Dr Smith may be good at obfuscating, but its not an admirable skill. This week he claimed the figures used by Phil Goff at question time to highlight the drastic reduction in (mainly) women accessing counselling following sexual crimes were incorrect. They were Dr Smith’s own figures, in answers to parliamentary questions. Phil rounded the historic monthly ACC approvals for October 2008 down from 312 to 300 and contrasted it to the patently unjustifiable 6 approvals in February 2010. Only to the extend of the rounding to 300 – which was to the advantage of the government! - were the figures ‘incorrect’, as Dr Smith stated.
Dr Smith should be criticised for this. He should be held to account. He was repeatedly warned by all and sundry that his plan was patently wrong. Not just by us in Labour - but by numerous professional associations (the Psychologists, the Psychotherapists, the Social Workers), Rape Crisis and many individuals adversely affected by the change. His misrepesentation of the work by Massey University, which he purported to use to justify the changes, was such that they publicly stated their advice was not being implemented.
There can be no doubt the changes were wrong. There can be no doubt Dr Smith has responsibility. There can be no doubt that you don’t need a time and money wasting inquiry to conclude injustice and suffering has been caused. It is abundantly clear that neither Dr Smith nor ACC can justify the over 95% decrease in the number of people being approved for counselling – at a time when sexual crimes have increased.
The Minister’s stubborn refusal to restore the prior rules in the interim while this mess is sorted out sees these injustices multiply. The consequences are very real for the sometimes desperate people currently unable to get help.
Surely the proper thing for the Minister to do is to admit error and restore the prior rules, because the new ones are plainly unfair. Few people in this job like to say Ministers are pesonally responsible for tragic outcomes, but if hundreds if not thousands of sexually abused women are denied counselling, then it is likely that avoidable self harm by some will occur.
Dr Smith needs to admit his error and do the right thing NOW. I’m surprised John Key has not already intervened.
That is bleepin’ disgusting
Smith is indeed an interesting character. Isn’t he the same MP who stood on high principle and defied the Family Court in order to see justice done, as he saw it? Now he will twist and lie to deny justice to genuine victims?
This Nat govt make me sick. One story after another about inequality and lack of social justice – and its the same groups that keep getting smashed:
Maori/pacifika
Woman
The Poor
What century do we live in? I think I have forgotten. Disgusting.
David thanks for just the right word: obfuscating
Smith, Ryall, and Hide are able to sound credible while setting up a false trail. Beware and remember what the question was!
Brownlie, Key, and Tolley just ramble.
Bennet just has a nasty turn of phrase and attacks without sympathy. Imagine the effect on the Social Welfare Office when sh walks in.
Don’t know the ins and outs of it yet, but TV3 seem to be on to something re-Paula Bennett. She appears to have tried to bribe one of the DPB mums at the centre of the complaint to the Privacy Commissioner last year. Campbell Live is doing a piece tonight at 7.
The interview just showed a Minister refusing to confirm or deny, but as a viewer it would be very hard to draw the conclusion that Bennett had visited Cambridge. Otherwise she would have been able to say definitely not!
Secondly was there an offer of monetary recompense? Bennett denied that there had been, but I rather wondered if that was because there was no evidence that it had been discussed.
A slippery woman but lacking in grace and humility.
The question of the e-mails was not discussed -yet. More to come? Will Sean Plunkett interview Bennett closely on Morning Report? Ha!
I suspect that this story of an apparent attempt of a Minister to block a complaint of loss of Privacy has more legs, unless the complaint is withdrawn in which case the matter is closed.
@ Ianmac. The bulk of the story (thus far) was contained in an item on the TV3 6pm news. It mentioned the emails and a piece on Natasha Fuller. It also included a brief interview with Annette King. It seems pretty clear that Paula Bennett visited Ms Fuller at Cambridge yesterday. The on-line video is available.
Anne I was commenting on the Campbell Live item, as above.
Either this story has more to come, or it will be shut down when the complaint is withdrawn. Place your bets.
It was on Campbell Live too. Watching with interest.
As for “then it is likely that avoidable self harm by some will occur”
It already has. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10641028
Realised that Ianmac. Wasn’t sure whether you had also seen the 6pm news item. Even if Bully Bennett has succeeded in convincing Ms Fuller to withdraw the complaint (and having gone through what she appears to have… I hope she sees it through to the end) I don’t think the media nor Labour (I hope) will let go of it too easily.
It did occur to me that that unlucky 13 year old girl in Napier who was molested by an intruder, must be absolutely terrified. I wonder if she will get the professional help if she asks for it?
I hope so. Its a huge mess.
Can’t wait to see the news in half an hour
Spud: I think that whatever the outcome the media and other MPs would have to be very careful at this stage about what they said or wrote in case they defamed or slandered.
After all we have to protect the Privacy of Paula Bennett don’t we! Roars with laughter at the irony of it all.
Oh the agony! 
As you would say Spud
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3635449/Warning-to-councils-by-Carter
But they are starting to admit that the removal of democracy in Canterbury was for the farmers (comes with taxpayer subsidy for the farmers as well) and that they now expect all the other councils to jump into the NACT line. This is something that Labour and every other party need to be on top of and making a lot of noise about. This really is an attack on our democracy and it’s by the rich for the rich.