Questions to Minister

10. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Will she return ACC to the pay-as-you-go funding model, outlined in the Green Party’s ACC Rehabilitation Plan and emailed to her this morning, and are there any points in the plan she will not consider implementing?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) : I have not yet considered the member’s ideas, but whatever outcome we arrive at regarding funding will need to be affordable and responsible, although no formal decision has yet been made on any changes to ACC’s funding model. This Government does not want to burden future generations of New Zealanders with the cost of injuries that occur today as well as the cost of their own injuries.
Kevin Hague: Will she implement another point in the plan and ensure that medical assessments are undertaken by practitioners who are independent of the corporation, something that was also recommended in the last major review of ACC, undertaken by Judge Trapski in 1994?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As I have stated before, I have not yet had the opportunity to consider the member’s ideas, but I am happy to look at them and to discuss them with him.
Kevin Hague: Will she consider another point in the plan, also recommended by Judge Trapski: introducing an ACC ombudsman who would investigate the abuses of process that have characterised the culture of disentitlement in ACC over the last couple of years?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As I have said, I have not had the opportunity yet to consider the member’s ideas, but I am happy to discuss them with him.
Kevin Hague: Will she also consider another point in the plan: auditing the service delivery model at the corporation against the five Woodhouse principles; and is she prepared to work with the Green Party on her review of ACC?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As previously stated, I have not had the opportunity yet to consider the member’s ideas, but I am happy to discuss those with him.

11. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: On how many occasions, and for what periods of time on each occasion, did she meet with or have discussions with the ACC Chairman or Chief Executive, including about the matter of the mass privacy breach involving Bronwyn Pullar, between 13 March and 19 March when that matter was referred to the Police by way of formal complaint?



Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) : The Chief Executive of ACC texted me on Tuesday, 13 March that there was a story in the Dominion Post. He subsequently spoke to me to advise that ACC was investigating the matter and he would keep me informed. I met the chair of the ACC board and the Chief Executive of ACC in Auckland on Wednesday, 14 March. The focus of that meeting was the 6,700 claimants whose privacy had been breached. On Friday, 16 March, the report from ACC was provided to me when I was in Auckland—the same day it was publicly released. I had my regular meeting with the Chief Executive of ACC, the Department of Labour, and officials on Monday, 19 March, which commenced at 4.15 p.m. I do not know whether that was before or after the final police complaint was signed.
Andrew Little: Does she accept that her answer to question No. 12 last Thursday that “The 16 March report clearly states, on page 3, that the matter was referred to police on 13 March …” is wrong, in light of both the 16 March report itself, which actually states: “The police were contacted regarding the meeting with the client in December …”, and a statement from the police last Thursday confirming that the matter was not referred to them until Monday, 19 March?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is wrong. The report itself at 6.5 says that “The Privacy Commissioner was advised of the breach.” It then goes on at 7.0 to say that “The police were contacted regarding the meeting with the client in December and the threat made.” Quite clearly, that is a referral. It is not saying, and I did not say, that a written complaint had been signed and laid.
Andrew Little: Does she accept that the term “referral” means to hand over for consideration, investigation, or decision, and that the term “contact” does not mean handing something over? And does she understand that the police report last Thursday stated that the matter was referred to them by way of a formal complaint on 19 March?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.
Andrew Little: What information did she become aware of between 13 March and 19 March that saw the 1 December meeting change from being regarded as a privacy matter on 13 March to being a potential criminal matter justifying a police complaint on 19 March?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot answer that question, because the referral was made by the Chief Executive of ACC. It was not referred to me, and I was not party to any discussions with the police.
Andrew Little: At what point did she become aware that what was originally thought of as a privacy matter was going to the police by way of a formal complaint as a potentially criminal matter?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The best information I have is that after the matter was actually signed, which was on Monday, 19 March. The other information I have is quite clear in the report on 16 March from ACC, which says: “The police were contacted regarding the meeting with the client in December and the threat made.” I do not think even Mr Little would not realise that when it says “threat made” that is clearly referring to a criminal matter; otherwise, it would not have gone to the police. The privacy matter was actually referred to the Privacy Commissioner at 6.5 of the same report.
Andrew Little: Is not the truth behind this whole affair that she wanted to cause maximum embarrassment to Michelle Boag, which is why an unusual but otherwise innocent meeting was twisted into something criminal, and a personal communication from Michelle Boag was leaked to the media from her office?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.