I’ve done a day of media interviews about the revelation that the crucial meeting last December between two senior ACC managers, claimant Bronwyn Pullar and her support person Michelle Boag was recorded. Several journalists have now heard the tape of the meeting and/or read a transcript, and have been reporting today that the tape does not support the ACC contention that Ms. Pullar was engaged in extortion, using threats to obtain benefits to which she was not entitled.
This is important because ACC have made this complaint to the NZ Police, and they are investigating it.
A recording of a critical meeting between senior ACC managers and the whistleblower who exposed a massive privacy breach reveals the corporation misled its minister and the public. The corporation has alleged that client Bronwyn Pullar threatened at the meeting to go to the media unless she was given a guaranteed two-year benefit. It also alleged she said that she would withhold details of the breach involving private details of 6500 other clients – including sexual abuse victims – if her demands were not met. Once details of the privacy breach were revealed by The Dominion Post, the ACC referred its extortion allegations against Ms Pullar to police. However, a recording of a key meeting in December between Ms Pullar, her support person Michelle Boag – a senior National Party figure – and two ACC managers is at odds with the corporation's claims that were included in a report ordered by ACC Minister Judith Collins. The ACC was given a transcript of the meeting more than three weeks ago, but has refused to correct its report. Ms Pullar said it was outrageous that, having been provided with the recording, the corporation was refusing to correct a "blatant lie" on a public report. Before publishing the report, the corporation did not ask Ms Pullar or former National Party president Ms Boag for their account of what was said at the meeting. ACC also complained to police about the alleged extortion threat before completing its report. The report did not name Ms Pullar or Ms Boag. Their names were subsequently made public following a leak being investgated by the privacy commissioner's office. The Dominion Post has heard the recording and had obtained an accurate transcript of it. It contradicts several key elements in the ACC report. The transcript shows: Neither Ms Pullar nor Ms Boag threatened to go to the media or withhold the data if Ms Pullar was not given a guaranteed two years' compensation. ACC's statement that it was not given specific details of the breach is misleading. ACC was told the data was "highly sensitive information", including names and details of 6500 claimants. ACC was not told the data was sent by one of the managers. Ms Boag said an ACC staff member sent it. After the meeting, ACC said it tried to find the breach by checking all emails from the managers to Ms Pullar but found nothing. After senior ACC staff, including chief executive Ralph Stewart, were given the opportunity to hear the recording, the corporation declined to withdraw its complaint to police. The corporation said Ms Pullar and Ms Boag were not named in the report and it would not correct the allegation against Ms Pullar. But Ms Pullar said that the allegation was a misuse of power and "an attempt to smear Michelle Boag's and my reputation". "Had I not recorded this meeting, it would have been ACC's word against mine." ACC was told in writing by Ms Pullar in 2010 that any discussions with ACC staff in person or on the phone would be recorded to protect her position and to compensate for impairments caused by a head injury she suffered in 2002. "Sadly, many ACC clients record their meetings with ACC and its assessors to protect themselves against these underhand types of tactics. "No claimant who chooses to go the media after exhausting alternative means to get ACC to take their issues of unlawful conduct and breaches of privacy seriously should have to tolerate this kind of harassment." Media lawyer Steven Price said the tape was recorded legitimately because Ms Pullar was a party to the conversation at the meeting. Parties to a conversation cannot be guilty of illegally recording a conversation using an interception device. When contacted yesterday for comment on the recording, an ACC spokesman said the corporation would not comment while an investigation by the privacy commissioner was under way. The Minister for ACC Judith Collins is refusing to comment on the recording. Through a spokeswoman, she said it would be inappropriate to comment while investigations were underway.
Lawyers for ACC Minister Judith Collins have written to Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little advising them proceedings are being issued against them for defamation. Mr Little confirmed today he and Mr Mallard had received the letter but was not aware if proceedings had yet been filed in court. He had not been served any papers because the letter asked him to get in touch with an address - and he had no intention of providing that at this stage. Ms Collins has accused the two MPs of defaming her in relation to a leaked email from former National Party president Michelle Boag. Ms Boag had emailed Ms Collins about a case involving ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar, who blew the whistle on ACC inadvertently releasing her details about thousands of ACC claimants.
ACC Minister Judith Collins says progress on opening up ACC to the private sector is still being made. In a speech on Thursday morning, Ms Collins also said the corporation's biggest current challenge is client privacy. The previous ACC minister, Nick Smith, had already embarked upon the process of allowing private insurance companies to compete with ACC for workplace cover. He resigned last month after it was revealed he had written a reference for an ACC claimant while he was the minister. Ms Collins, who took over the portfolio, told the Employers and Manufacturers' Association on Thursday that progress is being made, but the process will not be rushed. She also talked about the recent controversies over the release of client information, saying they've understandably undermined public confidence in ACC. She said she's still not satisfied the corporation's privacy provisions are good enough, and the board is working to address that. Meanwhile, Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little are sending Ms Collins a letter of response to her threat to proceed with defamation action. In separate letters they say they will not be offering an apology, nor will they be covering her legal costs.
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Claire Trevett
ACC minister Judith Collins has told an employers group that ACC needs to rebuild public trust and had fallen short in protecting privacy after a realm of controversies and complaints about it. Ms Collins spoke to the Northern Employers and Manufacturers' Association this morning and referred to the recent controversy around it, saying privacy and information security was the biggest issue facing ACC at the moment. Her comments follow revelations ACC inadvertently emailed a database of its claimants to Bronwyn Pullar, a National Party supporter who has been in a stoush with ACC over her entitlement following a head injury in 2002. Ms Collins said it was essential that New Zealanders could trust ACC. "Understandably these matters have undermined people's confidence in ACC and the service it provides. At this stage I am not yet satisfied ACC's privacy provisions and protocols are appropriate or are being complied with to the level they should be." Ms Collins also implied ACC had gone too far in deciding cases were entitled to compensation, saying while it should not be seen as a "soft touch" it should follow a fair process. "We would like to see a renewed focus in ACC towards a rebalance of the broader responsibilities it has to all New Zealanders. It must ensure entitlements are delivered transparently and fairly to those who need them." She said she expected ACC to implement any recommendations the Privacy Commissioner might make after an investigation, but there were also many processes that could be strengthened immediately. Ms Collins is threatening to sue Labour MPs Andrew Little, Trevor Mallard and Radio NZ for defamation over comments they made relating to a leak of an email, and has said she will resign if that leak came from her or her office. She has given them until today to apologise and retract their comments. Both have said they do not intend to apologise. In her speech, Ms Collins gave few hints about whether she would back away from plans to introduce competition into the work account, which covers employers, as National had campaigned on. She told the EMA that there would be changes which would give employers more choices, but they were still being worked on. "Improvements to the scheme will offer employers choice only where it makes good sense to." In February, Ms Collins said speculation she would ditch the proposal which National had campaigned on in 2011 were 'extremely speculative" but she did believe there were better options than those outlined by Dr Smith. Sources had previously told the Herald there were concerns that introducing competition at this point would punish small and medium businesses in levy increases and open ACC to too much risk as private companies cherry picked low-risk employers as their clients. Ms Collins did give a clear indication that more employers would soon be able to sign up to the Accredited Employer Scheme which is currently restricted to large companies. That scheme allows those companies to manage their own workplace accident cover, including managing injuries and administering compensation payments. She said ACC were evaluating that scheme's success and looking to offer it more widely.
