Women over all make up 82% of the claimants; and while it is known that Maori women are heavily represented in this percentage, ACC is currently unable to confirm what the actual ethnicity breakdown is.
NCW President, Elizabeth Bang says,
"Best practise would have set Maori women’s treatment needs as the first priority, given they are the majority population at risk.”
But as this has not happened she is claiming racial discrimination.
Well, she didn't try very hard to get the statistics. They are available on-line.
In the 2007/08 year there were 240 (14 percent of total) active Maori sensitive claims (average cost $8,692), 28 (2 percent) Pacific ($7,929) and 1,268 (73 percent) Pakeha/European ($11,737).
This chart depicts new claims.
“Since Maori women are more likely to be affected by the changes to ACC, why are they the last to be consulted” questions Elizabeth Bang.
Because Maori women are not more likely to be affected by the changes. One is left wondering whether these two groups are talking to one another at all.
No argument from me that Maori women are more likely to suffer sexual victimisation as adults (less like to suffer from childhood sexual abuse) but in terms of current claims, they are not over-represented.
4 comments:
Considering the basis for your argument is entirely framed on statistics that you accessed via the ACC site... NCWNZ's response to this information is (quoting Dr Peter Jansen's presentation material used for educating providers on the clinical pathway)"82% of clients are female, Maori more likely to be client". The figures for the European population are indeed on the chart very large - so how many of them are actually NZ European/Maori, or did you not notice the absence of this group? Having had meetings directly with ACC - about the ethnicity breakdown - we have requested more accurate data. ACC has indicated that the request is very problematic due to 5% - 19% non-response rate on ethnicity questions. Also, added to that are the duplication of claims at the ACC end.
Sounds like a statistical mess to me.
A little bit like daytime tv; "...anyway, putting logic aside for a moment... shouldn't somebody DO something..."
We've been trying to stop it for a couple of months. The NZ College of Clinical Psychologist, NZ Association of Counselors, NZ Association of Psychotherapists, Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care, Social Worker groups, Rape Crisis, Women's Refuge... the list goes on have all been battling this since August. They managed to delay the implementation till October, so imagine if it had been rolled out when they actually intended. We have posted various groups materials - press releases and letters to MPs etc on our website; http://www.ncwnz.org.nz/acc-changes-to-sexual-abuse-counselling/
NCWNZ
"Maori more likely to be client" isn't borne out by the statistics though. Active and new clients make up 14-16 percent, which is fairly close to the Maori share of the total population. If claimants tend to be young Maori, who make up a larger percentage of that demographic, 14-16 percent is, in fact, an under-representation. In other words, Maori are less likely to be clients.
"The figures for the European population are indeed on the chart very large - so how many of them are actually NZ European/Maori, or did you not notice the absence of this group?"
The absence of a NZ European/Maori group is normal and not noteworthy. People provide their ethnicity based on the culture they most identify with. Most of the claimants who have described themselves as Maori will have NZ European or Pacific heritage also.
If they chose to describe themselves as Pakeha (but are part Maori) they could hardly then be aggrieved by having their Maori part discriminated against at the cost of having their Pakeha part discriminated for. Which is where we end up with this silliness.
You say, "ACC has indicated that the request is very problematic due to 5% - 19% non-response rate on ethnicity questions."
Yet in the last year data was available for, only 3% of all new claimants were listed as ethnicity "unknown". So something isn't adding up.
Finally, for what reason would duplication of claims affect just the Maori ethnicity?
You put out a press release accusing ACC of racial discrimination and chose to ignore known data. So I stick with my initial response - bad call.
Post a Comment