Discrimination against Maori women

Press release from NCWNZ

More information about the ACC Sensitive Claims clinical pathway is coming to light, says the National Council of Women of New Zealand (NCWNZ); this information suggests not only discrimination on the basis of gender, but also on race.
According to ACC, Maori are more likely to be a client for ACC subsidised counselling. Women over all make up 82% of the claimants; and while it is known that Maori women are heavily represented in this percentage, ACC is currently unable to confirm what the actual ethnicity breakdown is.
“The SC clinical pathway was implemented in advance of ACC establishing what, or which kaupapa Maori treatment plans will be utilised,” said Elizabeth Bang, NCW National President. “Best practise would have set Maori women’s treatment needs as the first priority, given they are the majority population at risk.”
Hui that have been promised by ACC and the Minister of ACC to resolve this highly significant problem have been cancelled. It is not clear whether future Hui will include Maori providers and their representatives working at the coal-face, being invited to the consultation table.
“Some Maori counsellors are feeling particularly frustrated, as they have young Maori women arriving at their doors, wanting to access ACC subsidised counselling; but no guarantees can be made to these young women that the counsellor sitting opposite them will be on the ACC recommended treatment providers list,” says Elizabeth Bang. “These women are leaving in tears. The Maori providers have tried to open the lines of communication with both the Minister’s office and ACC, but no progress eventuates.”
The SC clinical pathway breaches the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:
Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Whether a particular action or policy discriminates is judged by its effects.
In seeking to determine whether an action has an effect contrary to the Convention, it will look to see whether that action has an unjustifiable disparate impact upon a group distinguished by race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.
“Since Maori women are more likely to be affected by the changes to ACC, why are they the last to be consulted” questions Elizabeth Bang.
Information received from ACC suggests that they have now identified areas of importance where ACC will further develop advice or parts of the pathway. These include assessment of children and adolescents, counselling using kaupapa Maori models, clients in prison, clients who have alcohol and other drug dependencies, clients with intellectual disability.
“This ship is already sailing and we have no idea have ACC is currently processing claims from Maori women. Are they being held on to till ACC makes a decision on kaupapa Maori models, and when exactly will that be happening?” concluded Elizabeth Bang.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0912/S00091.htm

Revving it up for sensitive claims

Press release from NCWNZ

The National Council of Women of New Zealand (NCWNZ) is heartened by the support being offered by some members of the motorcycling community who are likewise opposed to the insensitive changes to the ACC clinical pathway for female and male victims of sex crimes.
“We have been receiving feedback from supporters, such as ‘most decent human beings cringe at this and fully support your cause’ and, ‘any cost savings should not target these vulnerable victims, levies on sex offenders would be far preferable’. This demonstrates to us that this issue is by no means bound by one sector,” says Elizabeth Bang, NCWNZ National President, “rather, it grates at the core for a diverse range of people.”
The National Council of Women is also listening to the position taken by the motorcyclists.
“It is pretty clear cut to us that Government cannot impose increased levies and take away the rights of the motorcycling community,” says Elizabeth Bang. “The moves against them are discriminatory and by all accounts not justified statistically.”
The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill, which is currently before the Select committee, if signed off on, will unfairly exploit the community.
NCWNZ believes that the changes to ACC are in conflict with the governments obligations under CEDAW (Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women). Women who are seeking ACC subsidised counselling for experiencing trauma as a result of a sex crime are being discriminated against through policy that removes access to appropriate assessment and treatment.
“When considering the IPRC Amendment Bill, the scenario is one of ‘damned if you do’ and even ‘more damned if you don’t’,” says Elizabeth Bang. “The proposed increases in levies for employers, employees and car owners will be significantly and substantially increased if this legislation does not get accepted by Parliament.”
NCWNZ believes that the community is increasingly concerned that the political agenda is manoeuvring ACC to become a more saleable commodity. For the last 23 years, NCWNZ has been in opposition to the privatisation of publicly-owned assets; to date this has included the postal system, the roading system, energy and water systems.
“Groups such as the motorcyclists, the National Foundation for the Deaf, the Mental Health Foundation, NZ Association of Counsellors, ACC Coalition and many others are all voicing their concerns. But through this diversity of interests, all share one mutual concern, ACC,” concluded Elizabeth Bang.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0911/S00220.htm

