual abuse are being denied access to much needed counselling services while the Minister of ACC plays petty politics, Labour’s Victims Rights spokesperson Lynne Pillay says.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00350.htm
“Today in Parliament Nick Smith claimed that figures showing a massive decrease in the number of people accessing counselling services under his watch were incorrect,” Lynne Pillay said.
“It was surprising to hear the Minister make claims about figures showing a massive decline in the numbers of rape and sexual abuse victims accessing services were wrong, as those figures were provided by Dr Smith as the answer to a written parliamentary question.
“I am shocked that the National Government is continuing to arrogantly deny sexual abuse victims counselling, despite the overwhelming evidence that they have got it wrong.
“Despite Dr Smith’s protestations, it’s clear that victims of sexual abuse are being denied counselling in an effort by the National Government to save money.
“In a newsletter on sensitive claims written and distributed by ACC, the organisation makes it clear that it sees counselling for sexual abuse victims as an area where it has been instructed by the Government to ‘keep a close eye on expenditure’.
“The National Government apparently believes that counselling for sexual abuse victims is one of the ‘low value’ areas of expenditure it will be targeting for cost cutting.
“Nick Smith and the National Government need to wake up and realise that every day that goes by is another day that a victim of sexual abuse waits for help.
“The Minister expects victims to wait until he is ready to deal with the fall-out of his disastrous decision making, this is cynicism of the worst kind,” Lynne Pillay said.
Question to Minister: ACC sensitive claims clinical pathway review
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Why does there need to be a review of ACC’s sensitive claims clinical pathway to determine whether or not survivors of sexual abuse are receiving timely decision making and services?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Changes were made by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to the way that it manages sensitive claims, in response to new Massey University guidelines launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. I have been extremely reluctant to interfere in clinical practice issues in such a sensitive area, but in response to concerns from counsellors and psychotherapists I agreed to establish an independent clinical review.
Lynne Pillay: Why does the Minister continue to say that he is focused on delivering to victims of sexual abuse, when clinicians, victims, and Massey University have all repeatedly told him that the guidelines he introduced fail to deliver timely services? For example, it was reported today that a 15-year-old who was raped is still waiting, after 4 months.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Professional groups, like the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, have issued a statement strongly in support of ACC’s pathway for dealing with sensitive claims. If the member has a particular case about which she has concerns, I invite her to refer it to Dr Barbara Disley, a very respected former mental health commissioner, who is to lead the review. I have to say I am disappointed that the member was not interested in even being consulted on the personnel or terms of reference of the review.
Dr Jackie Blue: What trend has there been in ACC’s acceptance rate of sensitive claims since 2000, and can the Minister confirm that 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008 by the previous Government?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member makes a very good point. Between 2000 and 2008 the rate of rejection of sensitive claims grew from just 5 percent to 41 percent. [Interruption] The member Annette King is shouting out about caring. Where was she? What did she or Lynne Pillay do when 2,400 sensitive claims were rejected in 2008? They were silent, and that shows that this is simply about Opposition politics, rather than genuinely caring for people who have been sexually—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question relates to matters that are extremely sensitive, yet I think the Minister is doing his best to answer. It does not help when a Labour front-bencher is calling across the House: “You are a liar.” I think the Hon Ruth Dyson should be asked to apologise for making those comments.
Mr SPEAKER: Because I did not hear them, I have to ask the honourable member whether she made that interjection. If she did, I would ask her to withdraw and apologise.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Yes, I did, and I withdraw and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: I realise that this is an issue on which people have very strong feelings, and that is why I do not insist on silence. This is a place of passionate debate. I felt the Minister was handling the level of interjection pretty competently, and that was why I did not interfere, but that kind of interjection is unacceptable.
Lynne Pillay: Was the decision to deny counselling to sexual abuse victims part of the directive from the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, to cut low-value spending, and how long will it be before the Minister realises he cannot continue to cut services to people without disastrous consequences?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have made it abundantly plain to ACC that I have no expectations of any cost savings in respect of sensitive claims. I have had no involvement in the changes that have been made in this area, and members opposite know that. The changes are based on Massey University’s clinical guidelines, which were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. The claims from the member are simply incorrect.
