$1.4m funding boost for campus sexual violence prevention

An article from The Wireless by Susan Strongman

ACC will spend $1.4 million over the next four years to help prevent campus sexual violence, in a move that aims to help change the culture around sexual violence and consent in New Zealand.
The money will go towards implementing a three-year action plan for preventing and responding to sexual violence within tertiary communities.
The action plan was announced today by New Zealand Union of Students Associations (NZUSA) director Alistair Shaw.
It includes reviews of tertiary education institutions’ policies on sexual harassment and sexual violence prevention; enhancing reporting systems and support for students; and training and education programmes for residential assistants, staff, and students.
ACC’s violence injury prevention portfolio manager Mike McCarthy said 22 percent of ACC’s sensitive claims in the 2016/17 financial year were from those aged 18-24. A sensitive claim is for mental or physical injuries such as those caused by sexually violent acts. Last year ACC paid out $103 million on treatment and entitlements on sensitive claims, McCarthy said.
“Our goal is to support young adults so they can experience safe, healthy and respectful relationships.
“We see this partnership as a great opportunity for ACC to work with NZUSA and tertiary institutions. Sexual violence and consent is a wider issue for New Zealand. Changing the culture around it is challenging for all of us.”
The announcement was made at today’s launch of the In Our Own Words report, which looks at at the experiences of tertiary students with sexual violence, education, harassment, institutional support services and reporting pathways, ableism, racism and LGBTQIA+ discrimination.
The report was penned by Thursdays in Black National Coordinator Izzy O’Neill and findings were based on responses received by more than 1400 students.
According to the report, more than 80 per cent of those who answered the question said that they thought sexual violence in student communities was a problem. 53 percent of respondents said they had experienced some form of sexual assault themselves and 49 percent of respondents suspected that a friend had been sexually assaulted.
These numbers are strikingly similar to the results of a survey of psychology students at the University of Auckland in 1991 by Nicola Gavey, which found 52 percent of women had experienced some form of sexual victimisation.
“In Our Own Words confirms that sexual violence does occur in tertiary and student communities. Now, something must be done about it,” O’Neill said.
Read the full report here.

© 2017 Radio New Zealand

http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/1-4m-funding-boost-for-campus-sexual-violence-prevention

Making a difference in sexual violence prevention

A press release by ACC

A new web based tool has been developed to evaluate sexual violence prevention practice. Developed by ACC, the Making a Difference: Sexual Violence Primary Prevention Toolkit will enable providers of sexual violence prevention activities to measure increases in knowledge, shifts in attitudes and changes in behaviour.
ACC’s Injury Prevention Portfolio Manager – Violence, Mike McCarthy, says the new tool will help agencies focus on primary prevention which is evidence-based, promotes behaviour change and guides funding decisions towards best practise activities.
“Current evaluation of sexual violence prevention is inconsistent and limited to measuring how much participants enjoyed a programme rather than what they got out of it and whether it changed their attitudes and behaviour.”
The development of the Toolkit aligns with ACC’s role as coordinator of the Government‘s response to sexual violence primary prevention activity. It is also an integral part of ACC’s suite of injury prevention initiatives to reduce the incidence of injury and, in this case, harm from sexual violence.
“Our goal is to support children, aged 25 and under, to experience safe, healthy and respectful relationships. As part of our violence prevention initiatives, we want to improve the ability to evaluate sexual violence prevention activities in New Zealand.”
Mr McCarthy says, “If we can stop sexual violence happening in the first place, we won’t need to deal with the consequences of the serious harm sexual violence causes.”
Sexual violence is one of the most costly crimes to individuals and society, with Treasury estimating it costs the New Zealand economy $1.2 billion each year. In the 2015/16 financial year ACC paid over $83 million on over 20,000 sensitive claims, an increase of 31 percent on the previous year. The average cost of sensitive claims increased by 17 percent between 2015 and 2016.
The Toolkit will assist in ensuring sexual violence prevention activity is focused on behaviour change and that funding across government agencies, including ACC, can be targeted towards effective programmes.
The Toolkit will ensure greater consistency in the evaluation of projects across government and community agencies and provide invaluable insights into what works in sexual violence prevention, says Mike McCarthy.

