23 September 2010
Question to Minister: ACC
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does his recent admission that ACC has handled the issue of counselling for sexual abuse victims badly give him cause to question whether ACC has also treated victims of hearing loss badly?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : No. The issue of sensitive claims was about best clinical practice, and with the assistance of the independent clinical reviews supported by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), it has resulted in a good outcome. The issue of hearing loss is about policy and regulation, and arises from a Cabinet decision last year that ACC should, as per its legislation, be responsible only for injury-related hearing loss and not for that caused by other factors such as age. In short, age is not an accident.
Hon David Parker: Does the Minister still assert that he had no responsibility, nor blame properly attached to him, for the mistakes made in relation to the withdrawal of accident compensation counselling for victims of sexual crimes; if so, why did we bother with question time where he was repeatedly warned about his folly?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of course, I am responsible; I am the Minister for ACC. But my response to the issues that were raised was to seek an independent clinical review. Members opposite have been misleading when they have asserted that decisions made by clinicians were made by either me or Ministers in respect of sensitive claims.
Hon David Parker: Given the Minister’s earlier assertions that he relies on expert advice, why has he ignored the evidence from Professor Thorne and Dr Welch of the department of audiology at the University of Auckland who said: “The introduction of a percentage handicap threshold for NIHL [noise-induced hearing loss] appears to be a reaction to the cost of claims and is apparently not based on an understanding of the real NIHL situation in New Zealand.”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is making reference to the ACC amendment legislation that introduced the 6 percent threshold. That decision was made finally by the Parliament but with my strong support as the Minister. I note that every workers’ compensation scheme in Australia has a threshold—
Grant Robertson: We’re in New Zealand.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite say that we are in New Zealand. Well, yes we are. But I also say that as a consequence of the multibillion-dollar losses that the previous Government passed on to us in the area of accident compensation, we have had to be very careful about ensuring cost-effectiveness of ACC’s expenditure.
Michael Woodhouse: What discussions has the Minister had with his colleague the Minister of Health to ensure that ACC’s systems properly respond to any changes to ensure that people are able to secure health support for any age-related hearing loss?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had very close discussions with the Minister of Health, and officials from our respective agencies have been working closely together. The current rule is that if any support for hearing loss is provided through the accident compensation scheme, then the claimant is ineligible for any support from the Ministry of Health. This has led people in the sector to assume a lack of any support from the Ministry of Health where a person has industrial hearing loss as well as age-related hearing loss. The Government is working through the options and considering the submissions that have been made. We are confident that we can come to an answer between ACC and the Ministry of Health that will be fair and will work for those who require hearing assistance.
Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen the latest issue of the National Foundation for the Deaf’s magazine, which contains a report about people on whom his decisions are impacting, like Les Slattery, who is reported to have repaired chainsaws in the 1970s without earmuffs. If it were not for that job, he would not need hearing aids, but now at age 72 he faces cuts to his accident compensation cover for his work-related hearing loss.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make the issue absolutely plain: ACC will meet its full obligations for hearing loss that has occurred as a consequence of industrial hearing loss. We have made that absolutely plain. As I have said, I am working closely with the Minister of Health to ensure that where a person has a mix of both industrial and age-related hearing loss, the total package is one that works well for New Zealanders.
Michael Woodhouse: Can the Minister confirm the facts of the audited accounts of ACC, which show losses of $7.2 billion in 2007 and 2008; if so, has he received any calls for a full and independent inquiry into those losses?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. The audited ACC accounts show a loss of $2.4 billion in 2007-08 and $4.8 billion in 2008-09. This total of $7.2 billion exceeds that of the expected losses from all of the 61 failed finance companies. The cost of ACC’s loss to the public purse exceeds by a factor of 10 the cost of the deposit guarantees scheme. I have not received any calls from the Opposition for a full public inquiry into those losses, although I note that the inquiry into the failure to disclose the losses in the non-earners account shows that it was a breach of the Public Finance Act.
Hon David Parker: Why would older New Zealanders not see his refusal to provide proper accident compensation cover for work-related hearing loss as just part of National’s campaign to target elderly for cost-cutting, with other examples being cuts to home support, the National Falls Prevention Strategy, and orthopaedic operations for older workers who have suffered shoulder injuries?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is very committed to providing proper support for older New Zealanders—for instance, tax changes will come into effect on 1 October, and the average superannuitant will be significantly better off with those changes. We need to look only at the biggest ever increase in elective surgery, which my colleague Tony Ryall has delivered, or at the very good work that my colleague John Carter is doing as the Minister for Senior Citizens, to realise that older New Zealanders are so much better off with the leadership from this Government.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/2/a/b/49HansQ_20100923_00000005-5-Accident-Compensation-Treatment-of-Hearing.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is it just me or is Nick Smith using the same arguement for people with hearing loss as he did with Sensitive Claims earlier in the year? They are not keeping with the intention of the Act plus how does one assert what is and isn't injury related in older people?? They are also doing a similar thing to people with orthopedic injuries. Saying they are "degenerative" and using their own "Independant Specialists" to undermine the DHB Specialists and provide an opinion that supports them denying cover.
ReplyDeleteThe whole of ACC needs a serious review. This is just CRAP and Private Specailists are getting rich of the back of ACC. If they provide favourable outcomes that suit ACC, they get more referrals from ACC and if they don't then their ACC work drys up. It's DISGUSTING!! Most get paid $1700 for an hour Consultation ($750 for a GP). They say it covers the cost of them reviewing the notes, researching and writing the report, but of course this is NO MORE than any DHB Specialist or other Private Specialist does but they get nothing like that pay for each patient. There is one area where ACC are seriously bleeding money and bleeding the health service also.
The same principles should apply here for as came out in the Sensitive Claims review. That being...
"It is well established in common law cases of causation that exclusive causation is not required to be proved, and that often a “material contribution” to the injury or a showing of “substantial cause” is sufficient to establish the causal nexus.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4222816/Sex-offender-Graham-Capill-refused-parole
ReplyDeleteI just want to bring this to your attention. It seems that Graham Capill, a convicted pedophile, is able to receive ACC funded counselling....
Since when has being a pedophile been an accident?
And in light of the review of Sensitive Claims, does this not seem hypcritical of ACC?
I am trying to make as many people aware of this as possible as I have spent years fighting ACC to get help, yet now I know what I should have done. Been a criminal. I'm digusted.
I have written to Nick Smith about this also.
Having a dangerously screwed-up perception of healthy sexual relationships (or "being a paedophile") could be one of the consequences of childhood sexual abuse. If this is part of Capill's history, he is probably entitled to ACC-funded counselling.
ReplyDeleteAs a survivor myself, I actually have no problem with that. I would like to think that he comes out a better and safer person than he went in as. Or do you think ACC should only fund the treatment of "nice" problems like long-term depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts?
Thanks for commenting, barbiegirl77 - and what an interesting take on it, anonymous! I find myself sympathetic to both points of view. I hope readers follow the link and see how they feel.
ReplyDeleteBTW, if an article, press release, Parliamentary question, etc, is about the sensitive claims clinical pathway and the subsequent review, I'll reproduce it as a post. I tend not to publish items that are only indirectly related - otherwise I'd be having to pick and choose all day! But please feel free to comment or share other information. This blog has hosted some interesting discussions so far!