The more I read, the more confused I become. So I'm going to just spread this all out on the table and see whether anyone else can make any sense of this. I sure as hell can't.
- ACC changes the criteria for sex abuse victims to gain access to professional counseling. Fact.
- These changes result in a 95% drop in approved cases. Fact.
- The changes were recommended by research conducted by professionals at Massey University. Um, well some of them were. In fact, only one was. Their recommendation for treatment of those diagnosed with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).
- Nick Smith (ACC Minister) claims health professionals throughout New Zealand support the recommendations in place. Not true. More than 600 (previously approved) therapists have pulled away from ACC. Doctors are refusing to refer to clients. The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners has denounced the changes as well as several other health professions, including a small group that was set up initially by ACC. Even Massey University has distanced themselves from the "butchered research."
- Felicity Goodyear-Smith has been linked to the new ACC changes. Fact. She is also the wife of a convicted child sex offender. Fact. She was also the GP during the Centrepoint sex scandal - to some of those victims at the time. Fact. She advocates for a website that assists men in "getting off" on sex charges. Fact. She's usually called as a defense witness in male sex offending cases. Fact. Her research supports False Memory Syndrome. Fact. She made recommendations to the recently changed guidelines now enforced by ACC. Fact.
- Peter Jansen, ACC, claims the new Clinical Pathway (system) is based on Massey University guidelines. Fact. He then says they weren't. Fact. He also claimed the RNZCGP supported the changes. Fact. But then he apparently wrote the supporting letter. Peter Jansen is on the RNZCGP board. Fact.
There's a lot more to add to this confusing web of deceit and a lot of fine people trying to weave their way through all this mess. To me, it is simple. If there is nothing to hide then why all the cloak and daggers surrounding these changes? Why does it take people applying under the Official Information Act to simply get straight answers as to who really did implement these changes and moreover, why? Why is it that every "official" involved with the new ACC recommendations seems to have another agenda other than the obvious, which is to simply allow clients access to professional therapy? Is it really all about money, status, whitewashing true intention, or the next election?