An article from Stuff by Danya Levy and John Hartevelt
Prime Minister John Key is backing further action taken by ACC Minister Judith Collins. Labour MP Trevor Mallard - who along with fellow MP Andrew Little and Radio New Zealand has been threatened with a defamation suit by Collins - today said he had received another letter from her over the matter. Mallard, Little and Radio NZ had previously been given a deadline to apologise over allegedly defamatory comments they aired about Collins. Mallard and Little said they did not respond to that letter. Mallard today said he now had another letter from Collins setting a new deadline of this Thursday for an apology. Speaking from Jakarta where he was leading a three-day trade mission, Key said he hadn't discussed the second request for an apology with his minister. "Fundamentally it's a matter for her now and those individual parties." However, Key said he supported Collins in what she was doing. "But it's a matter for her to resolve." The second letter included a requirement that Mallard hand over the emails he had received upon which he had based some statements about Collins. "It's a letter which has factual errors and is confused," Mallard said. "There certainly are some opportunities in it for us not to go to court, which would involve an apology, which I doubt anyone would advise me to give in the circumstances." Mallard said he would take further advice over the matter but had "no current intention" to respond to the latest letter. Little had also received a second letter, Mallard said. A spokeswoman for Collins said it would be inappropriate to comment.
Labour MP Trevor Mallard says he has received a letter from ACC Minister Judith Collins' lawyer threatening to proceed with defamation action unless he apologises and reveals his source. Ms Collins announced last month that she would take legal action against Mr Mallard and fellow Labour MP Andrew Little, as well as Radio New Zealand, for making allegedly defamatory remarks about her over the case of a leaked email about an ACC client. The minister has been accused of bluffing about the legal action. However, Mr Mallard confirmed today that he had received a letter from Ms Collins' lawyer. "They're asking me to give up my source and my emails, and they are again asking for a retraction and an apology," Mr Mallard told APNZ. "I'm reserving my position. Clearly I don't make formal responses without advice." Mr Mallard said he was tempted to invoke a "Arkell vs Pressdram" response - referring to a British case concerning the Private Eye magazine. In the 1971 case, when told by the plaintiff's lawyer that his client's attitude to damages would "be governed by the nature of your reply", the magazine replied: "We would be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: **** off." The letter from Ms Collins' lawyer gave a deadline of this Thursday. Mr Little said he had also received a letter and was speaking to a lawyer, but that he "wasn't losing sleep over it". "Basically it says please apologise the way we've asked you to do before, and if you don't we will proceed," he said. "Subject to talking further with the lawyer, the letter hasn't changed my view that I don't think an apology is required." Ms Collins has continued to deny allegations from the Opposition that she or her office was responsible for leaking an email sent to her by former National Party president Michelle Boag. The email gave details about Bronwyn Pullar, the ACC claimant who went to the media last month after being mistakenly sent the details of about 7000 ACC clients. Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff is investigating how the email got to the media, and Ms Collins has told Parliament she will resign if the leak is found to have come from someone in her charge.
A senior medical officer in ACC's sensitive claims unit has made legal threats to a blogger who posted information about his employment history, in the wake of a mass privacy breach. Peter Dodwell, the branch medical advisor of the unit that deals with rape and abuse victims, was fired from his previous job in Australia over a privacy issue. Both Dodwell and ACC's senior medical advisor, Peter Jansen, have threatened legal action against blogger Kyle Macdonald, a psychotherapist who regularly speaks out against the corporation. The revelations come as the Auditor General prepares to investigate ACC's governance, adding to an inquiry by the Privacy Commissioner into a breach that saw 6000 patient files - including 131 from the sensitive claims unit - released to claimant Bronwyn Pullar. Documents show that in March 2008 Dodwell was sacked from his role as chief medical officer at HealthQuest, the medical screening body for all public servants in Australia, after an internal investigation into his behaviour. The investigator, former NSW Police Deputy Commissioner David Madden, found Dodwell had inappropriately passed on information to the Education Department about a teacher it intended employing, saying she was being investigated by police for defamatory website postings about him. According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald, there was no evidence the teacher was being investigated by police. Madden said Dodwell passed on the information in an attempt to adversely influence the department's decision to employ her. "The way in which he [ Dodwell] went about informing the Department of Education was inappropriate and not reasonable behaviour of a public official," the report said. Madden said the teacher had no opportunity to defend herself against Dodwell's claims, and he should be disciplined for breaching privacy restrictions. He was later fired. After Mr MacDonald posted a link to the SMH story, and an opinion of its contents on his blog, he received a letter from Dodwell's lawyer requesting parts be changed or removed because they were defamatory. The letter was similar to one MacDonald received from Jansen in 2010 about a defamatory blog post and tweet, which he removed for fear of legal action. Jansen was the senior ACC manager at the centre of another defamation case last year, involving a blogger who was also claimant of the Sensitive Claims Unit. The blogger, known as Jax, was under the police witness protection programme for sexual abuse at the time, and alleged her ACC file had been accessed by someone within ACC in order to find her contact details. MacDonald said the threats against him, in his view, were another example of how ACC bullied critics and "whistleblowers" who had genuine concerns about the organisation. Dodwell was hired to provide expert opinion about claims and treatment decisions, he said. "I thought the information should be in the public domain, given someone with that kind of history is in a clinical role. The reality is that it's a political position, so the public have a right to express their views." MacDonald said the fact Dodwell had a history with privacy issues was important given the recent breach and his role in sensitive claims. "Privacy is important for people with a sensitive claim. Lack of it can cause emotional harm, but it can also be dangerous for people who are in hiding because of sexual abuse," he said. In a statement, an ACC spokeswoman said: "The importance of confidentiality is vital to the good faith employment relationships between ACC and its staff. Consequently it would be inappropriate for ACC to comment on any individuals employment matters." But ACC said that Dodwell had provided a complete CV to ACC when he applied for the job. Dodwell himself said he disclosed, directly to his ACC manager, details of the matter that led to his dismissal in Australia. As for the legal action, ACC said it had no role when an employee "acting independently or out of personal motives" initiated legal communications, proceedings or actions with an external party. Dodwell argued there was no legal action "either taken or threatened". "The letter acquainted Mr MacDonald with inaccuracies in his article, and invited him either to remove certain specified passages or to amend his article to reflect the true situation," he said. Jansen said the material on McDonald's blog "seriously defamed" him. He wouldn't answer a question asking if he thought his actions were appropriate.
An article from the Herald on Sunday by Joanne Carroll
The medical adviser for the ACC sensitive claims unit left two previous jobs amid controversy. Dr Peter Dodwell resigned as principal medical officer for the Civil Aviation Authority after a report found an unacceptably high error rate in decisions whether or not to clear pilots as medically fit to fly planes. The Scott-Gorman report into medical certificates for pilots also alleged the process for initially appointing doctors, supervised by Dodwell, had been "flawed from the outset". Dodwell sought a judicial review against the CAA for failing to give him an opportunity to respond to the damning report. CAA director John Jones later apologised to Dodwell as part of an out-of-court settlement. The ACC sensitive-claims unit has been part of a scandal involving thousands of claimants' details being mistakenly released to another claimant by email. Minister for ACC Judith Collins refused to comment on Dodwell's appointment, saying employment matters were the responsibility of ACC. Spokeswoman Stephanie Melville declined to answer questions about whether ACC was aware of the previous controversies before employing Dodwell. Dodwell went on to work in health in NSW, but was reportedly sacked in 2008. This week, blogger Kyle MacDonald was forced to edit a post which contained information about Dodwell's employment history after legal threats. MacDonald said the post was changed after legal counsel for Dodwell expressed concerns about the impact of the post on his ongoing professional reputation. The blog had posted a link and comment from a Sydney Morning Herald article about Dodwell's departure from Healthquest. Dodwell was sacked for communicating inappropriately with the Education Board about a teacher it intended to employ. An investigation by the former NSW Police deputy police commissioner David Madden found Dodwell inappropriately passed on information regarding the teacher - who had been found fit for duty by HealthQuest in 2006 - to the Education Department in an attempt to adversely influence its decision to employ her. Madden found two of the five allegations made by the teacher against Dodwell were substantiated. An independent review by former magistrate John Heagney supported the Madden findings. The teacher was medically retired after being declared unfit for duty, a decision overturned by the Medical Appeals Panel five months later. Madden said the teacher had had no opportunity to defend herself against Dodwell's claims and he should be disciplined for breaching privacy restrictions. To date he he has not been the subject of any tribunal proceedings in Australia. Dodwell has indicated that there are two sides to the story of his departure from the CAA but did not respond to requests for comment this week.
