ACC must take the concerns of sensitive claims unit claimants seriously, and set up a high level unit to deal with the outstanding complaints around breaches of privacy and misuse of information, Labour’s ACC spokesperson Andrew Little says.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1208/S00370/claimants-shouldnt-be-forgotten-in-acc-fallout.htm
Two independent reports yesterday highlighted the "cavalier" nature of information management and called for a change in culture within the Corporation.
"While the work of the two review teams will be helpful in moving to a healthier culture at ACC, it is still surprising little was said by either review team about the fate of nearly 200 sensitive claims unit claimants who had some of their details released in the mass privacy breach that was the subject of the investigation.
"The Privacy Commissioner's review treated the SCU claimants too lightly when it implied not much identifying information was disclosed, but the report shows there was an identifying code for the issues under appeal, so unauthorized ACC staff would know exactly what those claims were about.
"A couple of months ago Labour called for a high level independent review team to be set up straight away to deal with all existing complaints about misuse of information.
"If ACC and Judith Collins are serious about restoring confidence, then this is an initiative that could go a long way to doing so as well as exorcising some difficult demons that will only hold the Corporation back if they are not dealt with.
"ACC really needs to accept that an entirely new approach is required. All of the difficult files of recent years need to be reviewed with a fresh pair of eyes so everyone can move on with the confidence that they have been treated fairly,” said Andrew Little.
Showing posts with label Andrew Little. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Little. Show all posts
24 August 2012
Claimants shouldn’t be forgotten in ACC fallout
A press release from the Labour Party by Andrew Little
23 August 2012
Question to Minister
4. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for ACC: What are the findings of reports released today by the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General about a privacy breach and governance at ACC?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): The independent report released by the Privacy Commissioner focused on ACC’s culture, policies, and practices around privacy and security of information. It found that these were not up to 21st century standards. The Auditor-General focused on governance of the corporation, and found that senior board members involved and management failed to recognise the systems of systemic failure around privacy and security information, and did not take the appropriate steps. I agree with all the findings.
David Bennett: What specific concerns did the independent report and the Auditor-General raise, and what is ACC doing to address these?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The independent report released by the Privacy Commissioner noted systemic weaknesses, including a variable culture around the importance of handling private information carefully and a lack of accountability for addressing privacy issues. ACC will undertake a significant programme of work to address concerns raised by both the independent report and the Auditor-General. A timetable for this programme of work is included in the report from the Privacy Commissioner, and I expect ACC to make the required changes as a priority.
Andrew Little: In view of the findings in today’s reports, both released at 2 p.m., that ACC board members, which her Government appointed, were too inexperienced to appreciate the gravity of Bronwyn Pullar’s complaints, and that the corporation took a cavalier attitude to protecting claimant privacy, what steps is she taking to fill the multiple board and senior management vacancies with people who understand ACC and the importance of utmost public confidence in it?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The question is not quite correct in one of the assumptions. I will deal with that first and then deal with the substance of the question. In fact, the board members who were named in the reports as having not appreciated the seriousness of the situation were its longest-serving board members—the chair and deputy chair. In relation to the filling of the board positions, I can tell the member that there is a very thorough process that is ongoing. Interviews are being undertaken and I am putting a great deal of thought into making sure we get the right combination of board members with the right skills, the right character, and the right experience.
David Bennett: What expectations has she set for ACC to improve public trust and confidence in how it operates?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Earlier this year I signed a letter of expectations and a service and purchase agreement with ACC outlining my priorities for the board. I expect the ACC board to improve public trust and confidence, improve the management and security of private information, maintain a focus on levy stability and financial sustainability, ensure early resolution of disputes, and provide high-quality service for clients. The Auditor-General noted that “this approach will lead to a more balanced and comprehensive approach to the governance and operation of ACC.”
Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Privacy Commissioner’s comment that the ACC culture change has to start at the top, what action has she taken to plug the leaks from her office?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are no leaks from my office, as that member well knows.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1208/S00350/questions-and-answers-august-23.htm
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): The independent report released by the Privacy Commissioner focused on ACC’s culture, policies, and practices around privacy and security of information. It found that these were not up to 21st century standards. The Auditor-General focused on governance of the corporation, and found that senior board members involved and management failed to recognise the systems of systemic failure around privacy and security information, and did not take the appropriate steps. I agree with all the findings.
David Bennett: What specific concerns did the independent report and the Auditor-General raise, and what is ACC doing to address these?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The independent report released by the Privacy Commissioner noted systemic weaknesses, including a variable culture around the importance of handling private information carefully and a lack of accountability for addressing privacy issues. ACC will undertake a significant programme of work to address concerns raised by both the independent report and the Auditor-General. A timetable for this programme of work is included in the report from the Privacy Commissioner, and I expect ACC to make the required changes as a priority.
Andrew Little: In view of the findings in today’s reports, both released at 2 p.m., that ACC board members, which her Government appointed, were too inexperienced to appreciate the gravity of Bronwyn Pullar’s complaints, and that the corporation took a cavalier attitude to protecting claimant privacy, what steps is she taking to fill the multiple board and senior management vacancies with people who understand ACC and the importance of utmost public confidence in it?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The question is not quite correct in one of the assumptions. I will deal with that first and then deal with the substance of the question. In fact, the board members who were named in the reports as having not appreciated the seriousness of the situation were its longest-serving board members—the chair and deputy chair. In relation to the filling of the board positions, I can tell the member that there is a very thorough process that is ongoing. Interviews are being undertaken and I am putting a great deal of thought into making sure we get the right combination of board members with the right skills, the right character, and the right experience.
