Protesters demand changes to way sexual attack survivors dealt with by ACC

An article from the New Zealand Herald

A "small but committed" group of protesters gathered outside ACC's Auckland office this afternoon calling for sexual attack survivors to qualify for ongoing taxpayer-funded counselling without a mental health illness diagnosis. Green Party MP Jan Logie led the demonstration with support from victim advocate, Louise Nicholas.
Up to 14 hours of one-on-one therapy is currently available when someone lodges a sensitive claim with ACC, along with up to 10 hours of social work support. Up to 20 hours of whanau support is also available immediately.
After these are used, ACC decides whether to approve cover for further support, should the person need it. That included victims needing to be diagnosed with a mental health injury relating to the abuse.
"Some survivors feel having to have a diagnosis puts judgment on them," Ms Logie said. "It takes them back to the the feeling that there's something wrong with them; that they're at fault.
"In other cases, survivors who need support are turned down because they don't have a diagnosis, or some don't apply for support because they think they'll be turned down."
She said a small but committed group of about 20 protesters gathered outside ACC's Auckland office at 12pm today.
"What we're asking for is incredibly simple. A counsellor can assess a survivor and whether they need help without them needing a mental health diagnosis."
The Green Party has also begun a petition which will be presented to ACC Minister Nikki Kaye.
Ms Kaye has said she believes the system is supportive of survivors but she will meet with providers to discuss possible changes to the scheme. That would include looking at different ways to assess mental harm to victims.
Ms Kaye said a "mental injury diagnosis" could be provided by any ACC registered and appropriately qualified assessor, which in many cases is the client's counsellor.
Changes were made in 2009 to the way support was accessed through ACC by sexual violence survivors, bringing in the requirement for a mental injury diagnosis in order to access help. After a 2010 review of the scheme and consultation with those working in the sector, further changes were made so survivors could have immediate access to support.

© 2016 NZME Publishing Ltd

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11647644

ACC Minister must help sexual violence survivors

A press release from the Green Party by Jan Logie

The Green Party is calling on ACC Minister Nikki Kaye to remove the obligation for sexual violence survivors to be diagnosed with a mental illness before being allowed additional ACC-funded counselling.
Green Party MP Jan Logie and survivor advocate Louise Nicholas today launched a new campaign and petition to demand that survivors don’t need a mental illness diagnosis in order to have their sensitive claims proceed.
“Being the victim of sexual violence is not a mental illness,” Ms Logie said.
“Being subjected to sexual violence is trauma enough. Being a victim of sexual violence on its own should qualify survivors for the help they need.
“It’s great to hear the Minister Nikki Kaye say she’s open to a better way of helping the survivors of sexual violence. Removing the obligation for them to be diagnosed with a mental illness is an appropriate start.”
The petition is available here: http://action.greens.org.nz/remove_the_barriers
Under current ACC practice, in order for survivors of sexual violence to have their ACC sensitive claim approved, they must be diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. Up to 16 hours of one-on-one therapy is initially available when someone lodges a sensitive claim with ACC, however accessing help after that requires a diagnosis.
“In many cases this labelling of sexual violence survivors can be re-traumatising and stigmatising, and is a significant deterrent for those who need treatment.
“ACC needs to change its processes so that people are able to access the help that they need,” Ms Logie said.

More information is available here http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qwa/QWA_03866_2016/3866-2016-jan-logie-to-the-minister-for-acc

© 2016 The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/acc-minister-must-help-sexual-violence-survivors

Question to Minister: ACC

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

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

The poison chalice

A blog entry from Off The Couch by Kyle MacDonald

I’m pretty optimistic by nature, so forgive my spin on this one. Maybe it’s also just my need to feel like we are actually making a difference. But I honestly believe we are.
It seems ACC are unable to find a “reviewer” for the new clinical pathway. Rumours are two have been approached, and turned it down flat. So how is this a victory? First some background.

Read the rest of this entry at http://www.psychotherapy.org.nz/index.php?page=blog

Women's rights slipping in New Zealand

A blog entry from E2NZ

On International Women’s Day we thought we’d do a round up of just three issues that impact on women in present day New Zealand and look to see what progress, if any, is being made with them. What we found is that women’s affairs are going backwards ...

Read the rest of this entry at http://emigratetonewzealand.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/womens-rights-slipping-in-new-zealand/

ACC Minister Defends “Rapist’s Charter”