An article from the Otago Daily Times by Amelia Romanos
A sexual abuse victim who was one of thousands of ACC clients to have details released in a privacy breach has been asked by the organisation to destroy information relating to other claims sent to him in error. The man had requested information about his case and was sent an 11-page spreadsheet detailing the more than 250 times ACC staff had accessed his file. The organisation later requested that he delete the file after finding that 60 of the incidents listed did not relate to his case. While no personal details were revealed in the document, the man said he was disturbed that ACC was still making blunders with other people's information. "It just shows you they haven't bothered to make it better after last time. They just don't care," he told APNZ. "You can't know what they are sending out." The man, who suffered permanent brain damage as a baby, and was sexually and physically assaulted when he was 13, has been in a long-running battle with ACC over the severity of his condition. Following recent revelations that National Party insider Bronwyn Pullar was accidentally sent sensitive information about thousands of ACC claimants, the man requested ACC send him a list of all the people who had accessed his file, and was emailed a spreadsheet last week. During a subsequent check of the information, ACC discovered that some information was incorrect, and in an email requested that the man destroy the file. "Upon your confirmation that all emails and files have been destroyed (both electronic and hard copy) I will send you the correct information," the case manager wrote. In a later letter, ACC sought to reassure him that there had been no breach of privacy but confirmed that some information did not relate to his claim. It said the mistake had occurred when a staff member input an incorrect claim number. A number of investigations have been launched into how Ms Pullar was sent the details of 6700 claimants, including 250 with sensitive claims relating to sexual abuse, last August. ACC last month contacted the clients affected by that error, assuring them that it understood that "mistakes must be avoided" and that it would continue to improve its processes. However, the man said he had doubts about how sincere ACC's efforts to fix the problem were, with this latest mistake coming less than a month after those affected by the earlier breach were notified. Although the man said he could not tell who the information related to, he questioned how much care was being taken with people's information. "I have no trust in them at all and worry about what else has been leaked," he said. "It also concerns me greatly the amount of people who have accessed my claims file." ACC would not comment on the case, saying that it was in the process of an independent investigation. "When the independent review has been completed its findings will be made public," it said in a statement.
For those of you who were kind enough to participate in the survey posted here in a previous blog, I thought you might be interested in seeing the results.
If it surprises even some MPs that the Accident Compensation Corporation runs a claims process for "important" people, then it is just as well an inquiry by the Auditor-general into how ACC manages conflicts of interest has been announced. Opposition spokesman on ACC matters Andrew Little had not been aware of special VIP provisions when he spoke on National Radio about it following revelations in the Otago Daily Times last week. That this has come to light as the corporation struggles to emerge from a storm of controversy only adds to the questions surrounding it - particularly as some of that contention relates to suggestions of preferential treatment. Arguably this is quite a separate "structural" matter, but some rehearsal of the current imbroglio is necessary - if only to distinguish what is at stake in each. Briefly, then, former ACC minister Nick Smith was forced to resign last month when it emerged he had signed letters on ministerial letterhead that could be construed as intervening on behalf of a friend who had a long-standing claim with the corporation. That friend was Bronwyn Pullar who, anonymous at the time, leaked a list of 6700 ACC claimants to the Dominion Post newspaper on March 13, saying this had been sent to her in error and was a serious breach of confidentiality. ACC inquired into the leaking and alleged to new ACC minister Judith Collins that the claimant and a support person had sought two years' payments for the return of the confidential list. On March 18, the Herald on Sunday published details from a letter sent by former National Party president Michelle Boag to Ms Collins. The leaked letter revealed the claimant as Ms Pullar and Ms Boag as her support person. This leak is now the subject of an inquiry by the privacy commissioner. On March 25, the same newspaper divulged details of Ms Pullar's private insurance claim, originally put at $14 million. Four days later, TV One's Close Up unearthed correspondence to Ms Boag relating to the private claim and referring to Ms Pullar's 28-strong group of supporters, mostly prominent National Party figures including John Key, Jenny Shipley and Wayne Mapp. Quite apart from the questions relating to who leaked what to whom and why - some commentators are suggesting this is all about future leadership positions in the National Party - there are some pressing issues at stake here. If the confidentiality breach involving the dispersal of the 6700 claimants to Ms Pullar was simply a careless accident by an ACC staff officer, then systems evidently need to be tightened at the corporation. If it came to Ms Pullar by other means, then that is more worrying. It suggests malign influences at work either within ACC or among those who have access to its files; it could also mean that ACC's IT security net has been compromised. Of most concern, however, are the apparent attempts, by Dr Smith, and arguably by Ms Boag, on Ms Pullar's behalf, to use their positions and connections to influence the actions of a state corporation. Even the appearance of having supported preferential treatment for Ms Pullar brings both the corporation and the Government into disrepute. The ODT's revelations that ACC has a VIP claims policy is a separate issue. Ostensibly, while she was a well-connected National Party activist, Ms Pullar did not qualify for priority treatment. As set out in the corporation's 2007 "delegation manual", there exists a special "claims handling authority" for the Governor-General, members of Parliament, members of the judiciary, ACC board members and members of their respective immediate families. But the furore around ACC at large should not distract from questions on this policy. Why should certain people have special privileges - mainly relating to privacy and security - pertaining to their claims? Should not the security of the system be sufficient to protect the privacy of everyone, regardless of status or station in life? Mr Little did muse on the potential for conflicts of interest for MPs and judges dealing with ACC-related matters. There may be some mileage in this but, given the context of the times, a rather more detailed explanation of the policy than ACC has given to date would be helpful. Hopefully, the Auditor-general's inquiry will shed light on such matters.
An article from the Otago Daily Times by John Gibb
Dunedin lawyer Peter Sara is urging ACC to "come clean" over the details of its controversial "VIP claims" handling policy but ACC says it will not comment until the Privacy Commissioner completes an inquiry in three months. Mr Sara, who has been dealing with ACC cases for more than 30 years, says he also supports the establishment of an independent inquiry into concerns over ACC's handling of long-term claimants, and over the VIP client issue. The Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-general have both announced inquiries after continuing public debate over the ACC board's handling of claimant and former National Party insider Bronwyn Pullar. Ms Pullar has complained to ACC over the way her own ACC claim has been dealt with, and a major breach of privacy occurred when the corporation mistakenly sent her the details of about 67,000 other claimants last year. An Otago Daily Times story, which appeared on Monday, raised concerns that ACC's "VIP claims" handling policy delivered better protection for the privacy of powerful decision-makers, including MPs, judges, ACC board members and their respective immediate families. The corporation's delegations manual shows that the final decision on VIP claims is made by ACC managers and not by more junior staff, and ACC has confirmed it takes extra measures to protect VIP confidentiality. Mr Sara was "unhappy" about aspects of the VIP system and said there was also an undesirable lack of transparency about the way it was operating. An independent inquiry by a judge or QC was needed to investigate long-standing concerns over the handling of long-standing ACC claims, the ACC "exit strategy" involving long-term claimants, and over the VIP arrangements. ACC's refusal to clarify the situation until the Privacy Commissioner had reported was unsatisfactory, and what was already known about the VIP arrangements suggested potential preferential treatment, he said. The Otago Daily Times this week has also asked ACC further questions about how the VIP arrangements operate, and has sought further comment on suggestions that this approach seemed to deliver special treatment to powerful decision-makers, in conflict with New Zealand's egalitarian ethos. An ACC spokesman said it was "unable to comment further on this matter until the independent review commissioned by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been completed." The review had begun on March 28 and was expected to take three months. After the review was completed, its findings would be made public, the spokesman said. Asked whether its VIP approach amounted to preferential treatment, an ACC spokeswoman had earlier said the practice for claims "categorised as VIP on ACC's registration and claim management systems" had followed "the standard allocation and management processes applied to all claims". "The only difference being security rights and who can make decisions on the claim," she said. Dunedin ACC campaigner Dr Denise Powell said a fully independent inquiry by a QC or judge was needed into concerns over the handling of long-term ACC claimants, and the VIP claims system.