Lynne Pillay: Why would ACC host another costly workshop, advertised to be held on 7 May, to explore gaps in services that have arisen because of the guidelines; and if the Minister’s own department knows there are gaps in services being provided to sexual abuse victims, why does not the Minister?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is determined to ensure that people entitled to receive accident compensation cover in this highly sensitive area of sexual abuse or assault receive the care they need. That is why on Monday I announced an independent clinical review. I think it speaks volumes about the member that when I offered to consult her both about the membership and the terms of reference of the review, she said she was not interested. She just wants to play politics in this sensitive area.
Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table an email advertisement from the Accident Compensation Corporation about its workshop identifying gaps in services for the victims of serious assault.
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 Phil Goff: How does the Minister account for the fact that in October 2008 300 victims of sexual abuse had been approved for counselling, and by February this year that figure had dropped to six?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s numbers are quite incorrect. They are not true. I would ask that member, if he wants to make politics out of something as tragic and difficult as sexual abuse and neglect—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: The Minister answering the question is not answering the question. He embarked on a diatribe about my making politics of the issue. I asked a straight, factual question; he should address it.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did answer the question—in fact, quite specifically—the minute he said the member’s figures were wrong. The Minister should not have gone on from that point, because it is correct that the question was not loaded with political comment. But the Minister’s answer was that he considered that the member’s figures were wrong.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00358.htm
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Changes were made by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to the way that it manages sensitive claims, in response to new Massey University guidelines launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. I have been extremely reluctant to interfere in clinical practice issues in such a sensitive area, but in response to concerns from counsellors and psychotherapists I agreed to establish an independent clinical review.
Lynne Pillay: Why does the Minister continue to say that he is focused on delivering to victims of sexual abuse, when clinicians, victims, and Massey University have all repeatedly told him that the guidelines he introduced fail to deliver timely services? For example, it was reported today that a 15-year-old who was raped is still waiting, after 4 months.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Professional groups, like the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, have issued a statement strongly in support of ACC’s pathway for dealing with sensitive claims. If the member has a particular case about which she has concerns, I invite her to refer it to Dr Barbara Disley, a very respected former mental health commissioner, who is to lead the review. I have to say I am disappointed that the member was not interested in even being consulted on the personnel or terms of reference of the review.
Dr Jackie Blue: What trend has there been in ACC’s acceptance rate of sensitive claims since 2000, and can the Minister confirm that 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008 by the previous Government?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member makes a very good point. Between 2000 and 2008 the rate of rejection of sensitive claims grew from just 5 percent to 41 percent. [Interruption] The member Annette King is shouting out about caring. Where was she? What did she or Lynne Pillay do when 2,400 sensitive claims were rejected in 2008? They were silent, and that shows that this is simply about Opposition politics, rather than genuinely caring for people who have been sexually—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question relates to matters that are extremely sensitive, yet I think the Minister is doing his best to answer. It does not help when a Labour front-bencher is calling across the House: “You are a liar.” I think the Hon Ruth Dyson should be asked to apologise for making those comments.
Mr SPEAKER: Because I did not hear them, I have to ask the honourable member whether she made that interjection. If she did, I would ask her to withdraw and apologise.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Yes, I did, and I withdraw and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: I realise that this is an issue on which people have very strong feelings, and that is why I do not insist on silence. This is a place of passionate debate. I felt the Minister was handling the level of interjection pretty competently, and that was why I did not interfere, but that kind of interjection is unacceptable.
Lynne Pillay: Was the decision to deny counselling to sexual abuse victims part of the directive from the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, to cut low-value spending, and how long will it be before the Minister realises he cannot continue to cut services to people without disastrous consequences?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have made it abundantly plain to ACC that I have no expectations of any cost savings in respect of sensitive claims. I have had no involvement in the changes that have been made in this area, and members opposite know that. The changes are based on Massey University’s clinical guidelines, which were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. The claims from the member are simply incorrect.
Lynne Pillay: Why would ACC host another costly workshop, advertised to be held on 7 May, to explore gaps in services that have arisen because of the guidelines; and if the Minister’s own department knows there are gaps in services being provided to sexual abuse victims, why does not the Minister?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is determined to ensure that people entitled to receive accident compensation cover in this highly sensitive area of sexual abuse or assault receive the care they need. That is why on Monday I announced an independent clinical review. I think it speaks volumes about the member that when I offered to consult her both about the membership and the terms of reference of the review, she said she was not interested. She just wants to play politics in this sensitive area.
Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table an email advertisement from the Accident Compensation Corporation about its workshop identifying gaps in services for the victims of serious assault.
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 Phil Goff: How does the Minister account for the fact that in October 2008 300 victims of sexual abuse had been approved for counselling, and by February this year that figure had dropped to six?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s numbers are quite incorrect. They are not true. I would ask that member, if he wants to make politics out of something as tragic and difficult as sexual abuse and neglect—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.
Hon Phil Goff: The Minister answering the question is not answering the question. He embarked on a diatribe about my making politics of the issue. I asked a straight, factual question; he should address it.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did answer the question—in fact, quite specifically—the minute he said the member’s figures were wrong. The Minister should not have gone on from that point, because it is correct that the question was not loaded with political comment. But the Minister’s answer was that he considered that the member’s figures were wrong.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00358.htm
Denied help for sexual abuse, dead days later
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Simon Collins
A review of new rules for sexual abuse counselling has come too late to save a South Auckland mother who died four days after her claim for ACC-funded counselling was rejected.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10641028
Counselling Services Centre manager Emma Castle said the mother-of-three's claim for counselling for sexual abuse she had suffered as a child was rejected by ACC two months ago on the grounds that she had not suffered "a significant mental injury".
"The counsellor who submitted the claim made it very clear that sexual abuse was the reason why she had suicidal ideation and was self-harming," Ms Castle said. "It took them six months to make that decision. Four days after receiving notification that the ACC claim was denied, the client passed away."
The new rules provide ACC-subsidised counselling only for victims with a diagnosed mental condition caused by sexual abuse, and generally only for up to 16 weeks before a further review.
ACC Minister Nick Smith announced yesterday that the rules would be reviewed by a four-person panel chaired by former Mental Health Commissioner Dr Barbara Disley. The other panel members are Auckland University psychiatrist Professor Graham Mellsop, Ruth Herbert of the lobby group Roundtable on Violence Against Women and psychologist Clive Banks of Porirua Maori mental health agency Rangataua Mauriora.
The co-chair of the national sexual violence network, Dr Kim McGregor, said the team did not include anyone who worked day to day with survivors of sexual violence.
The network had nominated Louise Nicholas, a high-profile survivor who is now an advocate with Rape Prevention Education, alongside psychologists Nicola Gavey and Fred Seymour, High Court Judge Ailsa Duffy and Maori lawyer Moana Jackson.
"None of our specialist experts that work day to day with survivors of sexual violence, and have done for decades, have been chosen to be part of this review," Dr McGregor said.
She said the rules had caused a virtual "collapse" of sexual abuse counselling, with cases approved by ACC down from 472 in the first two months of last year to just 32 in the same period this year.
The Association of Counsellors' representative on the ACC's sensitive claims advisory group, Elayne Johnston, said a 15-year-old girl who was raped over Christmas had still not received counselling because ACC required her to be assessed by a psychologist to see whether she had suffered a "mental injury".
Dr McGregor said almost all of the 600 to 700 private counsellors who were registered for ACC-funded work had stopped taking applicants for ACC subsidies since the new rules took effect because of an ethical objection to labelling assault victims as mentally ill.
Survivors were now going to rape crisis agencies instead, but the agencies could not cope because they had also lost funding.
The review panel has been asked to identify any changes required to "ensure that ACC is delivering timely decision-making and services to clients with a mental injury caused by sexual assault or sexual abuse".
It is due to report to Dr Smith by July 31.
26 April 2010
Victims go without treatment while National plays games
A press release from the Labour Party
ACC Minister Nick Smith’s ineptitude is forcing sexual abuse victims to go without counselling, Labour’s ACC spokesperson David Parker and Victims Rights spokesperson Lynne Pillay say.
“You do not need a review to tell you that something is seriously wrong when the number of treatment claims approved by ACC for victims of sexual abuse falls from 300 to six,” David Parker said.
“In October last year ACC Minister Nick Smith introduced new guidelines on accessing treatment for survivors of sexual abuse. These guidelines were resoundingly rejected by professional bodies and Massy University, which conducted research in this area, has distanced itself from his claims,” Lynne Pillay says.
