A New Zealand Muslim group is criticising Treasury for failing to consider those who weren’t injured but are suffering mental distress after the Christchurch terror attacks.
However, the group’s recent meeting with Treasury, who seem to have changed their tune about what they had actually meant when it provided Cabinet advice in 2019, has raised questions about how the proposal was actually rejected.
In the report released today , the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand said Treasury is “not fit-for-purpose” after it advised against a proposal to extend ACC support to everyone affected by the attacks, including those who suffered mental harm, despite other agencies suggesting it should.
FIANZ, which represents Muslim groups in six regions, said in its report Treasury’s argument against the extension was contradictory, inconsistent with its previous decisions and based on inaccurate information.
The report’s author Abdur Razzaq, who is a member of FIANZ, told Breakfast this morning that the lack of the one-off expansion resulted in a lack of equity.
Currently, ACC covers people with physical injuries, but not mental health injures unrelated to work or unrelated to sexual abuse.
So, for instance, if someone who was employed at the mosques at the time witnessed the massacre, they would be covered by ACC. However, if they were at the mosques as a worshipper, they wouldn’t get ACC cover.
A paper presented to Cabinet in July 2019 recognised this inconsistency. It said it was “appropriate to provide [ACC cover] for those who can establish they have suffered mental harm”.
The paper also noted ACC was “well-placed to administer this support” because they were already providing support to those physically injured in the attack and to mentally injured workers.
The Cabinet paper said Section 265 of the Accident Compensation Act would allow ACC to “perform services outside of its normal functions” under a direction by its Minister. The ACC Minister at the time, Iain Lees-Galloway, supported an ACC-led approach.
Treasury’s comment in response was that it didn’t support a permanent or one-off expansion because there was “already existing infrastructure for mental health support” through the health system because of the response to the Christchurch earthquakes.
Treasury also said there was a “large risk of opening ACC up to further expansions”, which could be “very costly”, because “questions will be asked about why only a very narrow portion of mental health injuries is covered”.
The FIANZ report pointed to the inconsistency of Treasury’s response to the Canterbury earthquake of 2011 and the terror attacks.
After the earthquake, funding was made available immediately and an earthquake contingency fund was established for “future budget allowance”. But, for the terror attacks, Treasury opted to delay until changes were made to ACC legislation.
The FIANZ report noted there was ample evidence in March 2019 frontline supportive agencies had a strong resolve to help victims. However, each agency used their own criteria to define what a “victim” was.
Cabinet decided not to extend ACC cover in 2019. When questioned in March this year, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told Breakfast ACC cover couldn’t be extended without expanding eligibility greatly.
A meeting with Treasury’s secretary two weeks ago, however, has left Razzaq puzzled.
He said Treasury indicated, in writing, “they were always in favour of this proposal [of extending cover]”, but they were against the method of the payment.
This indicated that ACC, Treasury, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Social Development were now all in favour of extending cover, Razzaq said.
“So why did the Cabinet actually turn it down?” he asked.
He has written to Minister Andrew Little and is still waiting for a reply.
“We’re not talking about huge sums here … what we’re talking about is social equity,” Razzaq said.
“The door is still open.”
Barrister: 'It’s really a question for Cabinet'
A barrister specialising in ACC law said if what Treasury had said recently about its advice to Cabinet is true and was consistent with advice from other agencies, despite what it wrote in 2019, “then it really beggars belief why Cabinet didn’t go down that path [of extending cover]”.
“It’s really a question for Cabinet," Warren Forster said.
Section 265 of the Accident Compensation Act does not give ACC itself power to change the way it functioned, but the Minister of the time, he explained.
“It allows the Government of the day to recognise that there’s a better way to do something and actually do it.”
Had cover been extended earlier, Forster said people affected by the mosque shootings and their families could have been better helped.
“There was the capacity at the time and there is the capacity today. This decision-making power doesn’t go away," he said.
“There is ongoing discrimination that we’re seeing. It affects Māori, it affects women, it affects vulnerable communities, it affected people with a disability. We need to start having these conversations.
“These walls between systems have been built by politicians and law. And we need to start tearing them down.”
SHARE ME