Press release from Kyle MacDonald

As the author of the petition submitted to parliament on the 27th October, signed by nearly four thousand people opposed to the new clinical pathway for sensitive claims, I am greatly concerned about the Ministers ongoing defence of a clinical pathway seen by providers of sensitive claims to be unethical and a “rapist’s charter.”
In a letter thanking me for the petition, dated the 11th of December, the Hon. Nick Smith defends this new pathway as follows:
“The Corporation's decision to review its guidelines is driven, not by funding, but by the implementation of best practice for managing clients with a mental injury. This process began in 2008 with the Massey Guidelines… ... After consultation with providers, ACC issued its revised Clinical Framework in July 2009, and held a new series of workshops.”
The minister is yet to explain how it is that ACC have stated publicly “that it is ACC policy to reduce the number of Sensitive Claims” despite his assertion these changes are not driven by funding.
The minister is also yet to answer the concerns of experienced providers. A recent survey showed that: less than 10% intend to continue to provide counselling services under this new pathway and 83% disagree or strongly disagree with the compulsory use of the DSM-IV under this new pathway.
How does this government continue to contend that these decisions will be made by “clinicians not politicians” when clinicians continue to be vehemently opposed?
The minister is failing in his duty to protect the New Zealand public and monitor the activities of ACC. Recent figures show a 57% reduction in claims accepted since the introduction of the new pathway, when compared to last year.
What does the Minister say to those victims of childhood sexual abuse who have dutifully paid taxes and their ACC levies who will now suffer without care, unable to access funded counselling, unable to afford private care and unable to access mental health services?
Six months is too long to wait for a review when lives are at stake. I implore the minister to urgently review the current situation within the sensitive claims unit before lives are lost.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0912/S00227.htm

ACC protest delivers 4000 signatures to Parliament

An article from the Press

Opponents of ACC's new guidelines for dealing with sensitive claims have delivered a petition with 4000 signatures to Parliament in Wellington.
Petition organisers said half of the signatures came from clinical professionals.
ACC Minister Nick Smith was unavailable to meet the petition's organiser, psychotherapist Kyle MacDonald, at yesterday's rally. However, Smith sent list MPs Michael Woodhouse and Nicky Wagner to receive the petition.
MacDonald said the number of professionals who had signed the petition sent a clear message to Parliament that the guidelines were wrong.
"It should be clinicians, not politicians, directing these guidelines, but an overwhelming number of people who signed it are professionals," he said.
Wagner said it seemed strange that so many clinicians had signed the petition when the Government had undertaken more than four years of consultation with professionals before announcing the guidelines, which came into force yesterday.
Labour leader Phil Goff, who met the rally, said the protesters had his party's full support.
Labour list MP Lynne Pillay said collecting 4000 signatures in under six weeks was "incredible", and called on the Government to halt the guidelines.
Opponents are concerned that the new guidelines will reduce access to counselling for sexual abuse victims and discourage them from seeking treatment.
Smith announced yesterday that the guidelines would be reviewed after six months.

© 2009 Fairfax New Zealand Limited
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3004438/ACC-protest-delivers-4000-signatures-to-Parliament

Implementation of ACC guidelines should stop

Press release from the New Zealand Labour Party

ACC Minister Nick Smith should admit he got it wrong on cutbacks to counselling for sexual abuse victims and scrap their implementation, says Labour’s Victims Rights Spokesperson Lynne Pillay.
“Nick Smith has today announced a clinical review of the new process, but not for six months.
“A review in six months will force victims to take part in a cruel experiment in cost cutting that will re-victimise those who have already suffered enough,“ Lynne Pillay said.
“What Nick Smith should do is admit the new process is not in the best interests of victims and scrap its implementation,” Lynne Pillay said.
“Clinicians, counsellors and victims have all said the new guidelines will potentially harm victims of sexual abuse, so why is the Minister refusing to do anything for six months?
“The current guidelines should remain in place.
“Nick Smith has conducted a shoddy and shambolic campaign of misinformation about counselling for sexual abuse victims that has caused considerable distress to people who have already suffered significantly.
“Today a petition signed by around 4000 victims, clinicians, counsellors and members of the public was delivered to Parliament asking the Minister to halt his decision to introduce cuts to counselling services.
“Unfortunately neither Minister for ACC Nick Smith or his Associate Pansy Wong could make the time to hear from those directly affected by the changes the National Government is introducing.
“I urge the Minister to start listening to clinicians today, he doesn’t need to wait six months,” Lynne Pillay said.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0910/S00400.htm

Presentation of Petition to Parliament:Delay implementation of any changes to the Sensitive Claims Scheme

Press release from Kyle MacDonald, NZAP

Over the course of the last six weeks nearly four thousand concerned professionals, clients and members of the general public have signed the online petition : Urgent Action: Delay implementation of any changes to the Sensitive Claims Scheme hosted at http://www.petitiononlinecom/ACC0909/ which asks ACC and the Minister for ACC the Hon. Dr. Nick Smith to delay implementation of the new treatment pathway until adequate consultation can take place.
Despite this ACC has continued to push for implementation of a new pathway which focuses on short treatment, limits treatment to sixteen sessions, and requires a mandatory diagnosis of a DSM-IV mental illness.
ACC claim to have allowed adequate time for consultation on this matter; they have not. ACC claim to have followed a recent research report “The Massey Guidelines” to develop best practice treatment; they have not.
Clients will still be required to see more than one treatment provider before treatment is approved unless they see an “appropriately trained clinician” which excludes counsellors, social workers and many psychotherapists; professions that have competently provided treatment to this vulnerable client group for many years.
Tomorrow, Tuesday the 27th of October a rally has been organized on the Parliamentary Forecourt at Parliament Buildings to present the Hon. Dr. Nick Smith with the petition. The National government and ACC must be held to account.
Throughout this process the Minister has repeatedly said that this decision will be made “by clinicians, not politicians” yet the pathway is not supported by the professional bodies, or individual clinicians who provide this treatment, and this petition reflects that. We invite the Minister to hear what clinicians really think of this proposed change by ACC.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0910/S00376.htm