Several agencies suggested ACC cover for all terror attack victims but Treasury disagreed – something now called a failure. David Williams reports.
Treasury has been criticised for failing victims of the March 15 terror attack by opposing a proposed special extension to ACC.
The Federation of Islamic Associations (FIANZ), which on Wednesday is making public a report excoriating the 2019 decision, is now calling on the Government to reconsider, especially given the focus on victims demanded by the Royal Commission into the massacre.
Three working days after the Christchurch terror attack, in which 51 people praying at two Christchurch mosques were killed and dozens more were injured, officials briefed Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) Minister Iain Lees-Galloway on a glaring gap in the no-fault scheme.
“Given the unique nature of the attack – which, unlike many traumatic events, constitutes a deliberate attempt to terrorise and inflict mental harm, as well as physical harm, on a large number of people – a temporary limited expansion of the services ACC provides may be desirable,” says the paper, which Newsroom reported two years ago.
A week later, further advice underlined the approach: “If ACC cover is not extended to the group concerned, some people affected directly by this attack (and their families) will be treated very differently from others affected by this attack.”
The Ministries of Health and Social Development backed Lees-Galloway’s call for an ACC-led approach in a paper to Cabinet’s powerful business committee. But Treasury disagreed, and the committee nixed the idea in favour of a hybrid approach of health and welfare services. (The decision drew criticism from the Green Party.)
In the report released today, FIANZ, which represents Muslim groups in six regions, has criticised Treasury for arguing against the ACC extension. The report says the agency’s analysis was contradictory, based on inaccurate information and flawed – and has led to greater suffering within the affected community.
The head of FIANZ’s advocacy team, Abdur Razzaq, who wrote the report, acknowledges government support for the victims and ACC payments to those who are eligible. But he says the 2019 ACC proposal was a comprehensive way to support victims and their families, and more could be done.
“Many of the victims are still suffering, the families are suffering, and we’re talking about mental health. It’s not as if we are looking for something additional, we’re looking at something that’s already there and they should be entitled to it through the ACC,” Razzaq says. “We’ve written to the minister, we are awaiting for a response.”
The report also says agencies have failed to officially classify “victims”, which has led some victims to face “a wall of silence and avoidance” from agencies. What’s needed, the report says, is a baseline assessment of victims’ needs.
Treasury secretary Caralee McLiesh is unrepentant about opposing the ACC option. In a statement, she says it was always Treasury’s intention to ensure support for victims of the terrorist attack. “While we maintain the view that the ACC scheme was not the appropriate channel, we acknowledge that advice in the Cabinet paper could have made it clearer that our concern was focused on how support should be provided.
Andrew Little, the minister responsible for the Government’s response to the Royal Commission's Report into terror attacks, sent a statement on Wednesday night which follows the line taken by Treasury. “The proposition supported by FIANZ, ie, extending compensation for mental harm not related to personal injury by accident, would amount to a significant change to the ACC model we have had in place since its inception in 1974. The Government is not considering such a change to ACC.”
(Actually, that is a mischaracterisation. FIANZ doesn’t propose a blanket extension to the model, it is asking the Government to consider a discrete change proposed by ACC and supported, initially, by several ministries, and backed by the then ACC Minister.)
Little says the Ministry of Social Development’s Kaiwhakaoranga specialist case management service has enhanced support for affected whānau, survivors and witnesses of the terrorist attacks, in line with recommendations from the Royal Commission report. A Collective Impact Board has also been established.
“The report of the Royal Commission did not make a recommendation to pay compensation.”
“It is quite obvious that Treasury simply wanted to scuttle the ACC recommendation.” – FIANZ report
According to the initial advice paper to Lees-Galloway, an estimated 200 people directly witnessed the shooting and the wider group of family members could include another 480.
The rough cost of the one-off extension was $1.4 million to July 2019, and up to $35 million over the life of the scheme. That’s a drop in the bucket in terms of post-Covid spending. It’s the same amount allocated by the last government’s One Billion Trees programme for ‘jobs for nature’ projects. It’s also roughly the cost of imprisoning the Christchurch terrorist for 10 years.
In advocating against the ACC option, Treasury made three points: the health system has existing infrastructure; there was a “large risk” of opening ACC to further expansions; and any significant policy change should wait for the health and disability review and the welfare expert advisory group’s report.