“The New Zealand Association of Counsellors, the New Zealand Christian Counsellors Association, Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, the New Zealand Psychological Society and the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists have all publicly rejected the guidelines introduced by the National Government.
“Today Nick Smith launched a review of these guidelines claiming that he needed clinical input. Dr Smith needs to own up to the fact that he has failed victims of sexual crimes and today’s announcement is nothing more than an attempt at a cover-up.
“Victims have suffered and are continuing to suffer while the Minister of ACC sits back. The Minister has had numerous professional bodies, Massey University and victims tell him he got it wrong, so why does he need a time-wasting review?
“I find it appalling that in New Zealand someone who has been seriously sexually assaulted cannot get counselling, because the Minister of ACC is too arrogant to admit he got it wrong.
“The guidelines introduced by Nick Smith have caused victims to be re-victimised and are nothing short of a serious injustice.
“Labour was asked to take part in the review announced by Dr Smith but declined based on the overwhelming evidence of clinicians that the new guidelines aren’t working.
“Victims are suffering. Just how long will they have to keep suffering before the Minister admits he got it wrong,” Lynne Pillay said.
Sensitive claims review announced
A press release from the National Government by Nick Smith
Minister for ACC Nick Smith today announced the panel and terms of reference for an independent clinical review into ACC’s new approach to managing sensitive claims.
“Last October ACC changed its approach to managing sensitive claims in response to more than four years research work from Massey University into best practice clinical guidelines,” Dr Smith said. “These guidelines were launched in March 2008 by the previous Government.
“These changes have never been about costs savings. I have repeatedly stressed to the corporation that the focus must be on delivering to victims of sexual abuse or assault that have a mental injury the best help available to achieve a timely and successful recovery.
“I have been very hesitant as a politician to interfere in clinical decisions but acknowledge the changes have caused controversy. That is why I have initiated this independent clinical review to ensure best possible practice in this sensitive area.
“The members of the review panel have the necessary skills and experience to bring a fresh and independent perspective to this difficult area of ACC’s work. I expect the group to report back to me by July.
“The review panel is to be chaired by former Mental Health Commissioner Dr Barbara Disley and includes clinical psychologist Clive Banks, consultant Ruth Herbert and psychiatrist Professor Graham Mellsop.”
Biographies of Review Panel
Dr Barbara Disley, PhD
Dr Disley has worked extensively in the areas of mental health and education. She was the Chief Executive of the Mental Health Foundation (1991-1996 and Deputy CEO 1989-1991). As Executive Chair of the Mental Health Commission (1996-2002), Dr Disley reported directly to the Minister of Health, providing advice and monitoring the provision of mental health services in New Zealand. In her role as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Education (2002-2007), Dr Disley was responsible for the results, budget and overall management of the Group Special Education, a special education service for children and young people aged between 0-21 years. A Churchill Fellow and a Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Management, she was made a life member of the New Zealand Association of Adolescent Health and Development for her outstanding contribution to the promotion of healthy development of rangatahi/young New Zealanders. In 2005 Dr Disley received The Mental Health Services (THEMHS) individual award for exceptional contribution to Mental Health Services in New Zealand.
Clive Banks, BA (Sociology and Psychology), MA (Clinical Psychology), PGDipClPs, FNZCCP
Clive Banks is a clinical physiologist of Ngati Porou iwi and his interest and expertise lies in Maori mental health. He is a Fellow of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists and the Cultural Advisor on their National Executive. His clinical experience covers most mental disorders, with a particular interest in the effects of trauma symptoms and trans-cultural psychology. Mr Banks' background includes the training of students in cognitive behavioural interventions, the use of Maori models with Maori, providing assessments, second opinions of complex cases and supervising and training other clinicians. He worked as a clinical psychologist at Te Ware Marie (1996-2004) and was a consultant clinical psychologist with the Regional Personality Disorder Service in Capital Coast Health (2005-2006). In his current position as site manager and consultant clinical psychologist of Tu Te Wehi: a primary mental health service, he is able to focus on helping Maori and Pacific people.
