I've reproduced below Eric Medcalf's speech because I think it's an important read for those concerned about the impact the new ACC approach to "sensitive claims" will have. I hope he's ok with that, I got it from Scoop.
In a speech to a public meeting on ACC changes in Wellington on Tuesday 30th November Eric Medcalf, Psychotherapist and Counsellor. Ethics Convenor of the NZ Association of Counsellors and Council Member of the NZ Association of Psychotherapists slammed the changes to ACC’s policies on claims for treatment for injuries relating to sex crimes.
“Sexual Abuse in New Zealand is a Scandal.; ACC pulling back on services for Survivors is a scandal; They say it’s because of the law – that’s a SHAM; They say it’s because of scientific evidence – that’s a SHAM
“It’s about cutting costs and bullying the vulnerable
“Dr Smith has said publicly that the government has no plans to change ACC services to victims of sex crimes – yet the corporation for which he has overall responsibility has stated publicly that it is its policy to reduce the number of sensitive claims.
“It would be wonderful if this were through a concerted campaign of prevention, which is ACC’s statutory obligation.
“There is an urgent need for the implementation of programmes for the primary prevention of child sexual abuse, and the provision of support and treatment for women who have experienced child sexual abuse……..” says Dr Janet Fanslow of the Auckland University Faculty of Medical Sciences.
“But the facts are that ACC is doing this through policies in which it has made it much more difficult for victims of sex crimes to gain the support they need. This will have repercussions for the health of New Zealand.
“The effects of sexual abuse are well known in relation to individuals, but individuals are also members of families, workplaces, social and community groups. Untreated psychological trauma has its consequences. It’s not surprising then that sexual abuse histories are over-represented in prison and mental hospital populations, that we get bullying in workplaces, family breakdowns, community violence and vandalism.
“Some facts about sexual abuse in New Zealand
“A study by the University of Auckland indicates that about one in four New Zealand women have been victims of child sexual abuse before the age of 15
“In the majority of cases one perpetrator was involved, usually a male family member, and around half of the women had experienced the abuse on more than one occasion. The average age of the victim at the start of the abuse was nine years old, with the average age of the abuser being 30
488,792 New Zealand women have been subject to childhood sexual abuse.
• “Researchers think that 1 in every 4 girls will be molested before her sixteenth birthday. One out of every 9 boys will be molested”.
The Sexual Abuse of Children – Facts you should know – Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand pamphlet.
4-10% children physically abused
11-20% children are sexually abused
New Zealand Children’s Social Health Monitor 2009
Some information about the ways that ACC works.
ACC is built upon the Woodhouse Committee of 1967 it is a “no fault” system based on five basic principles:
• Community Responsibility
• Comprehensive Entitlement
• Complete Rehabilitation
• Real Compensation, and
• Administrative Efficiency
(A lot of good came out of 1967, not just Sergeant Pepper, Jim Hendrix and the Cream).
To make a claim there has to be an accident and an injury – if you have an accident and no injury then ACC will not be interested. If you have an injury, but no accident then likewise.
In the case of sexual abuse and assault Parliament has made it possible for victims of sex crimes to able to gain treatment and rehabilitation on the basis that the crime constitutes the “accident”, as long as there is also a mental injury. Since this has been the case victims of sex crimes have been able to make claims on the basis that they have described what happened to them and have been assessed by a professional counsellor, psychologist or psychotherapist as having a “a clinically significant behavioural, cognitive or psychological dysfunction”. This would have been an assessment of impairment, not illness; observable ways in which a person’s ordinary functioning is significantly impaired by the psychological consequences of abuse.
ACC Services for survivors of Sexual Crimes have been the jewel in the crown of ACC. Since the inclusion of sexual abuse crimes in the early 1980s many thousands of survivors of sexual abuse have received ACC-funded treatment and rehabilitation. This service epitomises the Woodhouse principle that the ACC scheme is not just about insurance, it is also a arm of social welfare policy, with the good of New Zealanders at its heart.
We are now in a climate of cost cutting in the public sector and of turning ACC from an arm of health and welfare policy to an American-style managed care insurance company. This will have implications across the board for New Zealanders. In the US kids no longer play American Football because the health insurers demand so much in premiums. What will that mean for New Zealand kids sporting activities?
ACC are reducing Sensitive Claims by making it more difficult for survivors of sexual crimes to make a claims.
ACC are:
• Insisting on a full psychiatric diagnosis – citing a legal judgement which, they say, obliges them to do this.
A diagnosis is a clinical tool to be used carefully and safely. It is not a legal test. This must be questioned by the lawyers and the law makers.
Very few people will be available to make this diagnosis. To do this properly requires not only training in diagnostic procedures but also significant experience in sexual abuse treatment. This shortage will make it very difficult for survivors to gain access to these assessments, if they are not put off in advance by the coercion to comply – a direct parallel of the reality of sexual abuse.
• Reducing the treatment hours, citing research from Massey University in support. But the research does not support this – ACC are misusing and misquoting scientific evidence to suit their cost cutting purposes. Massey University have distanced themselves from ACC’s claims and it is noticeable that ACC are no longer making reference to this $800,000 research study – it no longer suits their agenda.
• Promoting and/or allowing administrative delays and inconsistencies. Claimants and treatment providers get confused messages about what they are supposed to do.
• Declining claims on spurious grounds, some examples are:
- “Claimant came from a “dysfunctional family” (you don’t say)
- “Claimant was a psychiatric patient and was raped by another patient, therefore was “already mentally ill”.”
- “Claimant didn’t have a GP therefore no GP notes available so claim declined”
- “One client, recently applied for ACC, has completed initial sessions but is now likely to pull out – she is extremely afraid of being given a diagnosis and what this will mean for her future employment, mortgage, insurance, etc, prospects. She is also angry that she may need to tell her story again to someone else within a few months.”
- “My client received several pages of questions from an ACC Psychologist that were to be posted back before meeting him. She felt most anxious and daunted by the questions and needed support as to how to answer. She also felt nauseous at being forced to meet a male and felt she was being "punished". My client reports it's for an assessment. She had 2-3 pages of questions- 1 page covering 150 questions. She laid it aside for 2/52 and then tackled it. She reports it was like an exam and was degrading."Äll my trauma was laid out in front of me and I could see visions of all the perpetrators. I felt yuck and exhausted afterwards." Now, she feels "labelled" and is angry”.
- “A mental health social worker said that one of their clients was referred to ACC for child sexual abuse therapy by a Mental health service psychiatrist after an assessment. ACC insisted the person see a second psychiatrist to distinguish mental illness due to chid sexual abuse rather than some other condition. Client objected and consequently self-harmed “
- From a counsellor in a small New Zealand town:
“Last week I saw client who had previous counselling with a local clinical psychologist. She chose to return to counselling with a psychotherapist because she felt the previous counselling did not go deep enough and she required more in depth work. I sent the return to counselling report in (I was told by the call centre that they were still accepting these) and the response she got had this to say: In order to determine further treatment for you, your claim will be reviewed by a Clinical Psychologist employed by us… following this review, we may be able to make a decision on your claim or we may need you to have an assessment with an independent psychologist or psychiatrist.” They then go on to say “We will write to you to let you know: what our decision is, or who you will be assessed by (the emphasis is mine) and what the assessment will involve……” There aren't many clin. psych in this little town so it is likely that she will need to return to the person she didn't want to return to. Will she have a say in this? And why can't they accept my own assessment of the situation? “
Skilled and experienced counsellors, psychologists and psychotherapists are considering whether they can continue to support a system which is causing harm to victims of crime.
I believe that it is bullying that we are observing here.
It has been well reported that ACC as a place of employment has a “Bullying Culture” (see Dominion 2/10/08), this is now being extended to the bullying of some of our most vulnerable members of society.
When ACC insist that all new claimants must have a full psychiatric assessment and a diagnosis of mental illness they are raising the bar to help for many thousands of people, women, children and men, who have suffered sexual abuse as children, or been sexually assaulted as adults. They are saying “prove to us you are mentally ill before we will give you any help”. This is insulting to victims of sex crimes.
This also plays into the hands of abusers whose mantra is that “it doesn’t do any harm”………..
Dr Nick Smith is the Minister for ACC and Climate Change – he needs to watch out for the climate of public opinion – it’s changing rapidly and this government is digging a hole for itself in the minds of New Zealanders who expect to live an humane society, not one that keeps shutting the doors on the most vulnerable.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query acc. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query acc. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Sunday, 29 August 2010
who's doing research for ACC
i received a link by email to this article in the sunday star times which covers research by dr felicity goodyear-smith commissioned by ACC, and apparently used to develop the policy implemented last year which restricted access to counselling for victims of sexual abuse. excerpts from the article have been copied below, but i'd strongly recommend reading the whole article. luddite journo wrote about this last year in august, and again i'd recommend reading the post & comments (note that the "julie" commenting there is not our julie).
LAST OCTOBER, ACC changed the rules governing the support available to victims of sex crimes, introducing a heavily criticised new regime that severely restricted access to counselling....
During the eight months following the clinical pathway's introduction, ACC paid out $7 million less to 2889 fewer claimants than it had over the same period a year previous. Approved new claims, running at 1313 in the eight months prior to the pathway's introduction, subsequently dropped to 240 over the same length of time. Among the hundreds to have their claims denied were two women believed to have later committed suicide....
