|
|
Child sex
abuse hysteria and the Ellis case |
|
|
|
|
The wisdom of
Gordon Waugh - Index |
|
|
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. |