David Bennett: What expectations has she set for ACC to improve public trust and confidence in how it operates?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Earlier this year I signed a letter of expectations and a service and purchase agreement with ACC outlining my priorities for the board. I expect the ACC board to improve public trust and confidence, improve the management and security of private information, maintain a focus on levy stability and financial sustainability, ensure early resolution of disputes, and provide high-quality service for clients. The Auditor-General noted that “this approach will lead to a more balanced and comprehensive approach to the governance and operation of ACC.”
Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Privacy Commissioner’s comment that the ACC culture change has to start at the top, what action has she taken to plug the leaks from her office?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are no leaks from my office, as that member well knows.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1208/S00350/questions-and-answers-august-23.htm
ACC fiasco starts and stops with the Minister
A press release from the New Zealand Labour Party by Andrew Little
The Privacy Commissioner’s report into the ACC leaks is a litany of leadership gone wrong, Labour’s ACC spokesperson Andrew Little says.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1208/S00340/acc-fiasco-starts-and-stops-with-the-minister.htm
“In slamming the culture at ACC, the Commissioner says it is ‘vital’ for a change starting at the top.
“So let’s start with Judith Collins. This whole fiasco is a direct consequence of the Government clearing out experienced board members, putting in their own, overseeing strategies aimed at cost cutting rather than treatment and rehabilitation – which a more experienced board member might have expressed caution about – and then not recognising they were facing allegations of serious problems with the Corporation’s conduct.
“It is not good enough to name and blame others. The Cabinet that Ms Collins is part of has driven the agenda on this and she must take responsibility for the fallout.
“It’s not enough for ACC to be a clip-on to a senior Minister’s other roles.
“If the Government is serious about change from the top then it should start by having a dedicated minister in the role who can work closely with the board and senior management to bring about the necessary changes.
“We will only know the government has taken the reports of both the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General seriously when it appoints a minister who can win public confidence.
“It is essential, too, that the recommendations are put into effect as soon as possible, so that ACC can once again stand by its reputation as a world-class insurance agency,” said Andrew Little.
28 June 2012
New contract to 'rebalance' ACC targets
An article from the Dominion Post by Andrea Vance
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7182650/New-contract-to-rebalance-ACC-targets
ACC Minister Judith Collins will set out tough new expectations in a new contract with the troubled corporation – to be tabled in Parliament today.© 2012 Fairfax NZ News
The document is a rolling three-year service and purchase agreement between the Government and the state insurer. It is understood to be a long way from an agreement signed in June 2010 by former minister Nick Smith, which focused on financial performance, and will "rebalance" its objectives.
Dr Smith and board chairman John Judge – who was let go this month – agreed ACC would get rid of 1150 long-term clients a year.
Ms Collins, who is in China, has said she wants to drive a "culture change" to restore public confidence in the corporation. In April, she said: "ACC must follow a fair process for assessing their eligibility and ensuring they receive fair entitlements."
The corporation has been attacked this year for operating a policy in which thousands of long-term clients – branded "low-hanging fruit" – were shed. The strategy paid staff bonuses to get clients off its lists. And the poor treatment of clients culminated in the Bronwyn Pullar saga – which claimed the scalps of Dr Smith, Mr Judge, chief executive Ralph Stewart and three other board members.
ACC called police after Ms Pullar went public with a mass privacy breach of the details of 6000 claimants. Police found no case to answer.
Green Party ACC spokesman Kevin Hague told Parliament yesterday that adjudicator Dispute Resolution Services had upheld almost half of the appeals lodged by long-term claimants kicked off ACC's books in 2012. He also revealed that the district court had also overturned half of ACC decisions upheld by Dispute Resolution Services.
Prime Minister John Key said that "over the past six years the average percentage of disputed decisions found in the corporation's favour is 71.8 per cent".
To say that "because a few cases go against the corporation, everything is broken there, is just simply incorrect".
Opposition parties yesterday criticised ACC for offering compensation worth $250 to victims of the data leak. Labour's ACC spokesman Andrew Little said the offer heaped "injustice upon injustice".
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7182650/New-contract-to-rebalance-ACC-targets
25 June 2012
High-level panel needed to review ACC
A press release from the New Zealand Labour Party by Andrew Little
Judith Collins should appoint a high-level panel to review ACC, says Labour’s ACC spokesperson Andrew Little.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00358/high-level-panel-needed-to-review-acc.htm
“Thorough investigation is needed into how ACC manages long term claimants, in light of revelations that incentive payments have been made to staff who can move claimants on quickly.
"We need to see a panel made up of a senior lawyer, possibly a judge, a senior medic, possibly a professor of medicine and a senior public servant to go through how decisions have been made.
"Seeing the numbers who have been removed from ACC's cover and hearing from a few of those affected, there are real questions about the legal and ethical basis for some of these decisions," Andrew Little said.
"The issues are legal, medical and administrative and must be resolved if the agency is to regain credibility.
"Some of the cases I have heard about - with multiple medical reports being called for and people being taken off earnings related compensation then put back on - make for chilling reading.
“I am afraid there is growing speculation about the good faith of some decisions. It is in the public interest, and in the Minister’s interest, for this to be resolved as soon as possible,” Andrew Little said.
22 June 2012
Little always wrong on ACC claims - Collins
An article from the Dominion Post by Andrea Vance
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7149764/Little-always-wrong-on-ACC-claims-Collins
Cabinet minister Judith Collins says Labour MP Andrew Little's claim that she ordered ACC bosses to "go after" Michelle Boag are "wrong".© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd
Mr Little used the protection of parliamentary privilege to say Ms Collins summoned chairman John Judge and chief executive Ralph Stewart to her office in Auckland and pressured them to complain to police about whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar. Ms Boag, a former National Party president, is Ms Pullar's advocate.