The scheme's many detractors were primarily concerned by a new requirement that, before they could access ACC counselling and support, claimants had to be diagnosed formally with a mental injury as defined by the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). Whereas previously, ACC might have accepted a GP or counsellor's description of symptoms such as flashbacks, panic attacks or nightmares resulting from a sex crime, now a formal diagnosis of a mental illness such as post-traumatic stress disorder was needed.
It's unclear exactly why. Nowhere was a DSM-IV mental illness diagnosis specified in the so-called "Massey guidelines", the widely accepted 2008 best practice manual which ACC had commissioned from Massey University researchers, and which it cited as having guided the formulation of the pathway....
ACC now admits it got it wrong and earlier this month announced that sexual assault victims are now automatically entitled to 16 sessions of counselling. "We moved too quick, and left a bunch of people with nowhere to go," says ACC spokesman Laurie Edwards....
Like others in the sexual abuse care sector, [Kyle MacDonald & Barri Leslie] fear that Goodyear-Smith's research has fed into the pool of information that guides decision-making around sensitive claims policy, influencing the creation of higher hurdles for victims, and a more disbelieving regime around claims of sexual abuse in general.
ACC denies any link. Asked by the Sunday Star-Times last October about the relation of Goodyear-Smith's research to the newly unveiled clinical pathway, ACC responded in an email that it had not commissioned her 2005 research, and eventually refused to answer further questions. This was untrue. ACC spokesman Laurie Edwards said this month that the public relations staffer responsible had made a mistake, but could not account why.
Earlier this month, after communications staff were directed to evidence that it had commissioned the paper, claims management general manager Denise Cosgrove admitted the corporation had funded the research, but maintained it had played no part in the development of the pathway....
The fact that it appeared in both Goodyear-Smith's paper and the clinical pathway, despite not being found in the Massey guidelines, reflected the fact it was "best practice", although on what authority this was claimed he was unable to clarify.
An ACC-commissioned 2003 review of the sensitive claims process said the corporation had adopted the DSM-IV as a diagnostic tool to establish – as it was required to under the 2001 Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act – whether a mental injury had occured as a result of a sex crime. But there is nothing in the act that specifically mandates the DSM-IV as the necessary diagnostic tool.
LAST OCTOBER, ACC changed the rules governing the support available to victims of sex crimes, introducing a heavily criticised new regime that severely restricted access to counselling....
During the eight months following the clinical pathway's introduction, ACC paid out $7 million less to 2889 fewer claimants than it had over the same period a year previous. Approved new claims, running at 1313 in the eight months prior to the pathway's introduction, subsequently dropped to 240 over the same length of time. Among the hundreds to have their claims denied were two women believed to have later committed suicide....
The scheme's many detractors were primarily concerned by a new requirement that, before they could access ACC counselling and support, claimants had to be diagnosed formally with a mental injury as defined by the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). Whereas previously, ACC might have accepted a GP or counsellor's description of symptoms such as flashbacks, panic attacks or nightmares resulting from a sex crime, now a formal diagnosis of a mental illness such as post-traumatic stress disorder was needed.
It's unclear exactly why. Nowhere was a DSM-IV mental illness diagnosis specified in the so-called "Massey guidelines", the widely accepted 2008 best practice manual which ACC had commissioned from Massey University researchers, and which it cited as having guided the formulation of the pathway....
ACC now admits it got it wrong and earlier this month announced that sexual assault victims are now automatically entitled to 16 sessions of counselling. "We moved too quick, and left a bunch of people with nowhere to go," says ACC spokesman Laurie Edwards....
Like others in the sexual abuse care sector, [Kyle MacDonald & Barri Leslie] fear that Goodyear-Smith's research has fed into the pool of information that guides decision-making around sensitive claims policy, influencing the creation of higher hurdles for victims, and a more disbelieving regime around claims of sexual abuse in general.
ACC denies any link. Asked by the Sunday Star-Times last October about the relation of Goodyear-Smith's research to the newly unveiled clinical pathway, ACC responded in an email that it had not commissioned her 2005 research, and eventually refused to answer further questions. This was untrue. ACC spokesman Laurie Edwards said this month that the public relations staffer responsible had made a mistake, but could not account why.
Earlier this month, after communications staff were directed to evidence that it had commissioned the paper, claims management general manager Denise Cosgrove admitted the corporation had funded the research, but maintained it had played no part in the development of the pathway....
The fact that it appeared in both Goodyear-Smith's paper and the clinical pathway, despite not being found in the Massey guidelines, reflected the fact it was "best practice", although on what authority this was claimed he was unable to clarify.
An ACC-commissioned 2003 review of the sensitive claims process said the corporation had adopted the DSM-IV as a diagnostic tool to establish – as it was required to under the 2001 Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act – whether a mental injury had occured as a result of a sex crime. But there is nothing in the act that specifically mandates the DSM-IV as the necessary diagnostic tool.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
ACC march next week in Welly
What: ACC march and rally
When: 12noon - 2pm, Tuesday 16 February
Where: Parliament, Wellington
Spiel from the organisers:
ACC is not just about people who have car accidents or get their necks badly crunched at rugby. It covers all sorts of accidents, including those that happen in the workplace and as a result of crimes. The system may not have been perfect as it was two years ago, but it was better than it is now, and far better than where it seems the Government wants to take it next. If you are in Wellington on the 16th, and able to attend, you'll be standing up for something important. Best wishes to the organisers for good weather and a big crowd.
When: 12noon - 2pm, Tuesday 16 February
Where: Parliament, Wellington
Spiel from the organisers:
One of the most infuriating actions of the Government during 2009 was its attack on New Zealand's priceless accident compensation scheme. A sustained campaign of misinformation and questionable accounting culminated in the ACC Bill which will pave the way for privatisation of the scheme. This will be the death knell for universal no-fault accident compensation. If the Government succeeds in destroying ACC it will be back to exorbitant private insurance and wasteful legal action.One of the odious components of the changes so far has been the treatment of "sensitive" claims, i.e sexual abuse, rape, that kind of thing. We've written a fair bit about this in the past (you'll have to scroll down a little, for some reason the first few posts are totally not about ACC).
Help put a stop to the destruction of one of New Zealand's most vital public assets by turning out at the rally at Parliament on 16 February. Unions, health practitioners, claimants' organisations and ordinary people will be out in force to show the Government that we are totally against the unjustified attack on ACC and the programme of unjust cuts to entitlements. And we will be joined once again by the bikers who took 9,000 people to Parliament in November. They are coming back because they know it's about more than just levies, and because nobody is fooled by the predictable ‘concession' of reducing the planned increase to motorbike charges.
This is the time to show the Government with a big turnout that New Zealand doesn't want to see ACC dismantled and sold off to Australian insurance companies. If you can't go yourself, get your family and friends to go along because the Government's cuts will affect them too. ACC is for all Kiwis. Let's keep it that way.
For more information on how the Government is trying to discredit and dismantle ACC go to fairness.org.nz/ACC .
ACC is not just about people who have car accidents or get their necks badly crunched at rugby. It covers all sorts of accidents, including those that happen in the workplace and as a result of crimes. The system may not have been perfect as it was two years ago, but it was better than it is now, and far better than where it seems the Government wants to take it next. If you are in Wellington on the 16th, and able to attend, you'll be standing up for something important. Best wishes to the organisers for good weather and a big crowd.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
On ACC...
When writing about my analysis of sexual violence and prisons, one of the points I keep coming back to is how centred it is on the perpertrator. It's not a new or original thought to point out that everything about the way a criminal law system deals with sexual violence is entirely focused on 'the offender'. The follow-on from this is our society's way of dealing with sexual violence revolves around the court system.
A few year ago, I wrote about a nursing student, who was raped by a fellow student, after a typical, ridiculous, defence, the rapist got off. She had to drop out of school, because the school wouldn't do anything to ensure she wouldn't have to see her rapist regularly. I think it's important to understand how structural the problems within our justice system are. These systems are not designed to support survivors of sexual abuse, and therefore they will always fail at that task.
But...
But, in New Zealand, we do have a system that is set up to meet, to revolve around, what survivors of sexual violence need. There are many things it cannot provide - ACC will not help student find a way to continue to study without seeing her rapist. But it can provide counselling and income support.
I don't have any personal experience, or depth of knowledge, of ACCs sensitive claims system. I am sure, as it currently operates, it has flaws, and some people fail to get the help that they need. But, at the moment, it can be centred around what a survivor needs, based on her relationship with her counsellor (or his).
If these changes go through, it will be much harder, maybe impossible for ACC to be survivor-centre. Currently, a survivor can have up to four sessions of counselling to disclose their abuse, but the changes will cut this down to one session (or maybe two, Peter Jensen, the person in charge of the proposal, was unclear on nine to noon).
At the moment a survivor can access up to 50 sessions with a counsellor before they have to obtain a psychological assessment. The changes will require psychological assessments much earlier in the process, and that process will be directed much more by clinicians. In order to get funded counselling, a survivor of sexual abuse will require a DSM IV diagnosis.
This is not a survivor-centred approach to sexual abuse; it is a clinician-centred approach.
ACC has already begun tightening the screws. And in doing so it has turned funded counselling into another area where a survivor has to prove her (or his) experience – maybe not beyond reasonable doubt, but close.
Dr Kim McGregor explained how ACC restricts access to counselling on an interview on 9 to Noon 9 to Noon. ACC declined cover for a young boy who had been sexually abused as the behaviour described: mood swings, tearfulness, and sitting alone sucking his thumb, did not necessarily have a clinical link with sexual abuse. They said these behaviours could just as well have been caused by settling into school and a new environment rather than the sexual abuse events.