Ruth Herbert, MPP, Cert Health Economics, Cert Social and Community Work
Ruth Herbert's background is in community work and community development. Under the nom de plume of Lorraine Webb (to hide from a violent ex-partner) she led a high profile, controversial campaign and wrote the book "Cot Death in New Zealand" in the 1980s. Since 1995, Ms Herbert has run her own consultancy specializing in strategy, implementation and evaluation management services. She has managed large projects for the New Zealand National Cervical Screening Programme, the Cancer Control Council, Breastscreen Aotearoa, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme and the Ministry of Health. Over the past five years Ruth has been recognised as a national figure in anti-domestic violence activities. She was awarded the Victoria University School of Government 2008 Holmes Prize in Public Policy for "the best research thesis on an issue of public policy or public management of importance to New Zealand" for her evaluation of New Zealand's family violence strategies.
Professor Graham Mellsop, MB, ChB (Otago), DPM, MD (Melb), FRANZCPhttp://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=32658
Professor Mellsop's expertise in mental health is based on 40 years of experience in the field of psychiatry. He has special interests in classification of psychiatric disorders, outcomes, culture and mental health service design. Currently working for Waikato Clinical School of Auckland University as Professor of Psychiatry. Professor Mellsop has authored more than150 research papers and publications on psychiatric disorders and has shared his expertise as a (guest) speaker at a variety of international mental health conferences. His professional background includes providing expert advice at Board/Committee level for mental health services, hospitals and at psychiatric units in Australia, New Zealand, a variety of Asian Pacific countries and to the World Health Organisation. Graham's recent positions include: Professor and Head of the South Auckland Clinical School, Faculty Mental and Health Services (2000-2004) and Clinical Services Director Mental Health Services at Health Waikato (1997-2000). Professor Mellsop holds a Fellowship of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and was elected as Distinguished Fellow, Pacific Rim of Psychiatrists in recognition of achievements, contributions and leadership in the field of psychiatry.
22 April 2010
ACC's cutbacks short-sighted
An article from the Press by Rosemary McLeod
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/rosemary-mcleod/3609140/ACCs-cutbacks-short-sighted
A new complaint about ACC comes at a bad time for its controversial new sexual abuse claims regime.© 2010 Fairfax New Zealand Limited
If it's not a fake, it shows that bureaucrats and sensitive claims can make for a lousy combination.
Internal emails apparently written by Accident Compensation Corporation staff, and denigrating a client with sexual abuse issues, have been shown to a Sunday newspaper.
According to the complainant they were leaked to her by someone on the staff, which ACC denies, although it has apologised to the woman in the past for correspondence about her that contained what it called "negative information and inappropriate content".
If the emails are real, they are shockers.
The woman is described as a "mental health nutter"; the suicide of one of her children on finding out she was the product of incest is mentioned with the comment, "No wonder, with a birth mother like this one!"; and a staff member who supports the woman is described as believing she is, "the most wonderful miracle of the world and testament to rehabilitation and all that other babble. Silly bugger, she must have conned him as well".
That email continues: "We should have got rid of her a long time ago, one less nutter on our books." The woman has been dealing with ACC since the 1980s. She fell pregnant to her father three times, the first at the age of 11. He was convicted of incest and jailed.
There are two ways to go with this, and either reflects the complexity and sadness of the whole subject of sexual abuse and the harm it does.
If these are real emails, there have been people within ACC, and in its most sensitive area, whose attitudes to confidential information are appallingly unprofessional.
If the emails are concocted, that suggests the lasting effect of incest on a vulnerable child who has become a dysfunctional adult.
Either way the complaint confirms what we should never doubt, that sexual abuse is not some welfare-generated industry designed to sucker the taxpayer but a social problem causing pain and harm to many people, a good many of whom will not recover from it within the 16 therapy/counselling sessions ACC now regards as optimal, and yet more of whom will never get that help.
We're a weird society where the subject of sexual abuse is concerned. On one hand we join in outraged condemnation of the Catholic Church, for example, but on the other we have tended to view the problem - when we have to pay for it - as an elaborate con dreamed up by people who relish spending pointless hours in therapy or counselling.
Along with this must go a matching belief that those working in the field - doctors, psychotherapists, counsellors, psychologists, social workers - happily perpetuate the con, presumably because of the money they make from this demanding and emotionally draining work.
It's an interesting conspiracy theory, but I don't buy it.
More likely we introduced compensation for sexual abuse as part of ACC, but had no idea how extensive the problem would turn out to be.
