Questions to Ministers

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.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1204/S00034.htm

Accident-prone ACC might face a red card too

An article from the Dominion Post by Dave Armstrong

When Nick Smith announced his local government reforms, it sparked robust debate. Newtown basil growers like me were horrified that funding for our local fire-eating festivals might be cut, yet many Kiwis looked forward to lower rates and a reduction in the bloated salaries of council chief executives.
But then we were distracted by two letters written by him on ministerial letterhead. We were far too busy watching Dr Smith going to Coventry to discuss anything else.
The Opposition flexed its muscles in a way I haven't seen for some time. Union heavy Andrew Little kicked off by calling for Mr Smith's resignation. Then Labour's Grant Robertson and Green MP Kevin Hague tag-teamed as they tackled National on the open and blindside flanks. Mr Robertson called Dr Smith "hopelessly conflicted", and Mr Hague asked some excellent questions about the present culture inside ACC.
Labour leader David Shearer stood at the back of the scrum  with Graham Mourie-like aloofness  overlooking proceedings. He did not immediately call for Dr Smith's resignation but wiffled that an inquiry might be needed. It was only late in the game that he waffled that perhaps Mr Smith should go.
But it was Winston Peters who was the real impact player. Using the protection of parliamentary privilege, he repeatedly eye-gouged the Government with a number of Loe blows, describing the saga of Dr Smith and his friend without ACC benefits as a "shabby case involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest". Now that's a sound bite.
Like any good captain, Prime Minister John Key refused to drop his player over a yellow card, but when a second letter was found, yellow turned to red. Then, and only then, Mr Key decided Dr Smith's behaviour was "sumply not a septible". In a brilliant display of obfuscation, he patiently explained to the waiting hack pack how the damning first letter did not constitute grounds for Smith to resign but the innocuous second letter did.
Nick Smith's blubbing resignation was not pretty. He's been in the place more than 20 years and, though accident-prone, was capable. During the Rena crisis, while surrounded by a swirling sea of incompetence, he stayed positively buoyant.
So will his resignation do any good? Though he had to go, I worry that the Right will use the debacle as an argument to privatise ACC. The organisation is not perfect, but as any Christchurch resident still waiting for the payout on their munted home will tell you, private insurance systems have more than their fair share of faults.
This sad case also smacked of old-fashioned, Tory privilege. There's little fuss when a poor person gets no help from ACC, but when a National Party apparatchik is treated shabbily, the heavy artillery is rolled out. Bronwyn Pullar turning up to a meeting with Michelle Boag as support reminds me of Frank Sinatra getting Ronald Reagan to sign his casino licence. Those ACC officials must have been terrified, knowing that hell hath no fury like the Boagy-woman scorned.
And how on Earth do you send an entire spreadsheet of names by mistake? I admit, a mate of mine occasionally texts me at midnight with requests like "hey babe, you feel like a hot visit" but that's because his girlfriend is right below me on the alphabetical address book of his cellphone. But sending 6000 confidential names containing highly sensitive information to someone with a known grievance with ACC is sumply not a septible.
ACC should be an organisation that helps all New Zealanders, regardless of their political connections. At present, it reminds me of Winz in the dim dark Christine Rankin days when the "clients" seemed to be treated like the enemy rather than people in genuine need.
ACC is a wonderful concept in theory, but those MPs calling for an inquiry are right. Questions need to be asked, and a robust inquiry might make the Accident Compensation Commission a little less accident prone.

© 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Ltd

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/dave-armstrong/6634472/Accident-prone-ACC-might-face-a-red-card-too

Nick Smith bows out as minister

An article from the New Zealand Herald by Amelia Romanos

Close to tears and voice shaking, National MP Nick Smith today announced his resignation from Cabinet in a statement to Parliament. Dr Smith had faced increasing pressure to resign after revelations this week that he intervened in his friend and National Party activist Bronwyn Pullar's ACC claim while he was ACC Minister last year. This afternoon he told Parliament he had tendered his resignation from his roles as Local Government, Environment and Climate Change Minister, and that Prime Minister John Key had accepted.