http://www.acc.co.nz/news/WPC139402

The inadequate response to sexual violence prevention

An article from Scoop by Gordon Campbell

On combatting sexual violence, the government has finally begun to undo some of the problems that were of its own making. Early in March, ACC launched the Integrated Services for Sensitive Claims scheme – a package aimed at improving the attitudes of ACC staff towards sexual violence victims, and offering them more substantive support. Hopefully, this will help to reverse the damage done with the insensitive, punitive ACC policy put in place by the incoming Key government in 2009, which in some parts of New Zealand, saw 90 per cent of sexual violence victims being turned away by ACC.
As well as this new support scheme, ACC is also increasing its annual funding of sexual violence prevention education, from a paltry $1 million to $4 million, a figure still seen as inadequate by experienced workers in the field.
In addition, Justice Minister Amy Adams has invited the Law Commission to revisit its work on possible changes to the pre-trial and courtroom procedures faced by sexual complainants. The Police however, continue to be one of the glaring problem areas. The report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority into the Police handling of the so called “Roastbusters” group in Auckland not only disagreed with the Police rationale for not initiating a prosecution under the Crimes Act – ultimately, the Police decided that a prosecution would not be in the public interest, given the young age of some of the offenders. It was a stance that completely ignored the even younger age of some of the victims.
The IPCA also faulted (as being inadequate to non-existent) the Police contact with the young men and their families. Arguably, not only was justice for the victims ill-served by the Police decision not to prosecute, but the deterrent/prevention aspect was completely neglected. In the words of the IPCA report, the Police “overlooked the importance of holding the young men accountable for their behavior, and preventing its recurrence.”
The conspicuous failure by Police over the Roastbusters incidents came despite the findings by the 2007 Commission of Inquiry into Police conduct (that had been initiated by the complaints made by Louise Nicholas). This inquiry had revealed a culture of misogyny and aberrant behaviour rife among the Police, at high levels of the Police hierarchy. So, unless the government is prepared to put some heat on the Police over its handling of sexual violence between adolescents and adults – and the subject was conspicuously absent from the Briefing to the Incoming Minister of Police in 2014 – then the concerns about sexual violence being expressed in Parliament this week will ring hollow.
Even the possible changes to pre-trial and courtroom treatment will not address the issue of prevention. As the initial Law Commission issues paper on those proposals pointed out, the approach being assessed “ does nothing to address the attitudes that led to the offending, and it accordingly fails to reduce the risk that the behaviour will recur.” It may seem both incredible and yet somehow unsurprising that – so long as some of the next America’s Cup racing is held in Auckland - the government would spend ten times the amount on that regatta than what ACC is currently putting into sexual violence prevention education.

© 2015 Scoop Media

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1504/S00002/gordon-campbell-the-inadequate-response-to-sexual-violence.htm

Question to Minister

9. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for ACC: Is she satisfied that just 54 percent of the public expressed trust and confidence in ACC according to the corporation’s 2014 Annual Report?



Hon Nikki Kaye (Minister for ACC): No, I believe that ACC needs to do more to rebuild trust and confidence with New Zealanders. I am confident that ACC has a significant programme of work under way to achieve this. I am also pleased that the annual report shows trust and confidence has been trending upwards for the past few years.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Did former Minister Judith Collins damage public trust and confidence in ACC when she admitted that every New Zealander is paying too much for ACC because the Government is using excessive levies to create the perception that it will achieve a fiscal surplus in the current financial year?

Hon Nikki Kaye: Well, firstly, I disagree with the statement made in that question. But what I can say in terms of levies is that under our Government we have announced $480 million in levy reductions. That is incredibly significant, and it is a bit rich to get a lecture after the previous Labour Government left us with a huge deficit in 2008-09 of $4.8 billion.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I am going to seek leave to table a media statement, but that is because the Minister refuted the premise of my question—

Mr Speaker: Order! Members need to understand that the purpose of tabling a document is not to make a political point.

Iain Lees-Galloway: The purpose is not to make a political point.

Mr Speaker: Well, I think that in the way it has been described to me, it is very much about making a political point. The reason people seek leave to table documents is that it is information that is not readily available to members, may be difficult to source for members, and may be informative to members. If it is something that has been in the media, particularly media that is freely available to members, I do not intend to start putting the leave.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a ruling that you made—it was either earlier this week or last week—you referred us to a Speaker’s ruling that requires any statements made in a question to be authenticated, so if there is any factual material in a question, it needs to be authenticated. If a member is not able to table a document to authenticate that claim, what is the appropriate way for them to authenticate any claim that they might be making in a question?

Mr Speaker: The member, I think, is confused between a primary question and a supplementary question. The authentication is required for a primary question, and that is required in the process when it is lodged to the Clerk’s Office, and they will be accepted with authentication. With regard to supplementary questions, I have to judge relatively immediately whether it is a reasonable question, and I do that, but it is not as if there is an ability to then table information that substantiates the authentication of a supplementary question. So in this case, the primary question was authenticated, it was immediately answered in the very first word by the Minister, and we have now moved to a supplementary question. The way forward, as I continue to advise the House, is further incisive supplementary questions.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does the Minister accept—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: World weary—he’s not happy. That’s a big sigh.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Are you all right? Does the Minister accept that over the 6 years that National has been in Government, New Zealanders have overwhelmingly come to perceive ACC as difficult to deal with, likely to breach their privacy, likely to litigate against claimants, and overcharging them for the privilege; if not, why not?