Imagine the difficulty of someone who has survived sexual abuse will have in proving that the difficulties she (or he) is experiencing are directly and only a result of the abuse. Those who had what insurance companies call ‘pre-existing conditions’, could find support denied – if they had previously been depressed, how can they know that depression after the sexual abuse is a result of that abuse? (not a question that could be asked by anyone who cared about the experiences of survivors of sexual abuse, but a question that is being asked by ACC). While those who do not seek help for a long time, will have to prove the effects the abuse has had on them, and the more complex their survival strategies in the intervening time, the harder it will be for them to access the support they need.
The parallels between the perfect victim of the court system and the perfect survivor of ACC are strong. In both cases the onus of proof falls on those have been abused to prove either that there was abuse, or that that abuse affected them. Just as previous sexual history is used against survivors in the court system, ACC can use previous mental health history against survivors.
My point is not just that the changes to ACC need to be fought (although they do – Monday is a national day of action – come along), but to show how important, and how fragile, a survivor centred approach to sexual violence there is.
As well as pushing against these threats to survivor support, I want us to push further. I want us to imagine what a response to sexual violence which prioritised survivors look like.
A few year ago, I wrote about a nursing student, who was raped by a fellow student, after a typical, ridiculous, defence, the rapist got off. She had to drop out of school, because the school wouldn't do anything to ensure she wouldn't have to see her rapist regularly. I think it's important to understand how structural the problems within our justice system are. These systems are not designed to support survivors of sexual abuse, and therefore they will always fail at that task.
But...
But, in New Zealand, we do have a system that is set up to meet, to revolve around, what survivors of sexual violence need. There are many things it cannot provide - ACC will not help student find a way to continue to study without seeing her rapist. But it can provide counselling and income support.
I don't have any personal experience, or depth of knowledge, of ACCs sensitive claims system. I am sure, as it currently operates, it has flaws, and some people fail to get the help that they need. But, at the moment, it can be centred around what a survivor needs, based on her relationship with her counsellor (or his).
If these changes go through, it will be much harder, maybe impossible for ACC to be survivor-centre. Currently, a survivor can have up to four sessions of counselling to disclose their abuse, but the changes will cut this down to one session (or maybe two, Peter Jensen, the person in charge of the proposal, was unclear on nine to noon).
At the moment a survivor can access up to 50 sessions with a counsellor before they have to obtain a psychological assessment. The changes will require psychological assessments much earlier in the process, and that process will be directed much more by clinicians. In order to get funded counselling, a survivor of sexual abuse will require a DSM IV diagnosis.
This is not a survivor-centred approach to sexual abuse; it is a clinician-centred approach.
ACC has already begun tightening the screws. And in doing so it has turned funded counselling into another area where a survivor has to prove her (or his) experience – maybe not beyond reasonable doubt, but close.
Dr Kim McGregor explained how ACC restricts access to counselling on an interview on 9 to Noon 9 to Noon. ACC declined cover for a young boy who had been sexually abused as the behaviour described: mood swings, tearfulness, and sitting alone sucking his thumb, did not necessarily have a clinical link with sexual abuse. They said these behaviours could just as well have been caused by settling into school and a new environment rather than the sexual abuse events.
Imagine the difficulty of someone who has survived sexual abuse will have in proving that the difficulties she (or he) is experiencing are directly and only a result of the abuse. Those who had what insurance companies call ‘pre-existing conditions’, could find support denied – if they had previously been depressed, how can they know that depression after the sexual abuse is a result of that abuse? (not a question that could be asked by anyone who cared about the experiences of survivors of sexual abuse, but a question that is being asked by ACC). While those who do not seek help for a long time, will have to prove the effects the abuse has had on them, and the more complex their survival strategies in the intervening time, the harder it will be for them to access the support they need.
The parallels between the perfect victim of the court system and the perfect survivor of ACC are strong. In both cases the onus of proof falls on those have been abused to prove either that there was abuse, or that that abuse affected them. Just as previous sexual history is used against survivors in the court system, ACC can use previous mental health history against survivors.
My point is not just that the changes to ACC need to be fought (although they do – Monday is a national day of action – come along), but to show how important, and how fragile, a survivor centred approach to sexual violence there is.
As well as pushing against these threats to survivor support, I want us to push further. I want us to imagine what a response to sexual violence which prioritised survivors look like.
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
some movement on ACC funding for sensitive claims
a glimmer of hope:
Extra support is being made available to survivors of sexual abuse, ACC announced today.
From Monday 16 August, people with a new ACC sensitive claim, or with a new claim already in the system but awaiting a decision, will be able to access up to 16 hours with a counsellor, to ensure their safety and wellbeing.
“ACC has listened to concerns expressed by several groups that more support is needed. Those groups included the public, the sexual abuse treatment sector, and the independent panel appointed by the Minister to review the sensitive claims pathway,” said Denise Cosgrove, General Manager Claims Management.
It is envisaged that these support sessions will, in fact, be sufficient to meet the needs of many people, who will therefore not go on to require ACC cover or ACC-funded treatment.
However, for others who do demonstrate signs of a possible mental injury arising from sexual abuse (as specified in ACC legislation) the sessions will also be used to gather information to help ACC make a cover decision.
While these changes do not alter the process of deciding who qualifies for ACC cover, or how they will subsequently be helped, the changes do ensure everyone has support while their status and needs are assessed.
i guess in this current environment, any movement is a good thing. but it's so much less than what should be in place. hat tip to kyle macdonald who has been blogging on this issue for a while now.
Extra support is being made available to survivors of sexual abuse, ACC announced today.
From Monday 16 August, people with a new ACC sensitive claim, or with a new claim already in the system but awaiting a decision, will be able to access up to 16 hours with a counsellor, to ensure their safety and wellbeing.
“ACC has listened to concerns expressed by several groups that more support is needed. Those groups included the public, the sexual abuse treatment sector, and the independent panel appointed by the Minister to review the sensitive claims pathway,” said Denise Cosgrove, General Manager Claims Management.
It is envisaged that these support sessions will, in fact, be sufficient to meet the needs of many people, who will therefore not go on to require ACC cover or ACC-funded treatment.
However, for others who do demonstrate signs of a possible mental injury arising from sexual abuse (as specified in ACC legislation) the sessions will also be used to gather information to help ACC make a cover decision.
While these changes do not alter the process of deciding who qualifies for ACC cover, or how they will subsequently be helped, the changes do ensure everyone has support while their status and needs are assessed.
i guess in this current environment, any movement is a good thing. but it's so much less than what should be in place. hat tip to kyle macdonald who has been blogging on this issue for a while now.
Monday, 22 December 2008
I like ACC
As Mike Moreu's rather gruesome cartoon suggests, the government's announced increase in employees' ACC levies suggests they're setting out to make the Corporation unpopular - so we won't miss it when it's privatised. The government's use of urgency to pass a range of legislation - just before Xmas, making it harder for the public to make any organised objections - gives me the unsettling feeling that the rug could be pulled out from ACC (and God only knows what else) with very little warning.
Well, I like ACC. It may be an imperfect beast, like the husband who leaves his socks on the floor despite being asked a million times not to, but the prospect of being without its loyal and comforting presence is daunting.
Here's why I like ACC:
- It insures unpaid workers (eg, mums) who have little or no income and might be unable to afford private accident insurance.
- ACC has a brief to protect the public's health. Private insurers don't. ACC runs campaigns telling us how to avoid accidents and injuries. Private insurers don't care.
- Private providers have to create a profit for their shareholders. Profit is maximised by paying out on as few claims as possible.
- ACC doesn't suffer from that paradox of private insurers: competition encourages them to drop their premiums, but the less they collect in premiums the less they can afford to pay out in claims. Competition creates a worse insurance product, not a better one.
- The no-fault compensation offered by ACC replaces our 'right' to sue each other, which sadly includes the right to behave like litigious arses and line the pockets of lawyers.
In the last 25 or so years, privatisation has been justified in the name of enhanced consumer choice. But choice is only as valuable as the options you have to choose from. I'd rather put up with a state monopoly that more or less does the job than be free to choose between a wide range of shit private providers.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
ACC's new approach to sensitive claims not working
From the Herald this morning:
This whole thing just makes me so sad. The sector warned the Minister that this would happen if he changed the rules in this way. He did it anyway. And now that it's happening, with real consequences for real people in awful situations, he's announced a review that doesn't include anyone from the frontline. This is starting to be a standard MO for this Govt. It reminds me of the 1990s when anyone who was an expert or practitioner in X was written off as having a vested interest in X and therefore their views were biased and not worth consideration.
A review of new rules for sexual abuse counselling has come too late to save a South Auckland mother who died four days after her claim for ACC-funded counselling was rejected.Click through for the whole article.
Counselling Services Centre manager Emma Castle said the mother-of-three's claim for counselling for sexual abuse she had suffered as a child was rejected by ACC two months ago on the grounds that she had not suffered "a significant mental injury".
"The counsellor who submitted the claim made it very clear that sexual abuse was the reason why she had suicidal ideation and was self-harming," Ms Castle said. "It took them six months to make that decision. Four days after receiving notification that the ACC claim was denied, the client passed away."
...[Speaking on the issue of the panel announced to review the policy] "None of our specialist experts that work day to day with survivors of sexual violence, and have done for decades, have been chosen to be part of this review," Dr McGregor [Head of Rape Prevention Education aka Rape Crisis] said.