ACC Minister Judith Collins has confirmed she has hired Julian Miles QC to deal with her defamation case. Ms Collins is taking the case against two Labour MPs, Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little, and Radio New Zealand over comments about the leaking of an ACC claimant's name to the media.
1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers to questions in the House this year?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. The Prime Minister has answered 36 primary questions covering a large range of topics, and if the member wants specific answers, then he will have to ask a more specific primary question.
Grant Robertson: Does he still stand by his answers that Ministers involved in the ACC saga showed only a lapse of judgment and “not a terribly significant one”, given that there are now five separate inquiries under way into the ACC saga, and why does he just simply not appoint a judge or a QC to do a proper inquiry?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, of course, the member has taken the partial view of what the Prime Minister said. The quote the member used was in respect of the first letter, I think, that the Minister for ACC at the time had written. Of course, in that case further evidence came to light and the Minister decided to stand down. We also need to bear in mind that the focus of a number of those inquiries is actually the privacy processes of ACC, which, of course, are of great interest to all those who are claimants, and might be claimants in the future. We believe that those matters are being adequately inquired into.
Grant Robertson: Does he still stand by his answers around the appropriateness of chairing the committee and appointing his electorate chair, Stephen McElrea, to the board of New Zealand On Air, given Mr McElrea’s attempt to intervene in the broadcast of a programme?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the question about appropriateness, I did chuckle when I saw Mike Williams on TV going on about getting rid of cronyism, when he was appointed by the last Prime Minister to, I think, five large public boards, in which he interfered in every decision any of those entities made.
Grant Robertson: How can he express confidence in all of his Ministers when his Ministers have stuffed up the reform of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, stuffed up the Crafar farm decision, and when his finance Minister can give only a guess as to the real value of the assets that are his only economic plan?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: All I can say is that the Prime Minister has more confidence in his Ministers than the deputy leader of the Labour Party has in his leader.
Grant Robertson: In reference to the Prime Minister’s answers in question time on 7 March on the provision of unconditional love by his pet, and in light of what his own pollster has described as a “quartus horribilis” for his Government, will he now reconsider his apparent decision to appoint his cat Moonbeam as the Government’s strategist?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I do not believe the Prime Minister would do that. The Prime Minister has great affection for Moonbeam, and being the Government strategist is somewhat challenging, and Moonbeam might not be up to it. [Interruption] But he is available for the Labour Party.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Grant Robertson: Does he still stand by his answer that he has confidence that he has confidence in all his Ministers, given that the Hon John Banks failed to declare a $15,000 donation from Skycity in his electoral return for the Auckland mayoralty?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister is not aware of those issues, and the inquiry should be directed to the relevant Minister. The Prime Minister would expect that all Ministers comply with the requirements of the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and the Cabinet Manual.
Grant Robertson: Would he still have confidence in the Hon John Banks as a Minister if he was aware that Skycity publicly stated that it had given $15,000 to both main mayoral candidates in Auckland, and that it has a policy of asking those who get donations to declare them, and that that donation to Mr Banks does not appear in his return for the Auckland mayoralty expenses?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister’s concern is that members comply with the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and with the requirements of the Cabinet Manual, and any inquiries related to that should be directed to the relevant Minister.
Grant Robertson: Would the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in a Minister who has not declared a $15,000 donation from Skycity when running for the Auckland mayoralty, given that the penalty for failure to properly declare a donation, under the Local Electoral Act, is up to 2 years in prison—enough to force a resignation from Parliament?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the answer I gave before, and in that respect the Prime Minister is more demanding than the previous Prime Minister, who tolerated a Minister who did not declare a $100,000 donation that was arranged by the Labour Party from one of the Labour Party’s principal donors.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister recall the Hon Nick Smith telling this House, at the same time, that he made a declaration of his legal fund—identical to mine—to Dame Margaret Bazley, only to have her tell this House that he lied; that he made no such declaration? Does he recall that?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with the details of that. What I am pointing out is that the Prime Minister has a standard he expects Ministers to reach, and that standard is higher than what was applied by the previous Labour Government to its Ministers.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Prime Minister is so keen on certain standards being upheld, why is he not concerned as to what Nick Smith did when, for an egregious reason being sued for defamation, he had such a fund to his pecuniary advantage whereas the fund we had was for an electoral democratic purpose?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the purpose of the significant donation to New Zealand First by Labour’s principal donor was, I think, discussed at the time. Nick Smith was involved in a defamation action. The matters around his legal fees were all canvassed, in detail, at the time.
John Judge, Chairman of the ACC board says that on behalf of the board he supports the Inquiry by the office of The Auditor General into how ACC manages risk at the board level. "The ACC board, in conjunction with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, has already commenced a review of the recent privacy breach and a complete review of the privacy polices and procedures at ACC. The inquiry into board governance by the Auditor General adds another positive element to ensuring there is a complete review of all issues relating to privacy at ACC. The ACC board endorses and supports the Auditor General's review."
An article from the Dominion Post by Vernon Small and John Hartevelt
ACC Minister Judith Collins has promised to quit if she or her office is found to have leaked an email at the centre of a spat over an ACC claimant as the auditor-general launches an investigation into governance at the state insurer. ACC hit the headlines after it was revealed that the details of more than 6000 clients were accidentally sent to claimant and former National Party activist Bronwyn Pullar. Ms Collins became caught up in the controversy when an email sent to her and a staff member about Ms Pullar was leaked to the media. Ms Collins has insisted the leak did not come from her office and told Parliament yesterday she would resign if that was disproven. "Of course I would, because I have integrity," Ms Collins said. She would not say if she had filed court papers over a defamation suit against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little and Radio New Zealand over remarks made about the issue. Asked if she could guarantee court action, Ms Collins said: "I'm guaranteeing that I'm taking a lot of advice on this matter and that as far as I'm aware, matters are proceeding." The alleged defamation last week had been exacerbated by the behaviour of Mr Mallard, Mr Little and by Labour leader David Shearer, she said. Mr Little, along with Green MP Kevin Hague, earlier asked Auditor-General Lyn Provost to look into aspects of ACC's governance that would not be examined by the investigations already under way by the privacy commissioner and being considered by the police. Ms Provost said yesterday she would hold an inquiry examining aspects of ACC's governance. "The inquiry will examine how ACC manages a range of risks at the board level of the organisation. It will also examine how any matters relating to ACC claimant Ms Pullar that came to the attention of the board or individual board members were dealt with," she said. As well as this inquiry, Ms Provost intended to develop an audit proposal on ACC's general operations, with a focus on its case management. Mr Little welcomed the inquiry, saying Labour hoped it would be widened to include the behaviour of ministers in the case. "The inquiry by the auditor-general into how ACC manages conflicts of interest and relationships between board members, clients and staff is an opportunity to examine the real problems plaguing the agency," he said. ACC Futures spokeswoman Hazel Armstrong said her organisation had been concerned for some time about the culture at the top of ACC. In the past four years an increasing number of claims had been rejected and there had been an increase in appeals against ACC's decisions, she said.
The Green Party says its suits the Government's purposes, politically, to have several ongoing investigations in the Accident Compensation Corporation. The Auditor-General, the Privacy Commissioner, police and the ACC board are carrying out investigations, following the release of thousands of confidential files to Bronwyn Pullar, an Auckland claimant, and other communications. Greens co-leader Russel Norman says the Government should hold a single inquiry into the corporation to clear the air. Dr Norman says a single inquiry would sort out governance issues at ACC, as well as look at how it handles its case management.