Ms Collins has repeatedly denied the claim she urged ACC executives to set the police on to Ms Pullar – who revealed a mass privacy breach involving more than 6000 claimants to The Dominion Post in March.
Ms Collins yesterday insisted: "He's just wrong and wrong and wrong. I'm just going to say this about Mr Little. He's just wrong. And again. He's always wrong."
She said of the fact that Mr Little had used parliamentary privilege, "that says everything".
The pair are locked in a defamation battle over previous claims made by Mr Little.
She also brushed off his claims that she is "a sociopath".
"I think he is under stress at the moment. And I forgive him."
ACC has been in turmoil since police threw out the complaint against Ms Pullar and Ms Boag. Mr Stewart and Mr Judge have resigned, two other board members have also left while another, Murray Hilder, confirmed on Wednesday he had quit rather than accept another term.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7149764/Little-always-wrong-on-ACC-claims-Collins
20 June 2012
ACC minister put pressure on bosses to make complaint - Labour
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10814318
ACC bosses laid a police complaint alleging blackmail by claimant Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag after being pressured by their minister Judith Collins, Labour MP Andrew Little says.© 2012 APN Holdings NZ Ltd
In a general debate at Parliament this afternoon Mr Little claimed that during a meeting between ACC Ralph Stewart, chairman John Judge and Ms Collins in Auckland the day after a massive privacy breach at ACC was revealed, Ms Collins told the two men to "go after Michelle Boag".
"She urged and pressured and pressed the chief executive and chairman of the board to make a complaint to the police and that's what they did".
ACC laid a complaint against Ms Pullar in March a week after she went to the media about the corporation's error in mistakenly emailing her information about thousands of other claimants seven months earlier.
ACC alleged that during a meeting with two ACC managers in December last year, Ms Pullar and her support person, former National Party president Ms Boag threatened to go to the media with the information unless Ms Pullar was granted a two year guaranteed benefit.
However two weeks ago, police said no offence was "disclosed" and a few days later ACC chief executive Ralph Stewart and his chairman John Judge last week resigned.
"She told them to do it and then when the police came back and said there's nothing here... she hung them out to dry", Mr Little said this afternoon under the protection of parliamentary privilege.
Ms Collins has consistently said she had nothing to do with ACC's decision to make the complaint against Ms Pullar.
Ms Collins is currently progressing defamation proceedings against Mr Little and his colleague Trevor Mallard after the pair repeated allegations made in Parliament in a subsequent interview on Radio NZ which linked Ms Collins to the leak of a revealing email about the December meeting.
No return to 'pay as you go'
Ms Collins has ruled out a return to "pay as you go" funding for the corporation, a move opposition parties were backing as a means to make the scheme more affordable.
National abandoned pay as you go and instituted "full funding" for the accident insurance scheme in 1998 when it opened the scheme up to private competition. When Labour took office in the following year it agreed to retain full funding.
Full funding or "pre-funding" means the insurer aims to build up big reserves of cash assets sufficient to make payments to all the claimants on its books for the likely duration of their claim.
Pay as you go means annual claims are largely matched by annual levies and other income and as such it requires lower levies and the corporation to hold smaller reserves.
Labour's current position is that it would retain full funding if it returned to Government, but ACC spokesman Andrew Little recently said his party was reviewing its position and called for a public debate about funding options.
Mr Little noted Ms Collins had not dismissed the possibility of a return to pay as you go in recent comments but this afternoon she did just that.
"Pay as you go is not for us," she said.
"We're not going to burden the next generations with the accidents of this generation and I'm surprised that the Greens and Labour who support the Cullen fund on the same basis that it's pre-funding superannuation would suddenly decide that they want to burden our future generations with the cost of our injuries.
"I think it's somewhat unrealistic and we're actually doing very well on the funding what we're looking at is just some of the levels of pre-funding but in terms of pre-funding it's not for us."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10814318
ACC minister rejects funding change
An article from the Dominion Post by Vernon Small
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7137311/ACC-minister-rejects-funding-change
ACC Minister Judith Collins has finally rejected a return to "pay-as-you-go" funding for the state-owned insurer, after earlier refusing to rule it out as part of a review of funding options.© 2012 Fairfax NZ News
"Pay as you go is not for us, no," she said today.
Labour spokesman Andrew Little has called for a debate about dumping the current fully funded model, which would allow levies to drop by up to 25 per cent.
The Greens' Kevin Hague favoured a switch to pay-as-you-go, but was also eyeing up to $15 billion in reserves held by the corporation for other projects.
Collins said the Government did not want to burden future generations with the cost of current accidents.
"I'm surprised that the Greens and Labour, who support the Cullen fund on the same basis as it's pre-funding superannuation, would suddenly decide that they want to burden our future generations with the cost of our injuries."
Some claimants could be with the corporation for up to 80 years, so it was unrealistic. to shift to pay-as-you-go.
She said the corporation was doing well on funding.
"What we're looking at is just looking at some of the levels of pre-funding," she said.
Under the current fully-funded model, ACC sets levies to cover the current and future costs of existing claimants and is aiming to reach its fully funded target by 2019. ACC currently has investments of $19.5b and a net liability of $4.5b.
Hague had said changing the way ACC was funded could give a $1b windfall to workers and businesses and free up the reserves to cut government debt or fund the Christchurch rebuild.
Little favoured leaving the existing reserves with ACC.