She said the rules had caused a virtual "collapse" of sexual abuse counselling, with cases approved by ACC down from 472 in the first two months of last year to just 32 in the same period this year.
The Association of Counsellors' representative on the ACC's sensitive claims advisory group, Elayne Johnston, said a 15-year-old girl who was raped over Christmas had still not received counselling because ACC required her to be assessed by a psychologist to see whether she had suffered a "mental injury".
Dr McGregor said almost all of the 600 to 700 private counsellors who were registered for ACC-funded work had stopped taking applicants for ACC subsidies since the new rules took effect because of an ethical objection to labelling assault victims as mentally ill.
Survivors were now going to rape crisis agencies instead, but the agencies could not cope because they had also lost funding...
This whole thing just makes me so sad. The sector warned the Minister that this would happen if he changed the rules in this way. He did it anyway. And now that it's happening, with real consequences for real people in awful situations, he's announced a review that doesn't include anyone from the frontline. This is starting to be a standard MO for this Govt. It reminds me of the 1990s when anyone who was an expert or practitioner in X was written off as having a vested interest in X and therefore their views were biased and not worth consideration.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
more on ACC
thought i'd do an update on a couple of posts i've put up recently.
in amongst the buffoonery and jerking off at parliament today, there was this question:
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: How will the proposed changes to the treatment of sensitive claims meet the legal requirements of the ACC scheme to provide “for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury that has, as its overriding goals, minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community, and the impact of injury on the community”?
and related supplementaries, regarding changes to ACC funded counselling services for victims of sexual abuse. the minister's response was interesting, and i'll reproduce part of it here:
Hon PANSY WONG (Acting Minister for ACC) : ACC’s proposed changes to the treatment guidelines for mental injury resulting from sexual abuse are based on a comprehensive 5-year programme of clinical research commissioned by the corporation. The Massey University school of psychology undertook this research with a team comprising 23 researchers and an advisory committee of 13 people. A multi-method approach was taken, utilising quantitative and qualitative analysis, literature reviews, questionnaires, and focus groups. The research team included specialists in survivor advocacy, psychology, counselling, education, migrant resettlement, indigenous issues, and the mental health of children and older people.
the research report was tabled, but i don't know how to find tabled reports on-line yet. however, the reason i found the answer interesting was because i read luddite journo's post (hat tip: lew's excellent post at kiwipolitico) about one of the researchers funded by ACC. i don't want to reduce traffic to LJ's blog, so i suggest you read about it over there. i don't know that this particular researcher was one of the 23 that the minister refers to.
i'd also be interested in finding out if the report actually recommended that victims of sexual abuse see at least 3 different health professionals, or that an arbitrary cap be placed on funding for counselling services.
[ETA: toad has a great post about this issue here, with a link to the research report (pdf) the minister refers to.]
on the issue of pay equity between white women and women of colour, there has been some news about funding for wages to maori health providers being less than to non-maori providers. it's an issue that the nurses organisation has been trying to get addressed, but with little success so far. waatea news covered it this morning (morning report, radio nz, 8.48am, towards the end) and there is a post up at red alert about the issue as well.
and finally, nice to get a very brief but honourable mention by dennis welch in his run down of nz political blogs and their impact on the MSM this morning (nine to noon, radio nz, 11.50am).
in amongst the buffoonery and jerking off at parliament today, there was this question:
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: How will the proposed changes to the treatment of sensitive claims meet the legal requirements of the ACC scheme to provide “for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury that has, as its overriding goals, minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community, and the impact of injury on the community”?
and related supplementaries, regarding changes to ACC funded counselling services for victims of sexual abuse. the minister's response was interesting, and i'll reproduce part of it here:
Hon PANSY WONG (Acting Minister for ACC) : ACC’s proposed changes to the treatment guidelines for mental injury resulting from sexual abuse are based on a comprehensive 5-year programme of clinical research commissioned by the corporation. The Massey University school of psychology undertook this research with a team comprising 23 researchers and an advisory committee of 13 people. A multi-method approach was taken, utilising quantitative and qualitative analysis, literature reviews, questionnaires, and focus groups. The research team included specialists in survivor advocacy, psychology, counselling, education, migrant resettlement, indigenous issues, and the mental health of children and older people.
the research report was tabled, but i don't know how to find tabled reports on-line yet. however, the reason i found the answer interesting was because i read luddite journo's post (hat tip: lew's excellent post at kiwipolitico) about one of the researchers funded by ACC. i don't want to reduce traffic to LJ's blog, so i suggest you read about it over there. i don't know that this particular researcher was one of the 23 that the minister refers to.
i'd also be interested in finding out if the report actually recommended that victims of sexual abuse see at least 3 different health professionals, or that an arbitrary cap be placed on funding for counselling services.
[ETA: toad has a great post about this issue here, with a link to the research report (pdf) the minister refers to.]
on the issue of pay equity between white women and women of colour, there has been some news about funding for wages to maori health providers being less than to non-maori providers. it's an issue that the nurses organisation has been trying to get addressed, but with little success so far. waatea news covered it this morning (morning report, radio nz, 8.48am, towards the end) and there is a post up at red alert about the issue as well.
and finally, nice to get a very brief but honourable mention by dennis welch in his run down of nz political blogs and their impact on the MSM this morning (nine to noon, radio nz, 11.50am).
Thursday, 10 December 2009
ACC changes not working for victims of sexual violence
From the Herald yesterday:
This is absolutely disastrous. For the sake of saving some money the Government has decided to cut support for people who have already gone through enough. Who are these changes actually working for? Certainly not those making sensitive claims.
Psychotherapists and counsellors say tight new rules for claiming ACC subsidies for sexual abuse counselling have become "a rapists' charter".Click through for the rest of the article.
The national associations of psychotherapists, counsellors and social workers have released anonymous details of 54 cases showing longer delays and more rejections since the new rules took effect on October 27.
"ACC's own statistics show a serious reduction in approved claims," they said in a joint statement.
"This must please the rapists and paedophiles.
"They believe that what they do doesn't cause any harm - the new ACC pathway is a rapists' charter."
The new rules provide subsidised counselling only for sexual abuse victims with a diagnosed mental condition caused by the abuse, and generally only for up to 16 weeks before a further review.
Most counsellors and psychotherapists do not have specific training to make psychiatric diagnoses, so they have had to refer cases to psychologists or wait for ACC to get its own psychologists to assess clients.
Auckland's two main specialist agencies, Auckland Sexual Abuse Help and South Auckland's Counselling Services Centre, both said yesterday that they had still not had a single new ACC claim approved since October 27.
This is absolutely disastrous. For the sake of saving some money the Government has decided to cut support for people who have already gone through enough. Who are these changes actually working for? Certainly not those making sensitive claims.
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
Funding cuts no HELP
The potential loss of the 24 hour crisis line for sexual violence survivors run by Auckland Sexual Abuse Help has been all over the media this week, and the petition asking government to step in and save the service is steadily climbing - and you can still sign it.
I want to look at context here, specifically the context of the last few years and specialist funding for counselling for survivors of sexual violence from ACC.
In October 2009, ACC changed the way it funded counselling for survivors of sexual violence, introducing a number of constraints and barriers they called the "Clinical Pathway." This Pathway was essentially ripped up after a six month review by an independent review team, because it was causing harm without any "legislative or clinical reason." The review came back in September 2010.
This bolt-from-nowhere was introduced without consultation to a sector which we know from the "comprehensive road-map" was already struggling to meet community need. It led to survivors deciding not to even try to go through what ASAH called at the time an "outrageously inhumane" process to access help. It also meant the sexual violence intervention sector, including ASAH, had to mobilise to prove what we already knew - that appropriate, skilled, specialist support and counselling is critical to recovery after sexual violence for many survivors.
Recent information released from ACC under the Official Information Act demonstrates just how disastrous the Clinical Pathway has been - for both survivors and the dangerously underfunded specialist sector which tries to supports them on their way past surviving to thriving.
Numbers of clients dropping from the moment the new Pathway was introduced, continuing after ACC recognised the Pathway was inappropriate and were instructed to make changes to address the problems.
Maybe more relevant to what is happening now for ASAH - and for every agency working in the specialist sexual violence intervention sector - let's look at ACC funding for specialist counselling over the last few years:
Does this bear repeating? In 2009, the Report for the Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence said the sexual violence intervention sector needed "urgent and immediate" funding. In 2009, one of the most major funders of this specialist work began slashing funding to that very same sector, and the slashing hasn't stopped even after an independent review order.
So what will our new government do about it? Time to step up and use your mandate for good, Mr Key.
I want to look at context here, specifically the context of the last few years and specialist funding for counselling for survivors of sexual violence from ACC.
In October 2009, ACC changed the way it funded counselling for survivors of sexual violence, introducing a number of constraints and barriers they called the "Clinical Pathway." This Pathway was essentially ripped up after a six month review by an independent review team, because it was causing harm without any "legislative or clinical reason." The review came back in September 2010.
This bolt-from-nowhere was introduced without consultation to a sector which we know from the "comprehensive road-map" was already struggling to meet community need. It led to survivors deciding not to even try to go through what ASAH called at the time an "outrageously inhumane" process to access help. It also meant the sexual violence intervention sector, including ASAH, had to mobilise to prove what we already knew - that appropriate, skilled, specialist support and counselling is critical to recovery after sexual violence for many survivors.