The first the Privacy Commissioner knew of an alleged privacy breach by ACC was when media contacted her. Commissioner Marie Shroff is investigating how the personal details of thousands of claimants were accidentally sent to claimant Bronwyn Pullar. That investigation may also look at how Pullar's own personal information, in an email by former National Party president Michelle Boag, was leaked to a Sunday newspaper. Pullar had contacted the Commissioner about a separate issue late last year, but the first they knew of the leaked spreadsheet containing information about thousands of claims, was when a journalist rang her office. Assistant Commissioner legal and policy Katrine Evans said it would be normal practice for ACC to contact the Commissioner if they were aware of the breach. "What I understand, when we first got the media inquiry, we had no knowledge." The inquiry would look at what happened with ACC, when they became aware, and what they should have done once the knew of the breach, she said. ACC became aware of the breach in December during a meeting with Pullar. The information was also sent as an attachment in one of many emails from Pullar to the State Services Commission last year but they did not realise they had the information until a review was conducted recently. ACC Minister Judith Collins is threatening to take defamation action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little and Radio New Zealand, over suggestions she was the source of the leaked email about Pullar - something Collins vehemently denies. Prime Minister John Key said that if and when Collins took defamation action was a matter for her. "I support her action, she wants to clear her name, she feels very strongly that she was impugned and on that basis she's taken her own action, it's her own money, her own resources, she's free to do that."
The decision by the Auditor General to launch an inquiry into aspects of the Bronwyn Pullar saga that will not be examined by other investigations shows that there is more to the matter than just breaches of privacy says the Green Party. “John Key said no further investigation was needed. The Auditor General’s decision shows he was wrong,” said Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman. “We asked the Auditor General to investigate this matter, and we are glad that she has decided to do so. “The Auditor General’s decision shows that there are important matters of public interest to do with the ACC saga that are not covered by the Privacy Commissioner or police inquiries. “It was always clear that there are matters raised by this case that are outside the scope of the other inquiries, so it is sensible the Auditor General is now looking into them. “We are pleased the inquiry will look at the actions of the ACC board and chair which on the face of it has been questionable. “It is critical that all the issues raised are resolved so trust in ACC can be restored.”
The ACC Futures Coalition today welcomed the announcement by the Auditor-General Lyn Provost that her office will conduct an inquiry into aspects of ACC’s governance that will not be examined by other investigations by the Privacy Commissioner and possibly the Police. “The announcement of this inquiry should be good news for ordinary claimants at ACC,” said ACC Futures spokesperson Hazel Armstrong. “We have been concerned for some time at the culture that has developed at the top of ACC over the last four years that has led to an increasing number of claims being rejected and an increase in appeals against ACC’s decisions. The legislative changes in 2010, the clearing out of the Board by the previous Minister and the relentless focus on ACC as an insurer rather than as an integral part of our social services, have all contributed to this rather toxic culture”. “We hope that this inquiry, with its focus on governance might begin to lift the stone on this way of working,” said Ms Armstrong. “Strictly speaking these issues are outside the terms of reference but we hope that if the Auditor-General does turn up wider issues of governance that she will utilise that part of her terms of reference that allows her to report on any other matters that she considers desirable.” “We also welcome the inquiry because it is likely to be an important step in enabling the corporation, and those it is meant to serve, to move past the recent turmoil and get on with delivering services that meet the needs of injured New Zealanders,” said Ms Armstrong. “In all the recent claims and counter claims the needs of ACC claimants and beneficiaries have been overlooked and we trust that ACC will be able move forward once the report is completed and any recommendations implemented”. The ACC Futures Coalition consists of community groups, academics, organisations representing people who need support from ACC, health treatment providers and unions who have come together around the following aim: To build cross-party support for retaining the status of ACC as a publicly-owned single provider committed to the ‘Woodhouse Principles’, with a view to maintaining and improving the provision of injury prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and ‘no fault’ compensation social insurance system for all New Zealanders.
A press release from the Labour Party by Andrew Little
The inquiry by the Auditor-General into how ACC manages conflicts of interest and relationships between board members, clients and staff is an opportunity to examine the real problems plaguing the agency, says Labour’s ACC spokesperson Andrew Little. “We welcome today’s announcement by Auditor-General Lyn Provost that she will carry out an inquiry that is focused on governance concerns at ACC that have been exposed during the public examination of a very difficult case. “We note that while the terms of reference focus on the Board’s actions and their interaction with clients and staff, there is also a clause allowing the Auditor-General to look into ‘any other matters’ she considers desirable. Labour hopes that will include the behaviour of ministers who have been involved in this case. “We must be able to have trust and confidence in ACC and be reassured that every client is treated equally. At the moment, it is easy to see how New Zealanders could have gained the impression from the Bronwyn Pullar saga that if you know someone from the National Party, you’ll be treated differently. “This announcement by the Office of the Auditor-General brings the number of publicly-funded inquiries into the handling of Bronwyn Pullar’s case to five and we still believe a single high level inquiry by a QC or Judge would be more suitable,” said Andrew Little.
A press release from the Office of the Auditor General
The Auditor-General, Lyn Provost, has decided to carry out an inquiry into how the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) manages risk at the Board level of the organisation. This document sets out the terms of reference for our inquiry.
Background
During March 2012, concerns were raised about a significant breach of privacy by ACC, and about the interaction between ACC and a particular client (Ms Pullar). We received several requests for the Auditor-General to inquire into aspects of that interaction and into ACC’s general operations.
The Privacy Commissioner and the Board of ACC have already begun to investigate the privacy breach and to assess ACC’s policies and practices for the privacy and security of information. The Police are considering a complaint about a related matter.
The Auditor-General has decided to inquire into aspects of ACC’s governance that will not be examined by the other investigations.
The inquiry
The inquiry into ACC will examine: •the policies and practices at ACC for managing risks relating to conflicts of interest, legal compliance, and communications between Board members and clients and staff; •the policies and practices that apply when claimants personally contact Board members; •how any matters relating to Ms Pullar that came to the attention of the Board or individual Board members were dealt with; and •any other matters that the Auditor-General considers it desirable to report on.
The inquiry is being carried out under section 18(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001. We will publish a report when the inquiry is completed.
Contact for queries
For media queries, please contact Tamar McKewen (Communications Advisor, Media) on (04) 917 1879.
Background information
The role of the Auditor-General
The Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament, and as such, is independent of the central and local government entities that we audit. The Auditor-General cannot be ordered to conduct an inquiry and has responsibility for determining the nature and scope of any inquiry. The Auditor-General has wide powers to request information, and decides what information to disclose or include in a report.
The stages of an inquiry
Every inquiry has four broad stages: •Gathering information: We review relevant documentation held by the public entity and other relevant individuals and organisations, and meet with or interview people who have been involved in the issues we are looking into. •Analysis: We analyse the information we have gathered and form our preliminary views. •Preparing a draft report and consultation: Once we have drafted a report, we consult as necessary on its content to ensure that it is factually accurate and that the rights of any affected parties are properly protected. •Publication: We then finalise and publish the report.
General policy on comment during inquiries
Once the Auditor-General has begun an inquiry, the Office will not normally make any public comment on the substance or progress of the inquiry until we release a report. This policy protects the rights of those involved in the inquiry and our ability to carry out the work effectively and efficiently.
It is hard to predict what might emerge or transpire as we carry out an inquiry so it is equally hard to predict when we might be ready to report our findings. In general terms, relatively contained inquiries usually take 2-3 months. Larger and more complex inquiries can take 6-12 months.
Further information
More information on the Auditor-General’s inquiry function is available at www.oag.govt.nz.
8. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all the answers she has given to questions asked of her to date?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Yes, so long as they are in context and I am not being misquoted.
Charles Chauvel: Why did she tell the House on 21 March that the current rate of breaches of police safety orders is “not anywhere near what anyone else would expect”, only to tell the Waikato Times today that legislation was needed this year to increase the penalty for such breaches, and should the House believe that there is a problem, as she told a newspaper today, or that there is not a problem, as she told the House last month?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course, I have been misquoted by the Waikato Times. What I have here is in fact an email from my office to the Waikato Times yesterday, advising it what the correct information was. It misquoted it; it has now retracted it and corrected it.