Maybe initial cash handouts for victims weren't the brightest move; wherever there's free cash people will make themselves entitled to it; but having stopped that, it would surely be churlish to put up barriers to what help remains.
Cost-cutting seems the logical explanation for ACC changing its rules, though, making it harder for victims to get assessed, and slowing down that process by drastically narrowing the number of experts it deems capable of diagnosing what it now insists has to be "mental injury".
The system sounds cumbersome and insensitive, and angry therapists have walked away from the work for that reason.
According to Labour's victims' rights spokesman, Lynne Pillay, just 32 people were approved nationally for sexual abuse counselling in the first two months of this year, compared with 472 in the same time last year.
What's that supposed to suggest?
That the other 440 were lying, or that although they were traumatised enough to seek help, they were not "mentally injured?"
If this is economising, it's short-sighted.
Victims won't just go away because bureaucracy wants them to; harm doesn't evaporate spontaneously, although we wish it did; and one way or another we're bound to pay for our lack of belief in "rehabilitation and all that other babble".
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/rosemary-mcleod/3609140/ACCs-cutbacks-short-sighted
Victims and bureaucrats an unhappy mix
An article from the Dominion Post by Rosemary McLeod
A new complaint about ACC comes at a bad time for its controversial new sexual abuse claims regime. If it's not a fake, it shows that bureaucrats and sensitive claims can make for a lousy combination.Read the rest of this article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3609384/Victims-and-bureaucrats-an-unhappy-mix
18 April 2010
ACC accused of 'brutal' email attack on sexual abuse victim
An article from the Sunday Star Times by Jonathan Marshall
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3594068/ACC-accused-of-brutal-email-attack-on-sexual-abuse-victim
ACC has investigated claims staff emailed each other denigrating a sexual abuse victim, describing her as a "mental health nutter".© 2010 Fairfax New Zealand Limited
The Sunday Star-Times has obtained internal emails purportedly written by Accident Compensation Corporation staff in which they are highly critical of the woman, her sexual abuse and family history.
But ACC said on Friday it believed the emails were mostly fakes and was considering laying a complaint with police. The corporation did not say who it believed was behind the emails, and the sexual abuse claimant was adamant they had been leaked to her by a concerned ACC staffer appalled at how she was being treated. The woman's claim is handled by ACC's sensitive claims unit.
And the woman has her own appointment with police on Tuesday, at which she would report a letter she said arrived in the post last week suggesting she was "evil" and should take her own life.
The Star-Times has learned the emails were provided to ACC on March 25 and a top-level inquiry kicked off. ACC appeared to have completed that investigation but wouldn't say what it involved.
"We have seen the supposed `abusive-type emails' and we believe that most, if not all, may be fabricated," said Denise Cosgrove, general manager of ACC's claim management. ACC was "considering whether to refer our concerns to the police for further investigation".
The bundle of messages includes emails:
The Star-Times has been told that in the days after the March 25 handover a senior staff member was moved from the sensitive claims unit, but Cosgrove would not discuss that.
- Describing the claimant as a "mental health nutter".
- Mentioning how one of the woman's children took her own life after learning she was the product of incest. "No wonder, with a birth mother like this one!!" one reads.
- Mentioning discussion of a staff member who appeared to be sympathetic with the woman's tragic case: "He thinks she's the most wonderful wonder miracle of the world and testament to rehabilitation and all that other babble. Silly bugger, she must have conned him as well." The email continues: "We could have got rid of her a long time ago, one less nutter on our books."
The offensive emails are just one piece of a troubled jigsaw that ACC and the woman have been involved with since she lodged a sexual abuse claim in the 1980s after being sexually abused by her father.
The corporation has been forced to apologise to the woman for a string of "failures" involving breaches of their patient code of conduct.
"It is true that in the case of [the victim] there have been several failures by ACC to meet the standards set out in the Code of ACC Claimants' Rights. We are not happy about that, and have apologised to her on each occasion," Cosgrove said.
ACC refused to confirm exactly how many times it had apologised to the woman but the Star-Times has seen at least five letters. One, dated August 2008, sent to the woman by ACC's Sue Walker, related to offensive emails.
"I would like to apologise for the emails sent between Rotorua branch and sensitive claims unit that contained negative information and held inappropriate content," Walker wrote. "Clearly it has left you feeling as though you have not been treated with respect and I regret that it has made you feel this way."