Recent information released from ACC under the Official Information Act demonstrates just how disastrous the Clinical Pathway has been - for both survivors and the dangerously underfunded specialist sector which tries to supports them on their way past surviving to thriving.
Numbers of clients dropping from the moment the new Pathway was introduced, continuing after ACC recognised the Pathway was inappropriate and were instructed to make changes to address the problems.Maybe more relevant to what is happening now for ASAH - and for every agency working in the specialist sexual violence intervention sector - let's look at ACC funding for specialist counselling over the last few years:
Does this bear repeating? In 2009, the Report for the Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence said the sexual violence intervention sector needed "urgent and immediate" funding. In 2009, one of the most major funders of this specialist work began slashing funding to that very same sector, and the slashing hasn't stopped even after an independent review order.
So what will our new government do about it? Time to step up and use your mandate for good, Mr Key.
Wednesday, 26 October 2016
Control, surveillance and "professional agency hopping"
In 2009/10, communities won a serious victory against this government when the hated, poorly conceived, cost-cutting travesty that was the "ACC Clinical Pathway" was kicked well and truly into touch by survivors, feminists, mental health support services and specialist sexual violence response agencies.
It was a community issue worth fighting. In the short time the Pathway was implemented, the review forced by activists demonstrated a staggering drop in survivors who could access support, and horror stories of trauma were told by survivors and by the community agencies and therapists trying to support them.
The ACC Clinical Pathway illustrates the dangers of ideological public policy, and the importance of community safeguards and advocacy in speaking truth to (rape culture, neo-liberal) power. I'm mentioning it now because I think this government has learned from that public policy defeat, but not the lessons we might hope. Quietly and quickly, calmly and efficiently they have muzzled the community sector so it will not happen again.
There were some warning signs even back then. I was heavily involved, in my own time, in fighting the ACC Clinical Pathway. The sexual violence agency I worked for then was quietly told by an ally in government that we lost a large contract because of my activism, which thankfully my boss did not begrudge in the grand scheme of survivor safety. This should be completely shocking - to change a funding decision based on the private activities of an employee of an organisation - particularly when, as it turned out, we were right. But in a growing context of threats to advocates, it somehow just started to become intimidation business as usual.
This government has decimated the community sector with a series of smart, chilling moves over quite some time, dismantling the sector's ability to play watchdog on punitive government policies. There were the changes to the Charities Commission, restricting the ways in which organisations registered as charities could "advocate" for social change. Even far from radical groups like the National Council of Women were forced to take legal action to defend their rights to advocate. This step institutionalised advocacy, away from the public eye. It's ok for community groups to meet with nice government officials quietly, to talk about their concerns - but don't even think about saying anything in the media.
Another major step was the introduction into contracts of requirements that community groups cannot discuss their contracts anywhere. This one policy stroke alone would have stopped the ACC Clinical Pathway activism dead in it's tracks - because gone from public view and debate would have been the volume of horror stories from around the country of the impact the Pathway was having on real people.
Then there are the terrifying spectre of funding cuts. Everywhere you look. Services going under, like Relationships Aotearoa, despite nothing to replace them. Services cutting their hours, and relying yet more heavily on volunteers. Play nice, little community group, or we'll be sending you home, no matter how many lives you hold in your hand.
While the language of community shifts to neo-liberal talk of markets and providers and social investment and demand and results based accountability, the language of "people who are asking for help" has shifted to the obscene "professional agency hoppers."
The latest nail in the community coffin, that community groups will have to report to government the names and personal details of people coming to them for help if they want to be funded, is just the logical conclusion of all the changes over the last few years. Taken together, these changes severely undermine democracy and the ability to show solidarity with people with little power. They also turn community groups into de-facto arms of the state and will certainly stop people accessing community services through fear, shame and stigma.
If you doubt this, think about whether you'd be ok with the STI tests you're having being linked to your name in a government database. The same database which has your tax details, benefit details, student loan, car ownership history - hell, there's no limit to what the Integrated Data Infrastructure might grow to include. Let's be honest, there's been next to no public conversation about the developing surveillance system this government has created, and what's appropriate to link and why.
But think again, about accessing services. Let's say you've got a gambling problem, and your relationship and home are both at risk if you can't change. But if you go ask for help, that will be linked to all your other personal information. Are you ready for that, or should you wait a little longer?
Or you've got an eating disorder and it's quietly killing you, but if you ask for help and it's loaded onto your system, will it mean you can't apply for that job you want in government?
Then there are the safety concerns. Logging women and children escaping domestic violence into a government database every time they go to a new Refuge will make them much less safe, particularly if their abusive partners can access where they are. I've worked with women whose abusers were Police officers, and to keep them safe we had to make sure nothing was ever logged in their Police files which might help them to be tracked. Will this new system acknowledge those dangers? Of course not. And while we're on this one, women going to multiple Refuges isn't "professional agency hopping," Minister Tolley, it's acting to save your life in the cycle of violence perpetrators use to control their families. Just as people who've had lots of trauma and difficult stuff in their lives needing to try multiple agencies to find all the pieces of the help they need isn't "professional agency hopping," it's desperation and fear and lack of trust born from experience. And it warrants compassion, patience and generosity - not sanctimonious penny pinching and vicious judgment - because do you know what? If I'd survived some of the things women I've worked with have been forced to manage, I can't even tell you what my survival strategies would look like. They wouldn't be clean, or pretty, or the model of a perfect little social services consumer though, I'll tell you that for nothing.
If funding contracts which force the community sector to pass on names and personal details had been introduced immediately post the ACC Clinical Pathway defeat, the community sector would have fought. Fought for their place as safety, for people and families they support, to hold together lives which might be fraying a little. Fought to remove barriers to help-seeking, not add them.
No, the government introducing it now is smart.
This government has been confident in shutting down evidence it doesn't want to hear, from silencing researchers to these steps to muzzle the community sector. It doesn't seem to want the well-informed debate when it comes to complex social issues, debate informed by people with personal knowledge and professional experience in supporting communities. There are even steps to dismantle the long-term funded research in this area, now the government is exerting more control. When questioned over the cuts to the longitudinal research Auckland University runs in order to understand child development needs - the kind of research which should help us decide community services - Bill English let slip some frightening honesty:
Does anyone seriously think these changes will be good for our communities? Trevor McGlinchey from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services absolutely nails it when he says:
It was a community issue worth fighting. In the short time the Pathway was implemented, the review forced by activists demonstrated a staggering drop in survivors who could access support, and horror stories of trauma were told by survivors and by the community agencies and therapists trying to support them.
The ACC Clinical Pathway illustrates the dangers of ideological public policy, and the importance of community safeguards and advocacy in speaking truth to (rape culture, neo-liberal) power. I'm mentioning it now because I think this government has learned from that public policy defeat, but not the lessons we might hope. Quietly and quickly, calmly and efficiently they have muzzled the community sector so it will not happen again.
There were some warning signs even back then. I was heavily involved, in my own time, in fighting the ACC Clinical Pathway. The sexual violence agency I worked for then was quietly told by an ally in government that we lost a large contract because of my activism, which thankfully my boss did not begrudge in the grand scheme of survivor safety. This should be completely shocking - to change a funding decision based on the private activities of an employee of an organisation - particularly when, as it turned out, we were right. But in a growing context of threats to advocates, it somehow just started to become intimidation business as usual.
This government has decimated the community sector with a series of smart, chilling moves over quite some time, dismantling the sector's ability to play watchdog on punitive government policies. There were the changes to the Charities Commission, restricting the ways in which organisations registered as charities could "advocate" for social change. Even far from radical groups like the National Council of Women were forced to take legal action to defend their rights to advocate. This step institutionalised advocacy, away from the public eye. It's ok for community groups to meet with nice government officials quietly, to talk about their concerns - but don't even think about saying anything in the media.
Another major step was the introduction into contracts of requirements that community groups cannot discuss their contracts anywhere. This one policy stroke alone would have stopped the ACC Clinical Pathway activism dead in it's tracks - because gone from public view and debate would have been the volume of horror stories from around the country of the impact the Pathway was having on real people.
Then there are the terrifying spectre of funding cuts. Everywhere you look. Services going under, like Relationships Aotearoa, despite nothing to replace them. Services cutting their hours, and relying yet more heavily on volunteers. Play nice, little community group, or we'll be sending you home, no matter how many lives you hold in your hand.
While the language of community shifts to neo-liberal talk of markets and providers and social investment and demand and results based accountability, the language of "people who are asking for help" has shifted to the obscene "professional agency hoppers."
The latest nail in the community coffin, that community groups will have to report to government the names and personal details of people coming to them for help if they want to be funded, is just the logical conclusion of all the changes over the last few years. Taken together, these changes severely undermine democracy and the ability to show solidarity with people with little power. They also turn community groups into de-facto arms of the state and will certainly stop people accessing community services through fear, shame and stigma.
If you doubt this, think about whether you'd be ok with the STI tests you're having being linked to your name in a government database. The same database which has your tax details, benefit details, student loan, car ownership history - hell, there's no limit to what the Integrated Data Infrastructure might grow to include. Let's be honest, there's been next to no public conversation about the developing surveillance system this government has created, and what's appropriate to link and why.
But think again, about accessing services. Let's say you've got a gambling problem, and your relationship and home are both at risk if you can't change. But if you go ask for help, that will be linked to all your other personal information. Are you ready for that, or should you wait a little longer?