Charles Chauvel: Why did she tell the House yesterday that the inquiry by the Privacy Commissioner relates to “privacy matters in ACC and what has happened to particular emails and other documents. It is not specifically about my office”, yet when Andrew Little asked her directly last Thursday questions about her office such as “When was the email she received … from Michelle Boag concerning Bronwyn Pullar … first printed by … her office?” she declined to answer, on the ground that the matter was before the Privacy Commissioner, and should the House believe what she said yesterday, or last Thursday, or both, or neither?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously I am right on this matter, because Mr Little’s question was regarding a breach of privacy that has been claimed in relation to something in March. That is part of the terms of reference of the Privacy Commissioner’s review, so I do not know what is wrong with that.
Charles Chauvel: Why did she tell the House yesterday that as Minister of Justice she has no ministerial authority or responsibility for threatening news media and members of this House with meritless defamation proceedings, when she wrote to threaten just such proceedings last Thursday on her official letterhead, which describes her as Minister of Justice?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This is too easy: because they are not meritless.
Charles Chauvel: How long will this Minister continue to give inconsistent answers to questions put to her, to give spurious excuses to avoid answering inconvenient questions, and to try to bully the media and members of this House via threats of meritless defamation proceedings, and does she not think that the public expects better from the Minister of Justice?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are four questions there, and most of them insulting. However, what I do know is that the public expects members of Parliament to have integrity and courage, and it is something that member should think about.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister resign if it is found that either she or someone whom she has had authority over was responsible for the leak in question?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course I would, because I have integrity—something that is lacking for some people. I seek the leave of the House to table the email from my office to the Waikato Times yesterday with the correct information.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): What action—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. There is no way I can hear Nicky Wagner at the back of the House there. The previous question has now been dealt with, and I want to hear Nicky Wagner on question No. 9.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The only point is that as you said that, you looked this way. Actually, it was the Minister again who stimulated the interjections.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The noise I heard coming from my left prevented me from hearing Nicky Wagner, and that is what I was responding to.
3. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all statements made by him and on his behalf?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by all statements made by me and those people authorised by me to speak on my behalf.
David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that people gambling in a casino are “in a better environment than, say attached to maybe a pub”; if so, what evidence does he have to support that statement?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I most certainly do stand by that statement. Let me quote a few things for the member’s education. For a start-off, an Australian professor from the *University of Adelaide said the **National Association for Gambling Studies conference in 2008 considered Skycity’s host responsibility programme as probably the most advanced in the world. If one looks at the number of people presenting themselves for harm, on average that is around 1.9 percent of people, yet those who are presenting themselves for harm in non-casino environments are 3.8 percent. If one looks at those presenting themselves for gambling treatment, the majority cite non-casino gaming machines as their primary source of problems.
David Shearer: Why is he proposing the creation of $23 million to $28 million a year of private wealth through an increase in gambling over what would otherwise occur, when all the evidence shows that this will cause harm for thousands of New Zealanders?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I would utterly reject the number that the member is quoting. Secondly, I think it is worth having a bit of a look at gambling machines. Let us just take a look at pokie machines in the Auckland area. In 2004 that number in the Auckland area was 5,111; today that is 4,227. The number is, as the member can see, in the order of around 900 fewer, and will continue to go lower even if a deal is done with Skycity over time.
David Shearer: I seek leave to table a document by Goldman Sachs on 23 March that sets out clearly that the amount of funds that Skycity will earn from the gambling bill will be between $23 million and $28 million.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
David Shearer: Is he aware that Goldman Sachs has estimated—and obviously he is not—that Skycity would make $23 million to $28 million a year of additional profit from the increase in the number of pokie machines; if so, does he regard this and his changes to the Gambling Act* as legislation for sale?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the latter point, no. In terms of the first point, the member answered his own question earlier, when he said that that is Goldman Sachs’ assessment. If one goes and has a look at the—[Interruption] Well, the deal actually has not been concluded yet. I might add, when we were out announcing that we were doing a deal with Len Brown in Auckland, he was quite a little lamb chops before the election, because Len Brown knew as well that it will create 1,000 jobs in its construction, 900 jobs ongoing, hundreds of thousands of visitor nights for a convention centre, tourists that will be spending twice as much in New Zealand, and that by the way, the number of gaming machines is going down, not up.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this question.
David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement about the ACC Minister that he “directly asked her the question on two occasions” as to whether the leak of the email sent by Michelle Boag* came from the Minister, her office, or an agency she was responsible for; and what occurred after the Minister’s first denial that required him to ask her a second time?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and that was because we had two conversations in which both times, actually, the Minister offered that.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is just impossible to hear. I accept that both sides have been guilty of a lot of noise today, but it makes it so hard to hear.
David Shearer: Further to the answer given on his behalf last Thursday, did his office contact Cameron Slater* on the question of the leak of the Boag letter?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, it did not.
David Shearer: Did he chair the Cabinet appointments and honours committee* that appointed his Helensville electorate chair, Stephen McElrea,* to the board of *New Zealand On Air?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and it was the same one that appointed Michael Cullen to New Zealand Post.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The smaller parties at the back are not guilty in any way in this; it is the main parties at the front here whose noise is unacceptable.
David Shearer: Did he at any time last year indicate to the receivers or the ANZ Bank that the sale of the Crafar farms to *Shanghai Pengxin would be considered favourably by his Government after last year’s election?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.
Mr SPEAKER: I had not even called the *right honourable Prime Minister. The question asked whether the Prime Minister stood by all his statements or those made on his behalf, and then the supplementary questions are ranging over a range of issues that are not necessarily—Order! I want to make sure they do not depart too far from the primary question.
David Shearer: Does he think that the interference of senior National Party members in all of these incidents leads to a perception of political interference, special treatment, or cronyism?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! What troubles me about that supplementary question is the primary question asked about recent statements, but that supplementary question does not refer to any particular statement. The question—unless I am reading the wrong question—asked: “Does he stand by all statements made by him and on his behalf?”, and several supplementary questions have not referred to any statement made by the right honourable Prime Minister. I listened very carefully to that last question. I heard no reference to a statement made by the Prime Minister. I do not want to deprive the member of his questions, so if the member can relate it to a statement by the Prime Minister, I would be very grateful. Please relate the question to the primary question.
David Shearer: Do his answers to the supplementary questions relate to a sense of the incidence of—a perception of—political interference, special treatment, and cronyism?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and that is why the New Zealand public support this National Government so strongly.
5. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: Why has she declined to accept the Law Commission’s recommendation, supported by the Privacy Commissioner, to increase the Privacy Commissioner’s investigative powers, including by giving her the power to issue compliance notices, and to conduct information-handling audits?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): The member is quite wrong.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took care in wording the primary question. The Minister has had time to consider it. I wonder whether she would like to—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The Minister said the member had made errors in his question. She said it was wrong. I cannot know whether the Minister is right or wrong. The solution is to pursue the Minister with incisive supplementary questions.*
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Primary questions go through an authentication process through the Office of the Clerk, so it is not as if a groundless proposition is being put to the Minister here. I wonder whether you might just think about whether or not this is a precedent we want to see followed in future.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The process of the Office of the Clerk approving questions—just because the question has been validated—does not make the question right. There may be support material provided to validate a question, and the Clerk’s Office accepts it, but that does not mean that any supposed fact or statement contained in the question is correct. That is up to the Minister. The Minister has asserted pretty emphatically that something in this question is not right. It is worth pursuing that to find out what it is.
Charles Chauvel: Without the powers that the Privacy Commissioner says she needs to do her job, how can the House have any confidence that the Privacy Commissioner will be able to fully investigate high-profile or important privacy breaches, such as the question of whether the Minister, or any one in her office, improperly disclosed the *Bronwyn Pullar email and associated information?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are, in fact, a range of responses that the Law Commission has suggested we make in terms of the Privacy Act. However, I note that the member who has just resumed his seat was in a Government that was in office for 9 years and did not address them—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —but the Privacy Commissioner—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite Charles Chauvel to repeat his question.
