|
The
Dominion Post
October 30, 2003
Justifying expenditure
Letter to the Editor
by Gordon
Waugh, Auckland
Your
article headed ACC may not chase false sex payouts (Oct 22) illustrates well
the naive and irresponsible attitude of ACC to sexual abuse claims.
Responding to a parliamentary question, ACC Minister Ruth Dyson said that ACC
always requires credible evidence to support acceptance of cover for the
mental consequences of sexual abuse.
More than 94,000 such claims have been made in recent years. The majority are
based on a claimant's uncorroborated story and the beliefs and assumptions of
the counsellor. Evidence of abuse is not required. Alleged perpetrators need
not be identified. Claims are rarely investigated.
ACC says it "would definitely pursue people who had lied about being
sexually abused to get ACC payouts. But those thinking they had been abused,
who later realised they had not, would not necessarily have to refund the
money".
If ACC can't distinguish between true and false claims, how would it know if
a complainant lied? Is it sufficient for claimants to merely "think they
were abused"?
Taxpayers are entitled to know that ACC expenditure is properly justified.
That requires credible, testable evidence of abuse and consequential mental
injury, and conviction of the perpetrator.
|
