12. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for ACC
Does he agree with the strategic priorities of ACC, which include “Ensuring New Zealanders have confidence in ACC”?
Does he expect that the 30-year-old man who was raped and beaten as an 8-year-old and who first approached a counsellor in March 2009, will be feeling confident, when he still does not know whether he can receive treatment funded by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
On the individual case, I am not able to give the member a response, but I would note that I am loath to interfere in clinical decisions about those who are eligible for counselling under accident compensation law. I would also note that it was, in fact, the previous Government that started the review of the sensitive claims process that has led to the changes that the member constantly raises.
Does he expect that the young woman who was raped last year and who has had to reveal her assault separately to two therapists will be feeling confident, when her case has still not been decided by ACC?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Again I would say that for a member to raise cases in the House and to expect an answer from me when I have absolutely no details about them, and when there are 1.6 million claims for accident compensation each year, is not reasonable. It shows that the member is doing nothing more than political grandstanding, rather than being genuinely concerned about the condition of the claimant.
Does the Minister think that the victims and survivors of sexual abuse have confidence that his experiment on them, which started on 27 October 2009, will be stopped after 6 months—
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders are very clear that a member is not to make incorrect assertions in questions. To assert that I am experimenting with women who have sensitive claims, or with sexual abuse claimants, is, I think, offensive, and is not required in terms of the information the member is seeking.
Mr SPEAKERI think the Minister has raised a perfectly fair point of order. This matter covers sensitive issues, and I ask members on both sides of the House to be mindful of that in their wording.
Well, the member had not been acknowledged for a point of order. I had called her for a supplementary question. If she is calling for a point of order, I will hear her point of order.
That has nothing to do with the order of the House. The member is seeking to debate an issue. The point of order raised by the Hon Nick Smith related to an assertion that the Minister was experimenting on people. That was unacceptable language. I ask the member to reword her question.
Does the Minister think that victims and survivors of sexual abuse have confidence that his new accident compensation pathway, which has been set in place for a 6-month period, will be stopped after those 6 months; and why are counsellors still waiting to see the terms of reference for the review, or will they be shut out of that, as well?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The first thing I want to make plain to the House is that decisions about sensitive claims have been made not by me as Minister, or by Cabinet, or by the Government, but by highly qualified clinical specialists, who I think should make the decisions in areas such as this. It is true that concern has been raised by some counsellors about the new pathway. As a consequence, I have said that there will be an independent clinical review of ACC’s processes for dealing with sensitive claims. It is my intention to work with ACC to ensure that the clinicians on that panel are well qualified to provide the claimants and all New Zealanders with an assurance that what ACC is doing in this area is in the best interests of those claimants.
How many sexual abuse psychotherapists, counsellors, victims, and survivors have been interviewed in respect of the 6-month review of the new accident compensation pathway, or is it simply a paper-based sham?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The policy was introduced in November. By my basic calculations, that means that the 6-month review will occur in April. The terms of reference and the review panel have not yet been determined, but I would be happy to consult members of the Opposition about both the terms of reference and the personnel, because I think all members would want to know that sensitive claimants are getting appropriate care from ACC.