Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:662;Page:10457] 
12. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Why does there need to be a review of ACC’s sensitive claims clinical pathway to determine whether or not survivors of sexual abuse are receiving timely decision making and services? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Changes were made by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to the way that it manages sensitive claims in response to new Massey University guidelines launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. I have been extremely reluctant to interfere in clinical practice issues in such a sensitive area but in response to concerns from counsellors and psychotherapists I agreed to establish an independent clinical review. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why does the Minister continue to say that he is focused on delivering to victims of sexual abuse when clinicians victims and Massey University have all repeatedly told him that the guidelines he introduced fail to deliver timely services? For example it was reported today that a 15-year-old who was raped is still waiting after 4 months. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Professional groups like the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners have issued a statement strongly in support of ACC’s pathway for dealing with sensitive claims. If the member has a particular case about which she has concerns I invite her to refer it to Dr Barbara Disley a very respected former mental health commissioner who is to lead the review. I have to say I am disappointed that the member was not interested in even being consulted on the personnel or terms of reference of the review. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What trend has there been in ACC’s acceptance rate of sensitive claims since 2000 and can the Minister confirm that 2400 claims were rejected in 2008 by the previous Government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member makes a very good point. Between 2000 and 2008 the rate of rejection of sensitive claims grew from just 5 percent to 41 percent. [ 
Interruption 
] The member Annette King is shouting out about caring. Where was she? What did she or Lynne Pillay do when 2400 sensitive claims were rejected in 2008? They were silent and that shows that this is simply about Opposition politics rather than genuinely caring for people who have been sexually— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question relates to matters that are extremely sensitive yet I think the Minister is doing his best to answer. It does not help when a Labour front-bencher is calling across the House: “You are a liar.” I think the Hon Ruth Dyson should be asked to apologise for making those comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I did not hear them I have to ask the honourable member whether she made that interjection. If she did I would ask her to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yes I did and I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that this is an issue on which people have very strong feelings and that is why I do not insist on silence. This is a place of passionate debate. I felt the Minister was handling the level of interjection pretty competently and that was why I did not interfere but that kind of interjection is unacceptable. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Was the decision to deny counselling to sexual abuse victims part of the directive from the Deputy Prime Minister Bill English to cut low-value spending and how long will it be before the Minister realises he cannot continue to cut services to people without disastrous consequences? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have made it abundantly plain to ACC that I have no expectations of any cost savings in respect of sensitive claims. I have had no involvement in the changes that have been made in this area and members opposite know that. The changes are based on Massey University’s clinical guidelines which were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. The claims from the member are simply incorrect. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why would ACC host another costly workshop advertised to be held on 7 May to explore gaps in services that have arisen because of the guidelines; and if the Minister’s own department knows there are gaps in services being provided to sexual abuse victims why does not the Minister? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This Government is determined to ensure that people entitled to receive accident compensation cover in this highly sensitive area of sexual abuse or assault receive the care they need. That is why on Monday I announced an independent clinical review. I think it speaks volumes about the member that when I offered to consult her both about the membership and the terms of reference of the review she said she was not interested. She just wants to play politics in this sensitive area. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I seek leave to table an email advertisement from the Accident Compensation Corporation about its workshop identifying gaps in services for the victims of serious assault. 
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 Phil Goff 
: How does the Minister account for the fact that in October 2008 300 victims of sexual abuse had been approved for counselling and by February this year that figure had dropped to six? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member’s numbers are quite incorrect. They are not true. I would ask that member if he wants to make politics out of something as tragic and difficult as sexual abuse and neglect— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The Minister answering the question is not answering the question. He embarked on a diatribe about my making politics of the issue. I asked a straight factual question; he should address it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did answer the question—in fact quite specifically—the minute he said the member’s figures were wrong. The Minister should not have gone on from that point because it is correct that the question was not loaded with political comment. But the Minister’s answer was that he considered that the member’s figures were wrong.