In the current year, ACC expects to collect $5b in levies from workers, employers and motor vehicle owners and pay out $2.8b.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7137311/ACC-minister-rejects-funding-change
ACC changes could return $1b to workers
An article from Stuff by Vernon Small
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7137311/ACC-changes-could-return-1b-to-workers
Changing the way ACC is funded could give a $1 billion windfall to workers and businesses and free up billions of dollars in reserves that could be used to cut government debt or fund the Christchurch rebuild, Green MP Kevin Hague says. The Greens back a change to "pay-as-you-go" funding for ACC.© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd
Labour ACC spokesman Andrew Little has also called for a public debate about the option and the Council of Trade Unions and ACC lobby groups have weighed in with calls for change.
ACC Minister Judith Collins has not ruled out dropping the current "full- funding" model. However, yesterday she appeared to back away from that, saying the 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".
Under full funding, the corporation sets levies above the annual cost of claims so it can build up reserves to also cover the future costs of existing claims. It aims to reach that goal by 2019, and currently has investments of $19.5b and a net liability of $4.5b.
Little said his calculations, based on pre-2009 levies, suggested about $1b could be sliced off annual levies under a move to pay-as-you-go funding.
"Since every wage and salary earner and every business pays it, it will have a noticeable impact."
In the current year, ACC expects to collect $5b in levies from workers, employers and motor vehicle owners and pay out $2.8b. Little favoured leaving the existing reserves with ACC.
However, Hague said the reserves could be reduced to about $6b - enough for a buffer of two or three years. The remaining $14b could be used to "even out the distinctions" between illness and accident-related cover, cut debt, invest in capital projects or help pay for the Christchurch rebuild.
"We could make much better use of the dollars than keeping them in uncertain investments," he said.
A change was yesterday backed by lobby group ACC Futures Coalition. Spokeswoman Hazel Armstrong said private insurers needed full funding to cover claims, but it was not appropriate for a public agency such as ACC. It had been used to create "a false sense of crisis" at ACC.
Pension and retirement expert Michael Littlewood has long campaigned for full funding to be dropped, and today CTU economist Bill Rosenberg said full-funding had become "a political swamp" that needed draining. The funding target rose and fell as a result of changes in assumptions about discount rates, investment returns, rehabilitation rates and cost inflation.
"It provides excuses for political swamp dwellers to alternate between cries of 'ACC funding crisis' and 'unaffordable levies' without a real basis for either. In addition building the reserves required for it has been a major driver of rising levies."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7137311/ACC-changes-could-return-1b-to-workers
19 June 2012
Sixth ACC casualty as board member leaves
A news report from 3 News by Patrick Gower
http://www.3news.co.nz/Sixth-ACC-casualty-as-board-member-leaves/tabid/1607/articleID/258308/Default.aspx
The ACC-Bronwyn Pullar privacy scandal has now claimed its sixth casualty. 3 News can reveal another board member, Murray Hilder, has quit. That brings the total to three board members, plus the chair, chief executive and a minister.© 2012 MediaWorks TV
But the Government has been keeping Mr Hilder's departure quiet.
“I'm happy to make it public but it's not something I've considered,” ACC Minister Judith Collins says.
She says Mr Murray did not tell her why he was leaving. But a source close to Mr Hilder has told 3 News his skills were "the best in the business", and he simply didn't like the politics from Ms Collins.
"Murray has had a complete gutsful,” the anonymous source says. “It is blatantly obvious why he has buggered off -he does not want to be around this political behaviour."
Labour says the latest resignation was kept quiet because it is a further embarrassment.
“ACC is in chaos at the most senior levels. It is not a very good expression of confidence in the Minister,” Labour MP Andrew Little says.
Ms Collins again faced questions about whether she was involved in discussions about ACC putting the police onto Ms Pullar and Michelle Boag for alleged extortion, and whether it was all about bad blood between Ms Collins and Ms Boag.
But Ms Collins denied it that it was.
The central question has always been about what Ms Collins knew in advance about the ACC's extortion complaint to police.
“In terms of telling me or asking my advice - no - they have simply done it and advised me afterwards... I don't know how many times I have to say it," she says.
But Labour is still not convinced.
“Something just doesn't add up, and the minister isn't giving us straight answers,” Mr Little says.
So an ACC departure that the Government was so embarrassed about, no one wanted to announce it. Half the board the Government appointed has now been either sacked or has jumped ship. Just four of eight board members remain.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Sixth-ACC-casualty-as-board-member-leaves/tabid/1607/articleID/258308/Default.aspx
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.
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.
Premiums may drop in ACC rethink
An article from the Dominion Post by Vernon Small
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7125792/Premiums-may-drop-in-ACC-rethink
ACC is in line for a major shake-up, with the two major parties eyeing changes that could see premiums plunge by up to 25 per cent.© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd
Labour is rethinking its ACC policy, and could scrap the fully funded model to revert to a "pay as you go" approach – and yesterday ACC Minister Judith Collins refused to rule out a similar move.
During last year's levy review, the Cabinet agreed to "a review of the funding policy for the ACC accounts and the reasons for the fluctuations in the projections of the ACC's accounts".
Ms Collins said ministers were looking at the funding policy "which could include the stability of the scheme, good process for levy setting and the impact on the economy".
"We're not ruling out anything at this stage."
Labour leader David Shearer said a possible change had not yet been discussed by caucus. But the party's ACC spokesman, Andrew Little, said it was time for a public debate about funding options, with recent controversy highlighting ACC's overemphasis on lowering costs rather than meeting claimants' needs.
Under full funding the corporation builds up reserves to cover the current and future costs of existing claims, and is aiming to reach that goal by 2019. Under a pay-as-you-go approach, it would need only enough income in a year to cover annual claims, plus a possible buffer for unexpected costs or disasters.