Or you've got an eating disorder and it's quietly killing you, but if you ask for help and it's loaded onto your system, will it mean you can't apply for that job you want in government?
Then there are the safety concerns. Logging women and children escaping domestic violence into a government database every time they go to a new Refuge will make them much less safe, particularly if their abusive partners can access where they are. I've worked with women whose abusers were Police officers, and to keep them safe we had to make sure nothing was ever logged in their Police files which might help them to be tracked. Will this new system acknowledge those dangers? Of course not. And while we're on this one, women going to multiple Refuges isn't "professional agency hopping," Minister Tolley, it's acting to save your life in the cycle of violence perpetrators use to control their families. Just as people who've had lots of trauma and difficult stuff in their lives needing to try multiple agencies to find all the pieces of the help they need isn't "professional agency hopping," it's desperation and fear and lack of trust born from experience. And it warrants compassion, patience and generosity - not sanctimonious penny pinching and vicious judgment - because do you know what? If I'd survived some of the things women I've worked with have been forced to manage, I can't even tell you what my survival strategies would look like. They wouldn't be clean, or pretty, or the model of a perfect little social services consumer though, I'll tell you that for nothing.
If funding contracts which force the community sector to pass on names and personal details had been introduced immediately post the ACC Clinical Pathway defeat, the community sector would have fought. Fought for their place as safety, for people and families they support, to hold together lives which might be fraying a little. Fought to remove barriers to help-seeking, not add them.
No, the government introducing it now is smart.
This government has been confident in shutting down evidence it doesn't want to hear, from silencing researchers to these steps to muzzle the community sector. It doesn't seem to want the well-informed debate when it comes to complex social issues, debate informed by people with personal knowledge and professional experience in supporting communities. There are even steps to dismantle the long-term funded research in this area, now the government is exerting more control. When questioned over the cuts to the longitudinal research Auckland University runs in order to understand child development needs - the kind of research which should help us decide community services - Bill English let slip some frightening honesty:
"Finance Minister Bill English said the decision was more about providing "value for money" rather than saving money.He suggested the Government was not gaining adequate access to the data.
"There's a whole history behind the Growing up in New Zealand study, there have been ongoing negotiations for some time, to make sure it meets the Government's needs.
"To some extent the longitudinal studies aren't as powerful as they used to be, because we've got our own administrative data." What was important to the Government was the "availability of the data".
If the community sector hands over the names of people asking them for help, not only will it stop people getting the help they need. Not only will it shift what the community sector is for - away from advocacy and support, towards monitoring and policing services. Not only will it mean advocacy slips further into the distance, weakening our public policy development. But it is part of a wider and largely unmonitored shift towards the state controlling more information about us than we've ever agreed to, and with that, making decisions about public spending based on data they control and interpret.
Does anyone seriously think these changes will be good for our communities? Trevor McGlinchey from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services absolutely nails it when he says:
There has been a quiet revolution occurring which will have profound impacts on community-based social services organisations......Robust discussion and critique is needed to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities can access the services they need, and community organisations can continue as independent promoters of civil society and community development.Call me cynical, but the people that brought us the ACC Clinical Pathway are not qualified to make decisions about communities without us acting as safeguards. Bill English and his "administrative data" do not fill me with confidence, because this government is ideologically driven to support the powerful and leave the less powerful to rot, in cars, substandard housing, shiny new prisons, a decimated community sector. It's almost as if, the more they silence our voices and have control over interpreting our voices, the less we matter.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
why do we need a new clinical framework?
soon after the election, the new government decided to change the composition of the ACC board. we've got a different group of people deciding who gets money for health services, and it seems that their priorities are not around sexual health. we've had the cuts to the auckland sexual abuse help line. and now, there appears to be a move that will result in cuts to counselling services to victims of sexual violence and abuse:
Sean Manning, President-elect of the NZ Association of Psychotherapists, adds that “ACC is in the business of addressing the effects of trauma, but the proposed process where a victim of sexual abuse will have to tell their story to three people before getting help, will actually be damaging. If you want to put people off asking for help, this is a good way to do it. It is a shocking way to deliver a supposedly rehabilitative service.”
“Other than an implied criticism that there are clients who are receiving ‘too much’ counselling we have yet to hear clearly from ACC what it is they believe isn’t working under the current system. Instead we’re seeing a set of changes hurriedly imposed that we predict will impact negatively on clients who are already distressed by experiencing difficulties with getting cover, unreasonable delays and the impacts this has on safe practice,” says Adrienne Dale of the NZ Association of Counsellors.
it's well worth reading the full press release, as there are some major concerns raised in it. as with the closure of the pay equity unit, there has been no consultation regarding this change. there has been no opportunity to have a discussion about the impact of the new clinical framework; there appears to be no research or evidence on which the changes are based.
all of which makes me wonder, who in the current government is standing up for women? who is advocating for services that are of crucial importance to women? there appears to be a total vacuum. for all the cries there used to be of "nanny-state" in the previous 3 years, we now have silence when the government is actually behaving in a dictatorial manner that is detrimental to the well-being of its citizens.
one final point. it's hard to see this as anything but another move to prepare ACC for privatisation. which will make it even more difficult for victims of sexual violence and abuse to obtain the professional services they need, because private providers will expect you jump through even more hoops before they'll accept your claim.
Sean Manning, President-elect of the NZ Association of Psychotherapists, adds that “ACC is in the business of addressing the effects of trauma, but the proposed process where a victim of sexual abuse will have to tell their story to three people before getting help, will actually be damaging. If you want to put people off asking for help, this is a good way to do it. It is a shocking way to deliver a supposedly rehabilitative service.”
“Other than an implied criticism that there are clients who are receiving ‘too much’ counselling we have yet to hear clearly from ACC what it is they believe isn’t working under the current system. Instead we’re seeing a set of changes hurriedly imposed that we predict will impact negatively on clients who are already distressed by experiencing difficulties with getting cover, unreasonable delays and the impacts this has on safe practice,” says Adrienne Dale of the NZ Association of Counsellors.
it's well worth reading the full press release, as there are some major concerns raised in it. as with the closure of the pay equity unit, there has been no consultation regarding this change. there has been no opportunity to have a discussion about the impact of the new clinical framework; there appears to be no research or evidence on which the changes are based.
all of which makes me wonder, who in the current government is standing up for women? who is advocating for services that are of crucial importance to women? there appears to be a total vacuum. for all the cries there used to be of "nanny-state" in the previous 3 years, we now have silence when the government is actually behaving in a dictatorial manner that is detrimental to the well-being of its citizens.
one final point. it's hard to see this as anything but another move to prepare ACC for privatisation. which will make it even more difficult for victims of sexual violence and abuse to obtain the professional services they need, because private providers will expect you jump through even more hoops before they'll accept your claim.
Monday, 23 July 2012
This report card is incomplete - must do better
Minister of Women's Affairs Jo Goodhew has been giving a "report card" over the last few days to the United Nations on how well women in New Zealand are doing. This is the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women - CEDAW - and we report very four years, a kinda road map to gender equality.
Unfortunately, our GPS system seems to be malfunctioning. Women's Health Action found a number of concerns they wanted to raise related to contraceptive coercion for women on benefits, failures for comprehensive sexual and reproductive education in schools to reach all young people, an increasing tendency for the definition of "child" to be broadened to include the unborn in legislation and interpretation, and barriers for up to one sixth of women in seeking first trimester abortions.
And then there is violence against women. As Gordon Campbell points out - and his form around sexual violence is not unblemished, so this is interesting - under this government, survivors of sexual violence have been restricted from accessing potentially life-saving therapy by deliberate policy changes within ACC. Even when those policy changes were ripped up on review, ACC has continued to stop people getting the help they needs - just 3.6% of survivors who applied had their therapy funded by ACC in 2011.
Report backs from Women's Health Action confirm Minister Goodhew is getting a grilling over violence against women - partly because here in Aotearoa we're too scared to acknowledge that domestic and sexual violence are about as gendered as an experience gets. Apparently the Minister for Women's Affairs is struggling to acknowledge, at CEDAW, that violence against women is a problem.
Incredibly, Minister Goodhew's list of government plans for reducing violence against women as reported to CEDAW do not mention sexual violence even once.
The CEDAW committee aren't loving us making Family Court processes more expensive and less safe for women in "relationship disputes" and they are not loving the fact that the 2009 Taskforce Report for Action on Sexual Violence is still largely unacted upon. This of course, includes the fact that the Law Commission review of trial processes for sexual violence seems to be sitting in limbo.
I suggested last week that I believe it is time to email Justice Minister Judith Collins and ask what is happening to improve the justice sector response to crimes of sexual violence. The ACC insensitive claims unit and the CEDAW experience has me even more strongly convinced - this government will forget about rape and sexual abuse unless we tell them this is unacceptable to us.
Email Judith Collins and ask her where the Law Commission is at. And cc in Jo Goodhew, if you believe that reporting on women's lives should include how well our government is responding to and working to end sexual violence.
Unfortunately, our GPS system seems to be malfunctioning. Women's Health Action found a number of concerns they wanted to raise related to contraceptive coercion for women on benefits, failures for comprehensive sexual and reproductive education in schools to reach all young people, an increasing tendency for the definition of "child" to be broadened to include the unborn in legislation and interpretation, and barriers for up to one sixth of women in seeking first trimester abortions.