FIANZ’s report notes Treasury was the only government agency against the proposal. It didn’t adequately refer to available research and information, the report says, and its approach was described as “somewhat callous” compared to that taken by ACC, in its briefing paper.
Regarding the existing health system, Treasury didn’t acknowledge the enormous strain on Canterbury’s mental health services – despite its own analysis that Canterbury had the highest percentage of people with low mental health wellbeing.
In 2017, Canterbury’s DHB told Parliament’s health select committee it had a mental health bed shortage.
It was telling in 2019’s ‘Wellbeing Budget’, when the government announced $455 million in new mental health spending, that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said it would take “a full five years” to get the workforce at full capacity.
“Treasury seemed quite oblivious of the chronic skills shortage in the sector,” the FIANZ report says.
Highlighting the potential risk of an ACC extension for terror victims opening up further expansions to ACC is fundamentally confused, the report says.
In fact, ACC’s own paper described the extension as “relatively low risk”, and would use existing legislation, section 265 of the ACC Act, as part of a “bespoke Government response”.
Treasury’s take was “inconsistent with the facts” and appears to be “analytical confusion”, FIANZ says. Instead of assessing the ACC paper’s three options, it was cherry picking options ACC itself had rejected as having a “high expansion risk”.
“It is quite obvious that Treasury simply wanted to scuttle the ACC recommendation,” the FIANZ report says. “We consider this disingenuous and an explanation is required.” (None was forthcoming in McLiesh’s statement. The Treasury secretary said she had cordial discussions with Razzaq, which provided “an important opportunity to reflect on our advice and how it could be better presented in future”.)
Treasury advised Cabinet’s business committee: “This could be very costly and expansions should be properly considered proactively, not on an ad hoc basis.” That advice jars, especially set against its advice post-Covid, in which it advocated the Government set aside funds for further ad hoc decisions.
The word “proactively” was panned as incoherent. FIANZ said: “This effectively means that ACC should have planned for an expansion of its services in case of a terrorist attack.”
Such glaring inconsistencies are inexcusable when the welfare and wellbeing of terror victims are at stake, FIANZ says, and Treasury hasn’t lived up to its responsibility.
The report accuses Treasury of looking for legitimate reasons to delay the ACC decision. The health and disability review contained nothing to do with mental health trauma from deliberate acts of terrorism, FIANZ says. Meanwhile, the welfare expert advisory group said ACC should be extended for people with disabilities and illness, to reduce the current inequities. “This is exactly what the ACC proposal advocated and exactly what Treasury rejected,” the FIANZ report says. “Here again Treasury is out of step with experts.”
The report lists Treasury’s basic principles for financial intervention which, it says, is consistent with the ACC proposal. (The ACC proposal sought a $10.8 million “pre-commitment” from the Budget’s operating allowance, but Treasury – which recommended “Do not support” – said, on top of its other points, this would decrease the operating balance before gains and losses and increase net debt.)
Falling through the cracks
Critics of the Cabinet committee’s decision, and Treasury’s influential role, would say the results have been self-fulfilling.
By May last year, after the Covid-19-induced Level 4 lockdown, agencies started pulling back from victims.
Some victims took on debt to pay the medical costs of their family members, who entered the country on limited visas to care for them.
Traumatised widows are leaving the country, raising questions about whether they will continue to get Government help.
The Royal Commission into the attack released its report last December. Several of its recommendations were designed to help victims, many of whom said they’d been “forgotten”.
To be fair, the Government is implementing several recommendations designed to help victims, including establishing a $1 million ‘ethnic and faith community engagement response fund’, over three years, as well as establishing an Oversight Advisory Group and a Collective Impact Board.
But this doesn’t fully cater for those facing ongoing trauma because of the attacks – people who might be shut out of the ACC system because they weren’t physically injured or weren’t physically there, but are still suffering.
In her response to the Royal Commission report, Ardern said the ongoing impact of the attacks would be long-lasting. “The Government will establish a wraparound services as part of the ongoing recovery support for affected whānau, survivors and witnesses of the attack.”
New Zealand is living up to its obligation to keep its worst murderer off the streets. The question is, is it also living up to its obligations to care for the victims still walking those streets?
* This story has been updated with comment from Andrew Little.