Mr Little said his "back of the envelope" calculation was that levies could be cut by 20 per cent to 25 per cent if there was a move away from full funding. That could see the average levy per motor vehicle drop by about $80.
It could also free up billions of dollars for the Government to invest elsewhere, but it is more likely the existing reserves would remain with ACC.
Mr Little said his personal view was that it should retain its reserves. "It was always expected ACC would build reserves to enable it to meet ... a major civic disaster," he said.
"ACC will still need to have a healthy reserve fund, and it probably has it now."
Mr Little said the pressure for full funding "may contradict the requirement to treatment, compensation and rehabilitation; that might be a contradiction that we need to address".
"It seems to me it is the demands of full funding that lead to the sort of directives from a minister and the conduct of the board and the corporation that leads to the way some long-term claimants are treated and the way that serious and complex claims are being handled."
He had received an "avalanche" of complaints, along the lines of whistleblower Bronwyn Pullar, about the way claimants were treated. "Bronwyn Pullar is a symptom of a significant problem."
ACC's annual report showed it had targeted total claims costs of $3.1b but had undershot that with total claims of $2.6b. It had also exceeded its target of reducing long-term weekly compensation claims by 1150, achieving a cut of 1543.
Its 2011 annual report showed net assets of $17.8b including reserves of $16.6b. Its total outstanding claims liability was $24.5b. Its assets are forecast to reach $24b by the end of this month, against liabilities of $28.5b.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7125792/Premiums-may-drop-in-ACC-rethink
17 June 2012
ACC 'cold blooded' to victims
An article from the Sunday Star Times by Danya Levy
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7117501/ACC-cold-blooded-to-victims
A survey around sensitive claims and the treatment of sexual abuse victims has raised more questions about the Accident Compensation Corporation.© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd
It comes as a senior manager's comments are being interpreted as confirming there was pressure from the board on staff to dump sex abuse claimants.
Allegations ACC had turned from rehabilitating clients to saving money have seen three board members, including chairman John Judge, and chief executive Ralph Stewart, quit.
Now, the man behind the survey of 146 health professionals and 72 abuse victims, psychotherapist and blogger Kyle MacDonald, says there has been a "cold-blooded" directive from the board to look after the "bottom-line" regardless of the cost to victims.
In 2009 ACC reinterpreted the rules around sensitive claims so a diagnosed psychiatric illness was required to determine mental harm. That left many people ineligible for help, and led to a public outcry.
A year later former ACC Minister Nick Smith urged the corporation to adopt recommendations from a review, but MacDonald says the survey shows only two have been adopted, five have not been, four have returned mixed results, and another four were not being measured. Now a transcript of a presentation by claims general manager Denise Cosgrove last November acknowledges the sensitive claims changes "didn't work so well", and appears to confirm ACC was removing "low-hanging fruit and easy gains" from the scheme.
"I get that constant message from the board every day," he said.
Green Party ACC spokesman Kevin Hague said the survey showed there was "wilful resistance" to the call to improve, and, because there was a "culture of disentitlement", the board should be replaced. Labour's Andrew Little said: "They will say it is legitimate to minimise costs, but the whole basis of ACC is treatment, compensation for the bulk of your losses and rehabilitation."
An ACC spokesman said MacDonald was only one of those giving feedback and there would be no comment until a final report, which was "imminent", but Cosgrove's comments referred to system improvements, not claimants.
MacDonald dismissed that. "It's hard to interpret in any other way than referring to specific cases and claims."
He said the issue for claimants was ACC refusing to accept the advice of clinicians working with victims, and insisting they be interviewed by its own assessors. "You are required to report intimate and distressing detail to a complete stranger", which had an "incredibly detrimental effect".
"There has been a very intentional aim of getting the longest and most expensive claimants out. It's cold-blooded. What has become clear is that ACC is being directed from ministerial and board level to focus on the bottom line and that has been at the expense of sensitive claimants."
A spokeswoman for ACC Minister Judith Collins said board comments were a matter for the board but the minister expected ACC to check claims veracity carefully and to treat all professionally.
SURVEY
Counsellors
40.4 per cent say ACC has done "very little" to protect client safety
37.8 per cent say ACC has done "very little" to protect client therapeutic relationship
42.5 per cent say ACC has done "very little" to implement changes
Claimants
29.3 per cent say ACC has "not at all" protected their safety
38.1 per cent say ACC has "not at all" protected their therapeutic relationship
50.6 per cent say ACC has "not at all" implemented changes
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7117501/ACC-cold-blooded-to-victims
14 June 2012
Labour: Stop filthy fleecing ACC claimants
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10812920
The political firestorm over ACC intensified yesterday with the resignation of chief executive Ralph Stewart triggering an urgent parliamentary debate over the changes needed at the state-owned accident insurer.© 2012 APN Holdings NZ Ltd
Mr Stewart, the former head of investment company AXA NZ, became chief executive of ACC only in September but left yesterday morning after just nine months in the job.
His departure comes hard on the heels of ACC chairman John Judge's resignation on Tuesday and confirmation that directors Rob Campbell and John McCliskie have been told they will not be reappointed.
"I am deeply frustrated that the benefits of the scheme and the great work we do has been overshadowed by recent events," Mr Stewart said.
Those events included the police decision last week not to lay charges against Bronwyn Pullar and TV3's 60 Minutes on Sunday which implied it was ACC managers who first suggested a deal with her for the return of leaked data about thousands of clients.
ACC Minister Judith Collins said Mr Stewart told her on Tuesday "he felt it was time for him to move on".
She said she felt sorry for Mr Stewart. "He's had a tough time."