Charles Chauvel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Without the powers that the Privacy Commissioner says she needs to do her job, how can the House have any confidence that the Privacy Commissioner will be able to properly investigate high-profile privacy breaches, such as the question of whether the Minister, or any one in her office, improperly disclosed the Bronwyn Pullar email and associated information?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is yet again wrong. The inquiry by the Privacy Commissioner is—and this is all I can really say on it—relating to privacy matters in ACC and what has happened to particular emails and other documents. It is not specifically about my office. So that is wrong. But the Privacy Commissioner already has powers under section—[Interruption] Do they want to hear it or not, Mr Speaker?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Privacy Commissioner already has a range of powers, which she set out for the Hon Trevor Mallard and me. They are, obviously, broad powers and roles under section *13 of the Privacy Act; also under section *90 to freely obtain information and make inquiries; under section *91 to require information and evidence to be produced and to summon witnesses; and under section *76 to require a person to attend a compulsory conference. There is an obligation to comply with the requirements of the commissioner, set out in section *92. There are also other relevant powers. In fact, there is the entire Privacy Act, and I suggest that member reads it.
Jonathan Young: What is the Government already doing to implement the recommendations from the Law Commission’s review of the Privacy Act?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Government has already acted to address the immediate need for better information-sharing for public service delivery through the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill*, which is expected to be passed later this year. The Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill will improve the rules around the collection, storage, and use of personal information, while ensuring there are safeguards in place to protect an individual’s right to privacy.
Charles Chauvel: Why is the Minister exacerbating the Privacy Commissioner’s inability to press fully for answers in this matter by invoking the public interest defence in this House as a ground for refusing to answer legitimate questions from members, thereby further preventing relevant information from entering the public domain?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is quite wrong, again. This is actually an issue for the Privacy Commissioner, and as an independent body, which she is, she needs to be free to conduct her investigations without the sorts of lies and manipulations that people have said in this place.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect on whether that answer was in order, particularly the final phrase of it.
Mr SPEAKER: I heard what the Minister said. A member cannot accuse another member of lying. I am not sure the Minister actually did that. She referred to lies and things in this place. I do not like ruling more and more stuff out. It was certainly on the margins—I accept that, absolutely.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, if that was not offensive to this side of the House, then it was a description of her own behaviour that she was talking about. That is the only way she can survive the challenge from the honourable member over here. He says it was offensive—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the member, and I think the member’s point is not unreasonable. I think the Minister should get to her feet, please, and withdraw and apologise.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. I withdraw and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.
Charles Chauvel: Why is she further trying to prevent relevant information from entering the public domain by threatening news media and members of this House with meritless defamation proceedings, and just what is it that she has to hide?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Minister of Justice has no ministerial authority or responsibility for that, and that member should know better.
National Party MP and ACC Minister Judith Collins has been accused of bluffing her way through a defamation law suit. Ms Collins is suing two Labour MPs and Radio New Zealand (RNZ) over allegations she leaked a confidential email to the media. The email contained information about ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar, the woman at the centre of a row that led to the resignation last month of cabinet minister Nick Smith. Ms Collins claims her reputation has been damaged and wants Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little to produce evidence supporting their claims. “It’s very easy to make allegations in the house and even to repeat them outside the house. “At the end of the day, the question should be, ‘Where is the evidence?’.” The Labour MPs are refusing to do so and suggest Ms Collins may be bluffing, as no legal papers have been served or filed in court. Mr Mallard is standing his ground, saying he has “pretty extensive” material to support his case. Mr Mallard would not be drawn on how confident he felt about his case, but told media on Tuesday: "Clearly I've got good legal advice and I've taken that advice". Asked whether Ms Collins was being petty, he said: "I think she's in some trouble politically and she has ambitions to the leadership of the National Party and she's trying to protect her back". Ms Collins has repeatedly said she will drop the action if the three respondents showed their evidence or apologised. However, Mr Mallard says that is not going to happen. "I'm satisfied with the material that I've got, which is pretty extensive," he said. "It is my view that we should let the case run if she wants to let it run because I think that will be more interesting." He would not repeat the alleged defamatory comment. "That would involve me releasing Judith Collins' letter (advising him of legal action) which is something for her to do and not for me, I'm advised." Ms Collins said on Tuesday that she'd received a written response to her letter from Radio New Zealand, but not from either MP. However, she was "certainly not" dropping the case against the state broadcaster. Both Ms Collins and the Labour MPs confirmed on Monday they will pay their own costs, although the taxpayer will be required to pick up state-funded Radio New Zealand's bill.
A lawyer for ACC claimants is seeking more details of what advantages are reportedly given to VIPs.
Acclaim Otago has complained that higher-status decision makers and greater privacy are offered to VIPs than to the majority of ACC applicants.
According to leaked material, judges, Members of Parliament, the Governor General and members of the ACC Board have a special category in an ACC manual.
The manual reportedly says decisions for the claimants should be made by an ACC manager, not a case worker.
ACC was unable to comment on Monday night but earlier reports said ACC felt VIPs needed more privacy for security reasons, especially for judges.
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett
ACC Minister Judith Collins will continue her legal action against two Labour MPs and Radio NZ but has decided to pay the hefty legal costs herself rather than asking the taxpayer to foot the bill. Ms Collins is suing Trevor Mallard, Andrew Little and Radio NZ for comments they made during an interview on the state-owned broadcaster over the leak of an email sent to her by former National Party president Michelle Boag. Yesterday, Ms Boag denied she was seeking Ms Collins' intervention in her friend Bronwyn Pullar's ACC claim in the email, which was sent just a few days before ACC referred the case to the police last month. Ms Collins said the alleged defamation occurred "in relation to me carrying out my duties as Minister for ACC". "Even though I am fully entitled to do so, I have not asked Cabinet for funding", she said. "I trust that Mr Mallard and Mr Little are prepared to fund their own defence." Prime Minister John Key said the matter was not discussed at yesterday's Cabinet meeting as Ms Collins had already decided not to ask her fellow ministers to approve the funding. That was consistent with what she told him last Wednesday night when he first discussed the matter with her. Mr Key was saying as late as Sunday that it was not known whether the Crown or Ms Collins would pick up the bill, but yesterday said she had informed him of her decision that morning. Labour leader David Shearer said his two MPs would pay their own legal costs and indicated Labour would keep up its attacks on the Government over its handling of the ACC fiasco. "Labour will continue to ask questions about the massive privacy breach at ACC. We will also continue to hold the Government to account in terms of allegations of cronyism." Meanwhile, the Herald has now seen a copy of Ms Boag's email to Ms Collins which was leaked to the Herald on Sunday. The email is dated March 14, just two days after news broke of the massive privacy breach at ACC. Ms Pullar was subsequently identified as the source of those reports. In the email's final paragraph, Ms Boag tells Ms Collins: "It would be good to reach an agreement with Bronwyn on the way forward so that the issue can be put to bed, she can get on with trying to reduce her dependence on ACC in the future by rebuilding her consultancy business and the ACCcan get on with more productive tasks." Last night, Ms Boag said the email referred only to the December meeting. "I wasn't asking the minister to do anything." The email also explains why communications between Ms Pullar and the ACC ceased after the December meeting also attended by Ms Boag where ACC alleges Ms Pullar said she would tell the media of the privacy breach unless she was given a two-year guaranteed benefit. "Bronwyn had advised ACC that as she was getting married in early January ... she would be unable to respond to any communication for six weeks."