Cosgrove said the woman's case was "most unusual" and was "the result of multiple communication and relationship issues, not all of which are attributable to ACC".
The claimant said the emails had been extremely distressing for her to read and she was further upset to hear ACC had questioned their authenticity.
Her advocate, David Wadsworth, said in all of his time working in the industry he had "never seen such a brutal attack by a government department on an individual who has suffered too much already".
The woman is asking ACC for weekly compensation and treatment charges which relate to a claim, in part, for suffering at Auckland's Centrepoint Community.
Medical reports show the woman fell pregnant to her father three times, the first at age 11. Her father – now dead – was convicted of incest and jailed.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3594068/ACC-accused-of-brutal-email-attack-on-sexual-abuse-victim
05 April 2010
ACC claims review to go ahead
A news report from Radio New Zealand
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/04/05/1247fd810cc1
The Government is pushing ahead with a review of the Accident Compensation Corporation's sensitive claims system, even though the Labour Party will not support it.Copyright © 2010 Radio New Zealand
Last year ACC Minister Nick Smith announced plans for an independent clinical review, following the introduction of a new clinical pathway for sensitive claims.
Dr Smith wrote to the Labour Party last month offering consultation on the review's terms of reference and potential applicants.
But Labour says the review is a sham and it won't be taking up the offer. It says the Government's changes to ACC have re-victimised people and led to systematic failures.
Dr Smith expects the review to begin at the end of this month.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/04/05/1247fd810cc1
01 April 2010
Clinicians reject Smith’s ACC abuse guidelines
A press release from the Labour Party by Lynne Pillay
The New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists has overwhelmingly rejected ACC Minister Nick Smith’s imposed guidelines on sexual abuse, Labour’s Victims Rights spokesperson Lynne Pillay says.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1004/S00028.htm
“Since National became the Government the number of people approved for Government funded sexual abuse counselling has fallen from nearly 300 a month to less than 12,” Lynne Pillay says.
“It is disgraceful that people who have suffered sexual abuse are being denied assistance based on guidelines that are not supported by clinicians or Massey University, the organisation Nick Smith claims wrote the guidelines.
“Labour recently received a letter from Nick Smith inviting us to take part in a belated review of the ACC sexual abuse guidelines.
“We have rejected Mr Smith’s offer, because it is already clear that the changes he has made to the ACC sexual abuse guidelines have resulted in victims of crime being re-victimised and have lead to systemic failures in this area of ACC cover.
“Nick Smith needs to stop his sham review of the guidelines and admit they have failed to support people have been sexually abused.
“It is time to support people who need sexual abuse counselling and stop the political grandstanding and time-wasting that Nick Smith has undertaken.
“Victims of crime are not an area for cost cutting. The Minister has failed victims and survivors of sexual abuse and he needs to get on and fix the problem he has created,” Lynne Pillay said.
Question to Minister: ACC - New sexual abuse clinical guidelines
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
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
Today is 1 April
Dr Nick Smith, Minister for ACC, today announced full funding for counselling, transport, childcare, educational opportunities, outpatient visits, social activities and other support for survivors of sexual abuse and assault. The main aim of the brand new ACC scheme, details of which have been classified until today, will be to help survivors overcome the serious effects of sexual abuse. Cost, assessment, oversight and documentation will be secondary to providing a compassionate, safe and fulfilling environment in which people of all ages, genders and circumstances can find the help they need. Dr Smith recognises that this is a totally new direction for ACC but says that survivors of sexual abuse are some of the most hurt members of our society and need the government's help. "Survivors need to know that we will do everything we can to support them as they work to better their own lives. It can take years and progress is sometimes slow, but no one in this country should have to live with the debilitating and serious effects of sexual abuse or assault. Everyone deserves a chance to heal and to live to their full potential."
Update: Dr Nick Smith has withdrawn the announcement he made this morning and has crawled back into his hole. He continues to show no interest in the effects of the clinical pathway imposed upon clients of ACC or in implenting the review he promised almost six months ago. The future remains bleak.
Update: Dr Nick Smith has withdrawn the announcement he made this morning and has crawled back into his hole. He continues to show no interest in the effects of the clinical pathway imposed upon clients of ACC or in implenting the review he promised almost six months ago. The future remains bleak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)