Greens ACC spokesman Kevin Hague said Mr Stewart's resignation cleared the way for Mrs Collins to lead the process for refreshing ACC by steering it away from what he and others claim has been a focus on denying claims to save money and bringing it back to the principles on which it was founded.
"We need to reverse this culture of disentitlement that's taken hold since 2009 and with those key players - [former ACC minister] Nick Smith, John Judge and Ralph Stewart - gone we've got the environment to do that."
Mr Hague said there were serious questions Mrs Collins needed to answer about her role in the Bronwyn Pullar affair.
But Labour's ACC spokesman, Andrew Little, said Mrs Collins should be the next to go as Mr Stewart's resignation confirmed the depth of the crisis.
"It is an absolute disgrace, and it is entirely the responsibility of that Government", he told the House, and accused Mrs Collins and Dr Smith as her predecessor of driving ACC "into the ground".
Mr Little said ACC now needed a minister who was focused on the needs of ACC claimants rather than on the Government's "tawdry, nasty, filthy little strategy of trying to fleece people and get people to lose their entitlements".
Mrs Collins said it was time for a culture change at ACC but her concerns were about treatment of claimants and their privacy.
"I want to have a situation where ACC has a culture whereby its staff look at their claimants and they ask themselves, 'How would I like to be treated? How would I like my information to be treated?', or, even more so, 'How would I like my mother's information to be treated?"'
Meanwhile, former ACC minister Nick Smith has broken his silence on ACC whistle-blower Bronwyn Pullar.
Dr Smith was forced to resign from Cabinet earlier this year after it was revealed he offered Ms Pullar his support in her long-running fight with the corporation.
Dr Smith told Newstalk ZB opposition and media views on Ms Pullar had been contradictory - while two months ago people were saying she was a villain, she was now being portrayed as a hero.
"And either of those things are true. Bronwyn is a sad case of a very capable person who's had an accident and actually well illustrates the dilemma for many New Zealanders involved in ACC as to what is the appropriate time of rehabilitation," he said.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10812920
13 June 2012
Question to Minister
10. ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What responsibility does she take for failures at ACC since the 2011 Election?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): I take ministerial responsibility for ACC from the date I received my ministerial warrant, which was on 14 December 2011. In accordance with the Cabinet Manual, I take ministerial responsibility for the direction and the priorities of the organisation.
Andrew Little: What discussions did she have with ACC Chairman John Judge, ACC Chief Executive Ralph Stewart, or her staff about referring allegations made about Bronwyn Pullar in their 16 March report to her to the police before that reference to the police occurred?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I received a briefing from the chairman and the chief executive, and I can recall that my comment to them was that any decision that they made must be theirs and that I would stand by whatever decision they made, as is something that a Minister should do.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she say, when questioned about the leak: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag”; if so, was she indicating that Ms Boag was a possible source of the leak?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually having the full context of that alleged statement, it would be difficult to answer, because I have learnt from experience not to take everything that is said at face value, from that member.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is she denying that she said, when asked about the fact that she had passed the email on to Mr Judge and Mr Stewart: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag, so there are possibilities.”; will she deny saying that?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually receiving and having a look at any transcript, I cannot answer that question that way. The fact is that without it in writing, and without proof of it, I cannot take that member as having put that supposed comment in context.
Kevin Hague: Is the Minister giving the House a categorical assurance that she neither instructed nor approved nor suggested that ACC make a complaint to the police concerning Bronwyn Pullar?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My comments to the chair and the chief executive were that they must make their own decision. It is not for me to be involved in those individual decisions.
Hon Members: You said you backed them.
Hon Members: Back them or sack them?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Do they want to hear or not? [Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My statement was very clear to them: they must make their own decisions, and that I would back those decisions, whatever they were. Those decisions were made after they received their own legal advice, and I have since seen a legal opinion, prepared by Mr Judge’s Queen’s Counsel, which is after the event but which obviously took into account all of the events, which backed the decision of the board to refer that matter to the police for advice. The police were the right and proper authority to look at this issue.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, in terms of her ministerial responsibility, as to this, from a letter written by Michelle Boag, a former head of the National Party: “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.” That is from someone who was guilty, and convicted, of seeking to pervert the course of justice in a commission of inquiry. Is this not extortion—straight out?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not have ministerial responsibility for the actions of Ms Boag or of Ms Pullar.
Kevin Hague: Further to her answer to my earlier question, is she telling the House that Mr Judge had his own personal counsel working on the matter of the complaint to the police, as opposed to an ACC counsel?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not sure that that is in fact what I am telling the House. I am telling the House that there was legal advice. The board—[Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can say that Mr Judge has advised me that he had legal advice not only from ACC and ACC’s lawyers but from his own Queen’s Counsel in this matter. I have seen the opinion and it backs up Mr Judge.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is an operational matter but I would also say that—
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is an operational matter. It is hardly setting the policy or the direction of the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question: what knowledge does she have? That is her responsibility. It is not an operational matter. Matters that are the Minister’s knowledge are her responsibility—something she is trying to shift.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the member to repeat the supplementary question.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers are regularly briefed by the board, orally and in writing, as to the activities of the board. Those matters then become their knowledge, for which they are answerable here.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter that was raised in the supplementary question is in fact an operational matter. It may not satisfy the member, but the member has an answer.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked about what her knowledge was. That is not a matter of departmental responsibility. She was asked what her knowledge as Minister was. The answer may well be that she had none, and that would be a proper answer. But it is fair to ask her what knowledge she had of that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek some advice. Order! I have given a ruling, and I am going to stand by that. Members have further supplementary questions if they wish to pursue that. Members are seeking to actually litigate a ruling by further points of order.
