Parliament Q&A on ACC (17/08/10) & Denise Cosgrove has a Laugh

I know that Annalise has covered this already in her excellent blog The Swamp Report, with not only the text but also the video available to watch. I don't have sound on my old clunker of a laptop, but I get the daily 'Posting to Parliament Wire of Scoop' from scoop.co.nz (very handy, can just organise quite simply on their site a whole range of things to be sent to your email daily or weekly), so basically I get the daily Questions & Answers from Parliament in my email inbox within 24hrs of them sitting. It's good for me because I'm not always up to going online every day, and I believe that WE have the right AND should take advantage of that right to know exactly What Is Going On In Parliamentary Sessions.
So the below is quoted from the Scoop Q&A Email I received, it refers to number 3 of the 12 questions in the house that day, the 17 August 2010

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims and Sexual Abuse Victims

3. 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

I am posting this to allow anyone reading my blog to be able to stay informed. I know I have one very loyal 'blog supporter' (Ringonz/Chris, thanks for your comments, at the very least it's nice sometimes to know that at least one person is reading this), and I know there are others who have kindly lent their supportive comments when possible.

With regard to the above I think I am almost too tired to have an opinion, but go Annette King! Right?! As I've said before I'm not out to vilify ACC or any particular individuals but in the 're-structuring' of a kind, fair, viable and functional Unit or Service to provide the financial assistance for Survivors of Rape, Sexual Abuse and Assault, with the amount of damage that has been done over the last 10 months, the amount of (needless) pain and suffering that has been caused directly by ACC's (and not just the organisation, INDIVIDUALS who have made choices within that organisation) actions; there is going to need to be some acceptance and accountability for wounds to be soothed. Trust me, by this point, I know that just because I am saying (and am probably right) that it should happen, that it will have any chance of ACTUALLY occurring. It sounds cliche (cause it is), but What Is The World Coming To, or What Have We Come To In NZ with ALL of this.

Some of you either through twitter or not, may know I had a bit of a melt down yesterday. I was trying to go through ACC documents (I have probably about 10inchs of A4 documents) and was trying to write a 'Solution-Focused' Letter, I had written half a page and was re-reading ACC Communication to me and about me, and I decided that I would like to speak to Denise Cosgrove, just for 5 minutes, with my proposed solutions. I thought that since SHE had chosen to involve herself in my claim that by rights I could request just a couple of minutes of her time. I was very calm at this stage.
Anyway, 2 hours and many phone calls later, it was obvious that Ms Cosgrove was never going to speak to me. By this stage I had progressed far past calm to very very upset. The kick in the teeth was when I discovered after an hour or so transferred around the Sensitive Claims Unit was that Denise works in the 'Corporate Office', the number of which is on ACC's 'Contact Us By Phone Page', so I rang that number and it was answered by a woman called Natalie or something like that. I asked to speak to Denise and she said that she could put me through to Eleni Simons, PA to GM Claims Management, ACC (Denise's Assistant?), so she put me through.
At this point it was one those surreal moments, it picked up straight away and I could hear a woman speaking, but it was like when someone's mobile phone rings you from their bag and you can hear them speaking but from a distance. She obviously had no idea that I was connected there, listening to her speaking to someone. She was saying

"yeah I know, it's the second client that's tried to get through here today so I'm just not going to take any calls at all"

then there was a pause as she was listening to someone else speak I guess, and THEN I HEARD HER SAY,

"oh yeah, well I'm definitely not talking to THEM" and then she laughed.

I'm sitting on the end of the phone just wanting 2 minutes of this person's time, calm, but with tears streaming down my face, and then when I heard that I lost it. It was at that point I heard the clunking noise of a receiver being replaced and then I was cut off. Even though I was hysterically upset I phoned back, just to see if it was true what I had overheard her saying, and was told by the person answering the phone that there was no way Eleni or Denise would speak to me.

So yesterday turned out to be a write-off, a nightmare for me, I ended up letting myself down by self-harming, and in the grips of my PTSD could not see why there was any point in my life.
Today I am just holding on for a bit. I must resemble something from 'One flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest', and I might be a little nuts, but I AM NOT CRAZY.
I can't believe she laughed.