Hon Nikki Kaye: No, I do not accept all of the statements made by that member. What I can say is what I have said in answer to the primary question: there is more work to do. Obviously, by a percentage that shows 54 percent public confidence, we have to do better. Let me outline some of the progress that we have made. Firstly, you can see at an investment level that ACC is now essentially fully funded. That is an extraordinary achievement for this Government, given that we were left in a situation of a debt of $4.8 billion in terms of deficit. Secondly, at an organisational level it is very clear—and I am meeting with the board tomorrow—that it has a huge programme around both updating information and communication technology systems to ensure that we have better progress around issues like privacy but also that a huge amount is being done in terms of claims management. I am confident that ACC is on the right track.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Will this morning’s article in the New Zealand Herald damage public trust and confidence in ACC, given that it detailed an attempt to cover up information about fraudulent activity, that the cover-up itself was bungled, that when pressed about the extent of fraud, ACC could only say that the information it used was not robust, and that an accurate figure for the level of fraud has not been provided?

Hon Nikki Kaye: In terms of the article in the New Zealand Herald, I do not believe that it will actually damage public trust, because you need to understand that the data is—and I want to outline why, for a number of reasons—11-year-old data. The data was from 2,000 clients, and that is out of a total of about a billion claims. So, firstly, it was a very small sample. I also understand that the figure that was quoted of 8 percent to 10 percent was not the proportion that was fraudulent; it was the proportion that needed another look. So it is old data, it is a small sample, and it is ropey.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Given that the Minister is not satisfied with the level of public trust and confidence in ACC, does she believe that the two initiatives to address public trust and confidence listed in the service agreements between ACC and former Minister Collins, which are “refresh our communications strategy” and “social media”, will be enough to improve confidence in ACC, or does she think it might take something a little bit less superficial than that?

Hon Nikki Kaye: In terms of the corporation’s programme to improve public confidence, there is a range of initiatives. There is a range of initiatives. The member is referring to a different document. He is not referring to the annual report. If he reads the annual report, he will see that not only is there a significant investment plan in terms of dealing with the privacy issues, and not only is the ACC doing a huge amount around sensitive claims, which is very important, but, thirdly, the Government is looking at the long-term funding policy. When he drills down, when he does the work and reads the annual report, he will see that one of the areas where we do need to improve public confidence is around businesses’ interaction with the ACC. There is a huge amount to do in terms of that administration side because that is where the public confidence is partly very low.

Marama Fox:

    [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

    [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Hon Nikki Kaye: Just in terms of the translation of that question, I got only half of it, I think—

Mr Speaker: I invite Marama Fox to either repeat it in Te Reo, or, if she wants to, she can now repeat the question in English—whichever she would rather do.

Marama Fox: Perhaps I will repeat it in English. How is the Minister planning to address the projected 10 percent increase in new sensitive claims each year, and what plans does she have in place to involve whānau in the recovery process?

Hon Nikki Kaye: That is a very good question. Firstly, one area where the Government is very focused, and also the corporation is very focused, is the prevention of sexual violence. We have a strategy and an action plan around that, and they involve a number of Government agencies. The second thing I would say is I am advised that ACC is currently in the final stages of tendering for new suppliers and providers around some of those sensitive claims. That is very important so that we have more providers. Thirdly, with regard to family and whānau support, I am pleased to confirm that family and whānau of sensitive claims clients will receive support through the introduction of up to 20 hours of family and whanau support, depending on family need. I can confirm that this will be available by the end of the year.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Can I just ask the Minister with respect to the question, because I was not listening to the translation, for further information, just in case other members, Māori members, use Te Reo and we have to switch into English, which defeats the purpose. Was the issue that the Minister did not get a good translation, that the Minister did not get a translation, or that the translation was unclear—just for the purposes of—

Mr Speaker: I am sure I can answer that on behalf of the Minister. The Minister did not manage to realise it was going to be in Māori. She did not grab the headpiece in time to listen to the translation, so she picked up the latter part of the—[Interruption] I will let the Minister explain her own reasoning.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: No, I am going to hear from the Hon Nikki Kaye first so we will get an explanation.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I was listening, and I heard only half, I think, of what the translation was, and other members may be able to confirm that.

Chris Hipkins: I am happy to speak to this, because I also was listening to the translation, and the translation bore very little correlation to the question that was then asked in English. This is quite a serious issue for the House, because we previously had a situation where questions were asked first in Te Reo Māori and then in English, and we moved to a system where we had simultaneous translation. If that translation is not going to actually translate what is asked, then we are going to have to reassess that. I listened very carefully to the translation. I can fully understand why the Minister did not understand what the question was. I did not understand what the question was either.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. I appreciate that. When I finally got my headpiece on, again, I found much the same as the member Chris Hipkins has said. We need to now investigate whether it was an issue to do with the translation, because it is critical, if we are going to rely on the translator, that we have an accurate interpretation of the question that is asked. Otherwise, it could lead to all sorts of difficulties for a Minister. I will look into the matter.