Kevin Hague: If it is true that the Minister did not instruct, approve, or suggest the complaint to the police, and the matter was entirely an operational ACC matter, then why was the legal opinion sought by John Judge shown to the Minister?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a very good question. Mr Judge sent it to me last week, because he was concerned about a story in the Dominion Post that made allegations against him. Rather than refer to the editorial policy of the Dominion Post, he felt it was right to send me the opinion that he had received.
Andrew Little: Is the Minister denying to this House that she knew that ACC has been spending money on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending money on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have no knowledge of any polling being paid for, and I do not know why I would have.
Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether she is denying that she knows that the money is being spent. It is not about her knowledge of the polling; it is about money being spent by ACC on that activity.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think that the polling was related to the expenditure of money, and the member does have an answer.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00178/questions-and-answers-june-13.htm
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): I take ministerial responsibility for ACC from the date I received my ministerial warrant, which was on 14 December 2011. In accordance with the Cabinet Manual, I take ministerial responsibility for the direction and the priorities of the organisation.
Andrew Little: What discussions did she have with ACC Chairman John Judge, ACC Chief Executive Ralph Stewart, or her staff about referring allegations made about Bronwyn Pullar in their 16 March report to her to the police before that reference to the police occurred?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I received a briefing from the chairman and the chief executive, and I can recall that my comment to them was that any decision that they made must be theirs and that I would stand by whatever decision they made, as is something that a Minister should do.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she say, when questioned about the leak: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag”; if so, was she indicating that Ms Boag was a possible source of the leak?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually having the full context of that alleged statement, it would be difficult to answer, because I have learnt from experience not to take everything that is said at face value, from that member.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is she denying that she said, when asked about the fact that she had passed the email on to Mr Judge and Mr Stewart: “The fact is, it also came from Ms Boag, so there are possibilities.”; will she deny saying that?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Without actually receiving and having a look at any transcript, I cannot answer that question that way. The fact is that without it in writing, and without proof of it, I cannot take that member as having put that supposed comment in context.
Kevin Hague: Is the Minister giving the House a categorical assurance that she neither instructed nor approved nor suggested that ACC make a complaint to the police concerning Bronwyn Pullar?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My comments to the chair and the chief executive were that they must make their own decision. It is not for me to be involved in those individual decisions.
Hon Members: You said you backed them.
Hon Members: Back them or sack them?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Do they want to hear or not? [Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My statement was very clear to them: they must make their own decisions, and that I would back those decisions, whatever they were. Those decisions were made after they received their own legal advice, and I have since seen a legal opinion, prepared by Mr Judge’s Queen’s Counsel, which is after the event but which obviously took into account all of the events, which backed the decision of the board to refer that matter to the police for advice. The police were the right and proper authority to look at this issue.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, in terms of her ministerial responsibility, as to this, from a letter written by Michelle Boag, a former head of the National Party: “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.” That is from someone who was guilty, and convicted, of seeking to pervert the course of justice in a commission of inquiry. Is this not extortion—straight out?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not have ministerial responsibility for the actions of Ms Boag or of Ms Pullar.
Kevin Hague: Further to her answer to my earlier question, is she telling the House that Mr Judge had his own personal counsel working on the matter of the complaint to the police, as opposed to an ACC counsel?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not sure that that is in fact what I am telling the House. I am telling the House that there was legal advice. The board—[Interruption]
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can say that Mr Judge has advised me that he had legal advice not only from ACC and ACC’s lawyers but from his own Queen’s Counsel in this matter. I have seen the opinion and it backs up Mr Judge.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is an operational matter but I would also say that—
Hon Members: Oh!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is an operational matter. It is hardly setting the policy or the direction of the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question: what knowledge does she have? That is her responsibility. It is not an operational matter. Matters that are the Minister’s knowledge are her responsibility—something she is trying to shift.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the member to repeat the supplementary question.
Andrew Little: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money, that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries, on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the board.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers are regularly briefed by the board, orally and in writing, as to the activities of the board. Those matters then become their knowledge, for which they are answerable here.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter that was raised in the supplementary question is in fact an operational matter. It may not satisfy the member, but the member has an answer.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked about what her knowledge was. That is not a matter of departmental responsibility. She was asked what her knowledge as Minister was. The answer may well be that she had none, and that would be a proper answer. But it is fair to ask her what knowledge she had of that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek some advice. Order! I have given a ruling, and I am going to stand by that. Members have further supplementary questions if they wish to pursue that. Members are seeking to actually litigate a ruling by further points of order.
Kevin Hague: If it is true that the Minister did not instruct, approve, or suggest the complaint to the police, and the matter was entirely an operational ACC matter, then why was the legal opinion sought by John Judge shown to the Minister?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a very good question. Mr Judge sent it to me last week, because he was concerned about a story in the Dominion Post that made allegations against him. Rather than refer to the editorial policy of the Dominion Post, he felt it was right to send me the opinion that he had received.
Andrew Little: Is the Minister denying to this House that she knew that ACC has been spending money on public relations advice through Acumen Republic, including spending money on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have no knowledge of any polling being paid for, and I do not know why I would have.
Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was whether she is denying that she knows that the money is being spent. It is not about her knowledge of the polling; it is about money being spent by ACC on that activity.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think that the polling was related to the expenditure of money, and the member does have an answer.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00178/questions-and-answers-june-13.htm
ACC Minister should be relieved of duties
A press release from the Labour Party by Andrew Little
The Prime Minister should relieve Judith Collins of the ACC portfolio and appoint a Minister who is capable of dedicating themselves fully to the job, says Labour’s ACC spokesperson Andrew Little.http://www.labour.org.nz/news/acc-minister-should-be-relieved-of-duties
“ACC is in the deepest crisis it has faced since it was created 38 years ago. The board and senior management are dysfunctional and that is filtering through to have a detrimental effect on the millions of Kiwis who make claims every year.