Michelle Boag's March 14 Email to ACC Minister Judith Collins *Some names removed - denoted with an ellipsis
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON BRONWYN PULLAR ACC CLAIM 1. Bronwyn Pullar suffered a head injury in a bicycle accident in December 2002. Prior to this she was a highly successful senior marketing executive who was respected by her peers. Following the accident, Bronwyn suffered significant cognitive impairment and in the first two years following the accident, both her insurance company and ACC did not respond appropriately with rehabilitative care that would have allowed her optimum recuperation. As a consequence Bronwyn suffers serious fatigue every day, gets headaches and has cognitive impairments which affect her ability to pick up errors in her writing (she requires assistance to check all her communications as she often makes mistakes that she does not recognise. This did not happen before the accident). 2. In 2007 Bronwyn reached a confidential settlement with the insurance company who had covered her for income protection insurance. This followed five years of extensive engagement during which time the insurance company mishandled her claim, breached privacy and lost her file, amongst other things. 3. Prior to the accident Bronwyn was always meticulous. After the accident this meticulousness became obsessive - she records all communications in detail, focuses on minutiae and has interpreted some of ACC's actions as conspiracy rather than mistake - with some justification. For example, an ACC Doctor was found to have colluded with a medical assessor to pre-determine an assessment for Bronwyn, alleged fraud in internal emails and after he was removed from the case, attempted to obtain Bronwyn's personal medical records from her GP while fraudulently posing as a person authorised by ACC to collect this data. It was this considerable breach of her privacy that was the subject of Bronwyn's complaint to ACC. It was in response to this complaint that ACC inadvertently sent to Bronwyn a file containing thousands of names, contact details and summary statistics regarding matters of review, branch identifiers and dates. I have full details of this particular breach of privacy if you want to see them. It should be stated that while this staff member was apparently "reprimanded" he remains on staff with no apparent consequences. 4. Addressing the issue of the major privacy breach - I am sending you under separate cover an email from Bronwyn enclosing the details of the meeting held in December, at which I was present, where, after years of extensive mishandling of Bronwyn's claim and after she had approached a board member, senior management (Phil Murch and Hans Verbene) met with us to attempt to come to a reasonable settlement on the way forward. The documents in the email I am forwarding to you represent the objectives Bronwyn had for the meeting, which included recognition that she was unable to work a full time week , but allowed her some space (two years) to get on with trying to re-establish her consultancy business. Bronwyn also asked for the privacy breach to be investigated. 5. At that meeting in December Bronwyn advised the ACC managers that a serious breach of privacy had occurred. As she says in her email which follows, it was verbally agreed in that meeting that on agreement on the way forward, Bronwyn would return that document. We walked away from that meeting thinking we had an agreement which Mr Murch would put in writing. When it was received 8 days later, it did not reflect our discussions, including the fact that it only allowed her one year to re-establish her business rather than two years, which she did not regard as sufficient. 6. You will see in the correspondence attached to the email I am forwarding that while Mr Murch asked for the return of the data, he did not acknowledge that this would be contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties, which was our understanding. It also needs to be stated that Bronwyn had advised ACC that as she was getting married in early January and organising the wedding was placing substantial pressure on her impaired cognitive state, she would be unable to respond to any communication for 6 weeks. This was responsible for the delay in any further negotiation with Mr Murch. 7. You should also be aware that Bronwyn has an email tracking device that allows her to know when her emails are opened. Following the meeting in December, the email where she was inadvertently sent the unauthorised data was not opened until 12 March 2012. If ACC had been serious about getting the data returned and investigating the breach, then surely the first thing they would have done on returning to the office would have been to go through all emails to her to see what material had been inadvertently sent. As I said, this was not in fact done until the story had appeared in the Dominion Post. 8. It is also important to note that the email sent to the Dominion Post journalist contained no names, no contact details or identifiers. Bronwyn blacked out all this information and only left undeleted summary statistics of review data, review dates and branch statistics. Therefore she has not breached the personal privacy of anyone on that spreadsheet. 9. Bronwyn has also advised that she complained to the Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsman and the State Services Commissioner about the privacy breach made by ... (referred to in 3. above), in each case forwarding an email received from ACC about the actions taken in respect of Dr ... . It was this email responding to her complaint that contained the unauthorised spreadsheet. Bronwyn deleted the spreadsheet from the email she forwarded to the Privacy Commissioner and the Ombudsman, but inadvertently failed to delete it on the copy she sent to ... at the State Services Commission, who therefore is the only other party to now hold that file after Bronwyn has deleted it from her hard drive and her email system (an assurance that has been given to ACC). 10. This saga is one of extensive incompetent handling and privacy breaches, no doubt consuming thousands of hours of ACC management time. Since the meeting in December Bronwyn has been asked to undergo further assessments. It would be good to reach an agreement with Bronwyn on the way forward so that the issue can be put to bed, she can get on with trying to reduce her dependence on ACC in the future by rebuilding her consultancy business and the ACC can get on with more productive tasks. Please feel free to call me with any questions.
A press release from the New Zealand Government by Judith Collins
ACC Minister Judith Collins today announced she is to continue defamation action against two Labour Party MPs, Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little, and Radio New Zealand, under the Defamation Act. “Last week I sent a letter to each of the parties who have defamed me giving them an opportunity to respond. “Mr Mallard and Mr Little have chosen not to respond, and Radio New Zealand has responded accordingly. “The defamation occurred in relation to me carrying out my duties as Minister for ACC. “Even though I am fully entitled to do so, I have not asked Cabinet for funding. “I trust that Mr Mallard and Mr Little are prepared to fund their own defence. “Alternatively, there would be no cost and no case to answer if Mr Mallard, Mr Little and Radio New Zealand told the truth and presented their evidence. “If they cannot do so, they should apologise and retract their comments,” said Ms Collins.
I hate insurance. Always have. Seems like the biggest rort in the history of the Universe. I give you money, and you give some of it back to me if some pre-agreed bad thing happens. And if I do claim, you charge me more.
It is a necessary evil, but it bugs me. I think it started when an insurance salesman said to me “But you have to think about what happens, if you lose EVERYTHING!” All I could think to say was, “No I don’t.” It seems wise to generally not think about that.
ACC is not insurance. It’s a public compensation scheme. Big difference, and one of the other main reasons why people get so upset when they don’t receive their entitled payouts...
An article from the Otago Daily Times by John Gibb
In the spotlight over confidentiality breaches and allegations of preferential treatment, ACC has come under renewed attack over suggestions its "VIP claims" handling policy delivers better protection for the privacy of powerful decision makers, including MPs, judges and ACC board members. Dr Denise Powell, president of Acclaim Otago, a support group for ACC claimants, said that if VIPs had an accident, they received "preferential treatment within ACC". The corporation's delegation manual stated that these claims were to be handled differently, she said. "If the service provided by ACC is world leading, why would the manager of the ACC service centre have to handle the VIP claim, rather than the service centre staff?" she asked. "What is it about ACC's 'normal' service that is insufficient for VIP treatment?" Dr Powell said while it appeared ACC staff had been instructed to "try everything" to "exit" people from ACC, regardless of whether they had been successfully rehabilitated, "VIP status" seemed to be focused on "insulating those with influence over ACC; those who make the law, interpret the law and oversee its application". "By wrapping them in cotton wool, ACC prevents them from being subjected to their 'try-everything' approach that results in so much heartache to ordinary New Zealanders," she said. Asked whether its VIP approach amounted to preferential treatment, an ACC spokeswoman said the practice for claims "categorised as VIP on ACC's registration and claim management systems" followed "the standard allocation and management processes applied to all claims". "The only difference being security rights and who can make decisions on the claim," she said. VIP claims would be dealt with in the same way as other claims, but the final decision would be taken at a more senior level, rather than by more junior staff. She confirmed "security rights" referred to "extra measures to maintain VIP confidentiality". Dr Powell said it was time "such anomalies within ACC" were investigated and explained. New Zealand was a nation that prided itself on fairness and equality. "The very mechanisms like ACC, that were designed to promote fairness and rehabilitation for everyone, should never have been allowed to be used to give preferential treatment to one group of New Zealanders over another," she said.