ACC should continue funding of sexual abuse help-line

Press release from Access Support Services

It has been reported ACC intends discontinuing its funding for the Auckland sexual abuse help-line. The reason ACC has given is that it is outside its legislative responsibility.
Access Support Services considers ACC has a clear responsibility to fund such initiatives. One of the expressed purposes of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 is “establishing as a primary function of the Corporation the promotion of measures to reduce the incidence and severity of personal injury” (ref: Section 3 of the IPRCA 2001).
Personal injury caused by sexual abuse are some of the most complex and difficult treat injury claims Access Support Services deals with and usually comes at a significant cost to ACC by way of administration and providing entitlements, such as lump sum compensation, treatment and weekly compensation. “ACC should be doing more in this area, not less,” says Mr Wadsworth, Principal of Access Support Services.
“It is extremely disappointing the people at ACC’s Corporate Head Office cannot see the woods for the trees,” Mr Wadsworth said. “I will be looking into this matter further. In the meantime, we call upon Dr Smith and the ACC Board to take the necessary action to ensure ACC is meeting its responsibilities under the legislation.”

http://www.accesssupport.co.nz/press-release-27may09.html

When ACC became a welfare agency

A column from the Dominion Post by Karl Du Fresne

Much has been said about the blowout in ACC spending that resulted when the Labour government extended coverage to include medical misadventure and free physiotherapy.
But anyone seeking to identify the point when ACC strayed from being an insurer to a welfare agency should go back to the 1980s, when it began subsidising the sexual-abuse counselling industry.
In 1988, ACC accepted 221 claims for sexual abuse or, more precisely, mental illness arising from alleged abuse at a cost of $1.9 million. By 2004, claims were running at an average of 5000 a year and annual costs had risen to more than $27 million.
One claimant got more than $150,000 in backdated compensation and several were being paid more than $60,000 a year in weekly compensation payments based on their earnings before their "injury" was diagnosed.
No doubt many claims were legitimate but 5000 a year? And was compensation for alleged sexual abuse ever envisaged by the architects of the scheme?
No corroboration of the alleged abuse was required, other than a supporting statement from an ACC-registered counsellor. There was no requirement that the supposed victim lay a complaint with the police, still less obtain a conviction. The alleged abuser didn't even have to be identified.
In many cases the alleged abuse was far in the past, raising suspicions about "recovered memory" syndrome.
This was a tidy little racket that benefited both the claimants and the burgeoning counselling industry, which pocketed generous fees from ACC for two-hour assessment sessions which invariably resulted in the counsellor confirming that sexual abuse had taken place. Acceptance of a claim usually led to further counselling sessions, thus ensuring a steady income stream for the therapists.
"Counselling" was a rubber-stamp process similar to the charade women go through when seeking a state-funded abortion.
The Bolger government curbed the worst excesses of the scheme in 1992 by stopping lump-sum payouts, but otherwise the rort continued. I remember questioning the then ACC minister, Bill Birch, about the potential for bogus claims and being fobbed off with bland non-replies.
One of the few politicians with the guts to speak out was ACT MP Heather Roy, who in 2004 compared sexual-abuse payouts with Lotto prizes. By then Labour had reinstated lump-sum compensation, which predictably led to a quadrupling of costs.
At the same time ACC funded a $600,000 study of the mental effects of sexual abuse a nice gravy train for Labour-voting academics and spent $200,000 bailing out an Auckland counselling service that was about to fall over. Whoever said New Zealand governments had given up subsidising industries?
Interestingly enough, an Auckland survey of women being counselled for sexual abuse found that 30 per cent had undergone 100 or more ACC-funded sessions of therapy. Despite that, many expressed disappointment that they were not getting enough.
This confirms that in a grievance-obsessed culture, there can never be enough nannying.

© 2010 Fairfax New Zealand Limited
http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/columnists/2269246/When-ACC-became-a-welfare-agency

GPs welcome evidence-based care guidelines

Press release from the Royal NZ College of General Practitioners

The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners has welcomed moves by ACC to follow evidence-based care guidelines for sensitive claims clients.
College president, Dr Harry Pert, said the new guidelines will ensure patients receive best practice care that has been proven to deliver optimum results.
“The team approach has been proven to be the most effective in cases of mild to moderate mental injury.” Dr Pert said.
“Recent pilot programmes have shown that very good results come from doctors working together with counsellors, psychologists and others.”
“ACC’s practice guidelines for sexual abuse and mental injury will strengthen these results still further. All the clinical evidence suggests the new approach ACC is adopting will be in the best interests of the patient,” Dr Pert said.
“By working with psychologists early on, GPs, counsellors and others will be able to provide the best and most focussed care possible.”
ACC’s new treatment framework is in line with the recommendations of the Massey guidelines for the assessment and treatment of mental injury as a result of sexual assault and sexual abuse.
Published in 2008, the Massey guidelines outline a clear, evidence-based approach for the most effective treatment and rehabilitation of people who have suffered sexual abuse.
“The provision of safe, quality treatment and care that suits patients’ needs and provides them with the very best health outcomes, is a major goal of the College. It is very pleasing to know that ACC’s new approach is based on extensive research and clinical evidence,” Dr Pert said.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0911/S00005.htm