And then there is violence against women. As Gordon Campbell points out - and his form around sexual violence is not unblemished, so this is interesting - under this government, survivors of sexual violence have been restricted from accessing potentially life-saving therapy by deliberate policy changes within ACC. Even when those policy changes were ripped up on review, ACC has continued to stop people getting the help they needs - just 3.6% of survivors who applied had their therapy funded by ACC in 2011.
Report backs from Women's Health Action confirm Minister Goodhew is getting a grilling over violence against women - partly because here in Aotearoa we're too scared to acknowledge that domestic and sexual violence are about as gendered as an experience gets. Apparently the Minister for Women's Affairs is struggling to acknowledge, at CEDAW, that violence against women is a problem.
Incredibly, Minister Goodhew's list of government plans for reducing violence against women as reported to CEDAW do not mention sexual violence even once.
The CEDAW committee aren't loving us making Family Court processes more expensive and less safe for women in "relationship disputes" and they are not loving the fact that the 2009 Taskforce Report for Action on Sexual Violence is still largely unacted upon. This of course, includes the fact that the Law Commission review of trial processes for sexual violence seems to be sitting in limbo.
I suggested last week that I believe it is time to email Justice Minister Judith Collins and ask what is happening to improve the justice sector response to crimes of sexual violence. The ACC insensitive claims unit and the CEDAW experience has me even more strongly convinced - this government will forget about rape and sexual abuse unless we tell them this is unacceptable to us.
Email Judith Collins and ask her where the Law Commission is at. And cc in Jo Goodhew, if you believe that reporting on women's lives should include how well our government is responding to and working to end sexual violence.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
things i've been reading lately...
... which i'd like to share. most of them were posted a little while back, but nonetheless, if you haven't come across them yet, i'd recommend you have a read.
i'll start with this excellent post on rape culture 101 up at shakesville. it should be required reading for absolutely everyone.
then there's this from queen of thorns on the whole "it's not sex, it's rape" meme, with a grammatical take on the issue which is quite enlightening.
on the issue of ACC support for victims of sexual abuse, ludditejourno shows us that the number of claims has not been increasing, but the rejection of claims is.
the standard also has an excellent series of posts on ACC, amonst other things, proving that ACC is not in crisis.
i put up a post a while back about david letterman sleeping with female employees, and the sexual harassment issues it raises. i recall that rosemary mcleod wrote about this some time back, writing off feminist concerns as foolish because people at work have sex with each other all the time (really? i must have been working at the wrong places. or maybe not). way to miss the point rosemary. this post over at shakesville might help you understand the point a little better. here's an excerpt:
...a boss who makes a habit of sleeping with subordinates creates a workplace environment that has the potential to communicate to all female staffers that sleeping with the boss is an expectation of the job. … It's an issue of the workplace culture being created...
And the women who had affairs with Letterman aren't the only consideration. Did any women feel compelled to leave their jobs because they didn't feel safe or comfortable in a workplace environment in which the boss made a habit of sleeping with female subordinates?
And did Letterman's habit tacitly condone the same behavior among senior male staff? In which case it's not just one boss who makes a habit of sleeping with female subordinates, but multiple male bosses who have the same habit. And, if that's the case, were all of them responsible partners who never overtly coerced anyone?
It's just not as simple as Letterman's individual relationships with individual women -- and pointing out how this stuff reverberates through an office environment doesn't require infantilizing the women who were sexually involved with Letterman. They could still have agency, and other women still could have felt coerced by the workplace culture.
there has been further disclosure by a former employee about the hostile atmosphere created by mr letterman's behaviour, also posted at hoydens, which proves the point even further.
this very long post at hoydens about a recent law and order episode entitled "dignity" provides really useful and in-depth discussion of issues around disability and abortion.
and in case you missed it, here's sue bradford's valedictory speech (no video link - if anyone has one, feel free to add into comments). and a rather nice extended interview with her on radio nz (nine to noon, 10.06am). definitely a huge loss to parliament.
i'll start with this excellent post on rape culture 101 up at shakesville. it should be required reading for absolutely everyone.
then there's this from queen of thorns on the whole "it's not sex, it's rape" meme, with a grammatical take on the issue which is quite enlightening.
on the issue of ACC support for victims of sexual abuse, ludditejourno shows us that the number of claims has not been increasing, but the rejection of claims is.
the standard also has an excellent series of posts on ACC, amonst other things, proving that ACC is not in crisis.
i put up a post a while back about david letterman sleeping with female employees, and the sexual harassment issues it raises. i recall that rosemary mcleod wrote about this some time back, writing off feminist concerns as foolish because people at work have sex with each other all the time (really? i must have been working at the wrong places. or maybe not). way to miss the point rosemary. this post over at shakesville might help you understand the point a little better. here's an excerpt:
...a boss who makes a habit of sleeping with subordinates creates a workplace environment that has the potential to communicate to all female staffers that sleeping with the boss is an expectation of the job. … It's an issue of the workplace culture being created...
And the women who had affairs with Letterman aren't the only consideration. Did any women feel compelled to leave their jobs because they didn't feel safe or comfortable in a workplace environment in which the boss made a habit of sleeping with female subordinates?
And did Letterman's habit tacitly condone the same behavior among senior male staff? In which case it's not just one boss who makes a habit of sleeping with female subordinates, but multiple male bosses who have the same habit. And, if that's the case, were all of them responsible partners who never overtly coerced anyone?
It's just not as simple as Letterman's individual relationships with individual women -- and pointing out how this stuff reverberates through an office environment doesn't require infantilizing the women who were sexually involved with Letterman. They could still have agency, and other women still could have felt coerced by the workplace culture.
there has been further disclosure by a former employee about the hostile atmosphere created by mr letterman's behaviour, also posted at hoydens, which proves the point even further.
this very long post at hoydens about a recent law and order episode entitled "dignity" provides really useful and in-depth discussion of issues around disability and abortion.
and in case you missed it, here's sue bradford's valedictory speech (no video link - if anyone has one, feel free to add into comments). and a rather nice extended interview with her on radio nz (nine to noon, 10.06am). definitely a huge loss to parliament.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Doing something about ACC counselling funding cuts - Wgtn
Thanks very much to reader Ali for passing this on - I know there has been a bit of interest in doing something in the comments, so hopefully this will be well attended.
Any info about stuff happening in the rest of the country would be much appreciated, you can email it to me julie dot fairey at gmail if you prefer not to write a comment.
Please pass this on to anyone who may be interested:
From October 12 changes to ACC's funding for sexual abuse counseling will mean survivors of abuse will only be eligible for ACC covered counseling if they have been diagnosed with a mental injury under the US Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Version 4 (DSM-IV). This will severely limit survivors' access to counseling.
More info in these two articles.
Meeting to organise against the funding cuts:
Monday, October 5, 5:30 pm at 128 Abel Smith St, Wellington
Any info about stuff happening in the rest of the country would be much appreciated, you can email it to me julie dot fairey at gmail if you prefer not to write a comment.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
delays in access to counselling
for those interested in the issue around ACC funded counselling for sensitive claims (ie victims of sexual abuse), ACC is blaming staff pressures for the increase in the number of claims still waiting for a decision on funding:
...there were 420 sexual abuse claim decisions pending in August - up from a consistent average of less than 72 a month earlier this year.
...rising claim numbers have created added pressure and ‘as staff numbers are calculated on the previous year’s claims, this has put ACC staff under stress…In today’s financially constrained environment, it isn’t possible to simply recruit more staff. Our approach is to streamline the service…
there was also an item on tvnz news tonight about the more stringent requirements to access the counselling, which i blogged about here.
it's appalling that access to crucial health services is being restricted by deliberate government policy.
...there were 420 sexual abuse claim decisions pending in August - up from a consistent average of less than 72 a month earlier this year.
...rising claim numbers have created added pressure and ‘as staff numbers are calculated on the previous year’s claims, this has put ACC staff under stress…In today’s financially constrained environment, it isn’t possible to simply recruit more staff. Our approach is to streamline the service…
there was also an item on tvnz news tonight about the more stringent requirements to access the counselling, which i blogged about here.
it's appalling that access to crucial health services is being restricted by deliberate government policy.
Monday, 12 October 2009
Stops Cut to ACC Funding - action stations!
Click here for the Stop Cuts blog and over here for the No to ACC blog.
Click here for the Facebook group.
And keep your eyes peeled for the forthcoming event - plans are underway for a national day of action on the issue on the 19th of October, in at least Dunedin, Auckland and Wellington.
Plus for those in the Queen City there is an information and campaign stall at 281 Karangahape Rd today, where you can sign a petition to oppose the cuts. As of right now almost 3500 people have signed already.
Well done to all those people involved in organising this stuff. It's important, and worthwhile, and I hope the campaign succeeds.
Click here for the Facebook group.
And keep your eyes peeled for the forthcoming event - plans are underway for a national day of action on the issue on the 19th of October, in at least Dunedin, Auckland and Wellington.
Plus for those in the Queen City there is an information and campaign stall at 281 Karangahape Rd today, where you can sign a petition to oppose the cuts. As of right now almost 3500 people have signed already.
Well done to all those people involved in organising this stuff. It's important, and worthwhile, and I hope the campaign succeeds.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Workers' Bodies
Today the Standard had a guest post on ACC:
The numbers quoted are absolute numbers, they're not controlled for anything. In particular, they're not controlled for occupation.* I'm sorry to insult my readership by pointing this out, but the correlation between class and body size is pretty well established, as is the correlation between class and work-place accident rates.