“Judith Collins is too bogged down with privacy complaints and with pursuing litigation against Opposition MPs. She’s not focused on the job. She’s essentially snookered herself and is using these issues as a reason for avoiding answering questions about the dire state of ACC.
“This is not in the best interests of New Zealanders who deserve to have a fully-functioning accident insurance system and a Minister who is capable of providing the strong leadership needed.
“It’s time for John Key to step in and sort the mess out. He should remove Judith Collins from the portfolio and appoint a Minister who can focus their full attention on turning ACC around,” said Andrew Little.
12 June 2012
Questions to Minister
6. Kevin Hague to the Minister for ACC: Does she have full trust and confidence in John Judge as ACC board chair and, if her confidence is less than full, what is she doing about that?
12. Andrew Little to the Minister for ACC: What actions, apart from inviting or observing inquiries from the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General, has she taken since 12 March 2012 to see that issues arising out of the wrongful disclosure of personal information by the Accident Compensation Corporation to Bronwyn Pullar have been remedied or addressed by the Corporation?
12. Andrew Little to the Minister for ACC: What actions, apart from inviting or observing inquiries from the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General, has she taken since 12 March 2012 to see that issues arising out of the wrongful disclosure of personal information by the Accident Compensation Corporation to Bronwyn Pullar have been remedied or addressed by the Corporation?
11 June 2012
Wider ACC inquiry needed
A press release from the Labour Party by Andrew Little
The Minister of ACC must look at a wider review of the organisation to fix long-standing problems and reassure the public, says Labour’s spokesperson for ACC Andrew Little. His comments follow new revelations in the Bronwyn Pullar case, as discussed on the current affairs programme 60 Minutes, last night.http://www.labour.org.nz/news/wider-acc-inquiry-needed
“The programme revealed that it was ACC managers who raised the issue as to whether the personal details of 6500 ACC claimants, mistakenly sent to Ms Pullar, might be used improperly by her. They sought assurances from Ms Pullar that this would not happen.
“In their report to the Minister of ACC on 16 March, ACC officials said Ms Pullar threatened to disclose the information and prompted the Corporation to refer the matter to the Police.
“The TV programme also showed the difficulties that Ms Pullar has been dealing with in ACC with a medical officer expressing highly prejudicial non-medical views about Bronwyn Pullar’s claim.
“There is enough in the public arena now for the Minister of ACC, Judith Collins, to take action to fix the problems in ACC,” Andrew Little said.
“We know from the swift dismissal by the Police last week of ACC’s complaint, that no threat or extortion took place. Yet the Minister was advised differently.
“The report from ACC to the Minister was clearly wrong and it isn’t credible for ACC’s Chairman and CEO to say otherwise. The Minister has to take action so we can be assured she values accurate advice from the Corporation.
“Judith Collins must consider holding a wider review of the way ACC handles difficult cases.
“I know from the letters and files I am receiving, that Bronwyn Pullar’s case is far from isolated, and many people are having trouble getting the attention they need free from prejudice and the penny-pinching culture of ACC,” Andrew Little said.
18 May 2012
ACC claimant angered by response to blunder
An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806677
ACC's Bronwyn Pullar email blunder was at the lower end of breaches for the individual claimants affected, the Privacy Commission says.© 2012 APN Holdings NZ Ltd
But one angry ACC client says the response minimises the distress caused by the breach. The woman's "sensitive claim" status - identifying her as a victim of rape or sexual abuse - was part of the information mistakenly emailed to Ms Pullar by an ACC manager last year.
The ACC claimant complained to the Privacy Commissioner after the privacy breach involving 6700 claimants was reported in March.
Yesterday, she received a response from assistant Privacy Commissioner Mike Flahive in which he noted the commission was investigating the breach and wider privacy issues at the corporation with the help of accounting firm KPMG and the former Australian Privacy Commissioner Malcolm Crompton.
But later in the letter, Mr Flahive appears to pre-empt the investigation's finding which are not due until June or July.
And while Ms Pullar reportedly described ACC's mistake in emailing her a spreadsheet containing the information about other claimants as New Zealand's "biggest-ever privacy breach", Mr Flahive didn't appear to agree.
"The disclosure of the small amount of information about you, to essentially one other person, is at the lower end of the potential breaches that occur in any agency," he told the claimant.
"The privacy breaches that are being investigated in this instance, while very concerning in an overall information handling context, involve the disclosure of mostly inoffensive information, albeit on a large scale."
Mr Flahive also noted the commission was investigating possible breaches of the Privacy Act by Ms Pullar as well as ACC and he asked the claimant to identify which of those two parties she was complaining against.
The claimant told the Herald she made the complaint because she was angry about what was the latest in a series of breaches of her privacy by ACC.
She was upset by the commission's response to her complaint. "I just feel that they've really minimised it."
She was not seeking compensation, but other claimants who contacted the Herald after the breach said they believed they should receive some.
But Mr Flahive indicated in his letter to the claimant that compensation was unlikely.
"Our experience is that in circumstances such as this data breach, it will be difficult for most subjects of the breach to show that they deserve substantial compensation."
Labour's ACC spokesman, Andrew Little, said he was surprised by Mr Flahive's comments. While most of the claimants affected were probably due no more than an apology, he believed those who had sensitive claims should be entitled to more.
"That is a massive breach of trust. They've been promised by ACC that sensitive claims information would be confined to a small group of specialist people and I think the privacy commissioner's simply wrong on that, and in understating the impact on those claimants of that breach."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10806677
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)