Surprise! When the authors control for occupation (although not income, and managers appear to be treated as the same occupation as workers) the numbers look rather different. These numbers are expressed in risk ratios, whereby a control group is set at 1, and 2 means something is twice as likely when all the variables that are mentioned have been controlled for (full disclaimer, I could be lying, I don't understand statistics that well). The risk ratios for number of claims for people who have a BMI of over 25 range from 1.09 to 1.45. To understand how insignificant a risk ratio of that size is here are some of the risk ratios for occupational groups:
The guest posts asks 'why is ACC costing so much?' And answers 'workers' bodies'. Even though its evidence is a study that demonstrates that the nature of work plays a far bigger role in the numberof workplace accidents than the nature of workers.
I'm a 'which side are you on' kind of a girl, and this post makes it very clear which side it's on. It blames workers and their bodies for workplace accidents. It chooses policing workers bodies, over fighting for workers bodies.
* I don't actually like debunking scientific research about fat, it seems to me to be conceding too much. Even if everything they said about the dangers of fat were true it wouldn't change my political analysis of fat at all.
** There are two other problems with those numbers. First that when it says 'obese' and 'non-obese' it appears to be comparing people with a BMI of between 18.5-24.9 and a BMI of 40+. In the article obese is defined as a BMI of 30+, so the terms used in the press release are not the same as those in the article, or the common medical use of those terms. I'm not going to dwell on that because I have less than no time for the BMI in the first place.
The other problem is that all the numbers apart from the numbers of claims made appear to be based on guesses at what the numbers might be rather than actual numbers:
The investment losses have been a big part of it but there is also a rising accident rate stemming from our ageing population and climbing obesity rates, which has been foreseen by medical experts for some time. We cannot do much about an aging population really, but obesity is wholly avoidable with smart policy that has some guts behind it.Although they don't provide a link I'm going to assume the guest poster is quoting from the press release about the study. Here's a link to the study itself for people who speak science article.
Why should we focus on obesity? Obese workers have a higher accident rate, take longer to recover, cost more treat and are out of work for a longer period of time. A 2007 Duke University study found that “obese workers filed twice the number of workers’ compensation claims, had seven times higher medical costs from those claims and lost 13 times more days of work from work injury or work illness than did nonobese workers”.
The numbers quoted are absolute numbers, they're not controlled for anything. In particular, they're not controlled for occupation.* I'm sorry to insult my readership by pointing this out, but the correlation between class and body size is pretty well established, as is the correlation between class and work-place accident rates.
Surprise! When the authors control for occupation (although not income, and managers appear to be treated as the same occupation as workers) the numbers look rather different. These numbers are expressed in risk ratios, whereby a control group is set at 1, and 2 means something is twice as likely when all the variables that are mentioned have been controlled for (full disclaimer, I could be lying, I don't understand statistics that well). The risk ratios for number of claims for people who have a BMI of over 25 range from 1.09 to 1.45. To understand how insignificant a risk ratio of that size is here are some of the risk ratios for occupational groups:
Laundry Staff: 7.35
Housekeeper: 6.44
Laboratory Animal Technician: 17.36
Inpatient Nurse: 4.01
The guest posts asks 'why is ACC costing so much?' And answers 'workers' bodies'. Even though its evidence is a study that demonstrates that the nature of work plays a far bigger role in the numberof workplace accidents than the nature of workers.
I'm a 'which side are you on' kind of a girl, and this post makes it very clear which side it's on. It blames workers and their bodies for workplace accidents. It chooses policing workers bodies, over fighting for workers bodies.
* I don't actually like debunking scientific research about fat, it seems to me to be conceding too much. Even if everything they said about the dangers of fat were true it wouldn't change my political analysis of fat at all.
** There are two other problems with those numbers. First that when it says 'obese' and 'non-obese' it appears to be comparing people with a BMI of between 18.5-24.9 and a BMI of 40+. In the article obese is defined as a BMI of 30+, so the terms used in the press release are not the same as those in the article, or the common medical use of those terms. I'm not going to dwell on that because I have less than no time for the BMI in the first place.
The other problem is that all the numbers apart from the numbers of claims made appear to be based on guesses at what the numbers might be rather than actual numbers:
Lost workday rates (days per 100 FTEs) were calculated by multiplying these stratum-specific claims rates by their corresponding mean number of lost workdays per claim. Similarly, multiplying the claims rate by the stratum-specific mean costs (including the amount already paid and the amount reserved) allowed calculation of cost rates (dollars per 100 FTEs) separately for medical and indemnity claims costs. Confidence intervals were calculated assuming that the number of events followed a Poisson distribution.I'm not going to comment any more than that, because I don't speak science article, but will concentrate on the 'claims made' figure when explaining why this research doesn't prove what the standard thinks it proves.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Let Nick Smith know the ACC cuts are Not Ok
From the End Rape Culture Now Collective, who are also organising an Auckland Take Back the Night march on Friday:
Nick Smith, the minister of ACC will be holding a public meeting in Auckland on the 30th of November. The End Rape Culture Now Collective is planning on hold a public protest outside his meeting. Bring placards, banners and noise makers.There's more at the Facebook event page here, including info on how to get there, arranging lifts, etc.
Where: Royal Akarana Yacht Club, 10 Tamaki Dr, Okahu Bay, Auckland
When: 30th November, 7.30pm - 9.30pm
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
access to justice
like gordon campbell, i'm not particularly happy with the drastic changes proposed for the legal services agency and the speed with which they will be put through. like so many other areas of policy, this looks like another rushed decision that is likely to lead to significant hardship for many people.
the way that our current adversarial system is structured means that access to justice depends on the amount of money the parties have to spend. in criminal cases, the prosecution has the significant backing of the crown. to ensure a fair outcome, the defendant needs to have similar financial backing.
the legal aid system goes part way to providing balance to the system. the problem is that you have to be quite poor before you can access legal aid. and even if you do qualify, legal aid now functions as a loan, so that you will eventually have to pay the money back out of assets or earnings. the potential size of that loan will influence the access to justice for many people, and determine how far they are prepared to go in a particular case.
so the current system doesn't function very well, but it does function adequately. the althernative is to have a public defender's office, where lawyers work on fixed salaries so are less likely to be tempted to take longer on a particular case or to draw out cases through appeals.
on the other hand, such an office needs adequate funding to work properly, and salaries need to be competitive. otherwise, the best lawyers go to private practice and the worst lawyers become public defenders, meaning that the poorest people get the worst representation. legal aid currently doesn't provide great rates of compensation, and in fact, there is very little incentive for top-earning lawyers to take legal aid cases.
this is an issue that particularly affects women, as women are more likely to be in poverty and are often in need of legal aid in cases of domestic violence. any weakening of publicly funded legal services affects the wellbeing of more than individuals, it affects families.
just in case anyone is interested in the make up of the governing board of the legal services agency, here are the members who have resigned:
carole durbin (chair) - lawyer with simpson greerson, and many other roles
alister james - barrister
pare keiha - pro-vice chancellor maori, AUT with various post-graduate qualifications
jane taylor - barrister
these two, appointed in september this year, are staying:
jane huria - provides corporate governance via hsr governance ltd
ross tanner - specialist in public policy, former deputy state services commissioner (1993-2001)
and the following two have just been appointed:
john hansen -retired high court judge
john spencer - company director
so just like the ACC board, all those appointed by the previous government have been removed. make of that what you will, but if ACC is anything to go by, the changes at the top aren't likely to be good for those at the bottom end of society.
the way that our current adversarial system is structured means that access to justice depends on the amount of money the parties have to spend. in criminal cases, the prosecution has the significant backing of the crown. to ensure a fair outcome, the defendant needs to have similar financial backing.
the legal aid system goes part way to providing balance to the system. the problem is that you have to be quite poor before you can access legal aid. and even if you do qualify, legal aid now functions as a loan, so that you will eventually have to pay the money back out of assets or earnings. the potential size of that loan will influence the access to justice for many people, and determine how far they are prepared to go in a particular case.
so the current system doesn't function very well, but it does function adequately. the althernative is to have a public defender's office, where lawyers work on fixed salaries so are less likely to be tempted to take longer on a particular case or to draw out cases through appeals.
on the other hand, such an office needs adequate funding to work properly, and salaries need to be competitive. otherwise, the best lawyers go to private practice and the worst lawyers become public defenders, meaning that the poorest people get the worst representation. legal aid currently doesn't provide great rates of compensation, and in fact, there is very little incentive for top-earning lawyers to take legal aid cases.
this is an issue that particularly affects women, as women are more likely to be in poverty and are often in need of legal aid in cases of domestic violence. any weakening of publicly funded legal services affects the wellbeing of more than individuals, it affects families.
just in case anyone is interested in the make up of the governing board of the legal services agency, here are the members who have resigned:
carole durbin (chair) - lawyer with simpson greerson, and many other roles
alister james - barrister
pare keiha - pro-vice chancellor maori, AUT with various post-graduate qualifications
jane taylor - barrister
these two, appointed in september this year, are staying:
jane huria - provides corporate governance via hsr governance ltd
ross tanner - specialist in public policy, former deputy state services commissioner (1993-2001)
and the following two have just been appointed:
john hansen -retired high court judge
john spencer - company director
so just like the ACC board, all those appointed by the previous government have been removed. make of that what you will, but if ACC is anything to go by, the changes at the top aren't likely to be good for those at the bottom end of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)