Dr Nick Smith's speech to Parliament

Dr Smith revealed that, in addition to the reference letter on ministerial letterhead for Ms Pullar, he had signed a second letter relating to her case in which he had not declared his conflict of interest. The second letter referred to was written in 2010, when another MP was advocating for Ms Pullar to Pansy Wong, the then-Associate Minister of ACC.
"Pansy Wong, quite properly said that this was a friend of hers, she was on her campaign committee, and declared a conflict of interest, and referred that letter back to myself," Dr Smith told Parliament.
"ACC prepared a formal response to that letter, I signed out that error back to that constituent without acknowledging that I too had a conflict of interest."
While Dr Smith maintained that he had not tried to interfere in Ms Pullar's claim, he said his decision to resign was the "proper" one.
"It was that second letter in which, having not erred once but erred twice, that has brought about my resignation," he said. "I do accept that the signing of those two letters is not up to the standard this Parliament can rightly expect of its ministers."
Choked up with emotion, Dr Smith offered apologies to the Prime Minister, his caucus, his family and staff.
"It is my intention to serve out this term of Parliament, I love this place," he said. "I'm disappointed I'm not going to be able to continue my work in some of those areas I have a passion, but I apologise to all my fellow representatives for those misjudgments."
There has been speculation that Dr Smith had a sexual relationship with Ms Pullar, but he would not confirm that. Dr Smith told reporters he would not comment on his private life, "except to say that I have a wonderful wife and family".
"I have been absolutely loyal to my wife, and I will be to the end of my days."
Following Dr Smith's announcement, Mr Key said the reference letter his minister had written had been "close to the line", and the second letter had been a step too far.
"It's not just once that he's shown poor judgement, it's twice, and on that basis, it's quite clear he should have made his conflict of interest also known, he shouldn't have had anything to do with the complainant, he should have delegated that responsibility as other ministers do," Mr Key said.
Opposition parties have called for an independent inquiry into Dr Smith's actions, but Mr Key said he did not think one was necessary.
"The Privacy Commissioner and the police are having their inquiries, and they'll carry on in the fullness of time. I haven't seen anything else that strikes me that I don't understand what has gone on in this particular instance," Mr Key said.
Labour leader David Shearer criticised Mr Key's handling of the situation, saying he should have asked for Dr Smith's resignation yesterday, and that he was using the second letter as a smoke screen.
"He had enough information and enough cause to sack Nick Smith yesterday but he failed to do so, this is not living up to his high standards," Mr Shearer said. "That first letter was a clear breach of Cabinet guidelines, Nick Smith was in fact advocating for a friend in his position as a minister and it was completely wrong."
Mr Key said Gerry Brownlee, Craig Foss and Chris Finlayson would act in Dr Smith's local government, climate change issues and environment portfolios respectively, until a permanent appointment was made. Mr Key said it was possible that Dr Smith could be reinstated as a minister in the future, but there had been no deal made to bring him back.
Dr Smith today revealed that, in addition to the reference letter on ministerial letterhead for Ms Pullar, he had signed a second letter relating to her case in which he had not declared his conflict of interest. The second letter was written in 2010, when another MP was advocating for Pullar to Pansy Wong, the then-Associate Minister of ACC.
Dr Smith is the third minister in Mr Key's Government to lose their portfolios for misuse of their position or improper conduct. Internal Affairs Minister Richard Worth lost his job in 2009 following a sex scandal while Ethnic Affairs Minister Pansy Wong resigned after the Auditor General found she and her husband misused ministerial travel funding. A fourth minister, former Fisheries Minister Phil Heatley lost his portfolio in early 2010 for misusing his ministerial credit card but was later reinstated following an investigation by the Auditor General.
Earlier today, Mr Key was backing Dr Smith, maintaining that Dr Smith's July 2011 letter on ministerial letterhead was lapse of judgement but not a serious matter. Mr Key was refusing to comment on speculation about the exact nature of Dr Smith and Ms Pullar's relationship but said he was satisfied with Dr Smith's account of events.

© 2012 APN Holdings NZ Ltd

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10793534

Questions to Minister

2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he expect all his Ministers to comply with the responsibilities set out in the Cabinet Manual?



Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. Ministers are expected to comply with the guidance set out in the Cabinet Manual and to seek advice from the Secretary of the Cabinet as necessary.
David Shearer: Did he ask Nick Smith to resign; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; the Minister offered his resignation, and I accepted his resignation because, as the Minister said himself, he exercised poor judgment in supporting an ACC claimant while he was Minister for ACC.
David Shearer: When did he first become aware of Nick Smith having written inappropriate letters on behalf of his friend Bronwyn Pullar?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first letter—the reference—I was made aware of on Monday evening, and the second letter, the one that the Minister made reference to in the House today, which was back to another former member of Parliament, I was made aware of this morning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did the Prime Minister, or those in his office, know of Ms Pullar’s frustration with ACC, that she was pressing his Minister for help, and that Dr Smith had told Ms Pullar that his helping would be inappropriate? When did he first learn of that?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to answer that question. I simply do not know. I know the claimant, and in my early days as a member of Parliament I was aware, right back then, that she was frustrated with ACC. I understand she has sent significant correspondence to ACC over the years, but I am not in a position to know when the Minister was first made aware. You would need to put that question to, I guess, the ACC office.
David Shearer: Does he still stand by his statement yesterday: “If you are going to sack Ministers for what I think he would accept as an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one, you’d be sacking a lot of ministers.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and that was because in relation to the first error of judgment, when the Minister wrote a reference for the claimant, although I consider that to be unwise, and although I consider that to be an error in judgment, I did not consider it, on balance, in relation to everything else the Minister had done to be a sacking offence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Prime Minister cause to be released the long trail of emails and correspondence between Dr Smith and Ms Pullar; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to release those particular four letters. The member, if he wants any other correspondence, should ask for it under the Official Information Act.
David Shearer: Does he still believe, in light of today’s events, that this is “an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one,”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I consider the first instance to be exactly that. I consider the second to be one too many.
Kevin Hague: Does the Prime Minister stand by the repeated assurances given in this House yesterday by the Minister for ACC, Judith Collins, that the matters concerning Dr Smith’s conduct will be covered by the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation, given that it is now clear that those matters fall well outside the powers and functions of the Privacy Commissioner?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is at the risk of paraphrasing the Minister, but anyway, if the member is asking whether there will be any further inquiry, I have not seen any information that would indicate to me a further inquiry is necessary. There are inquiries that will be undertaken by the police and the Privacy Commissioner, but I do not see the need for any further inquiry.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1203/S00284.htm

Has Key avoided a Darren Hughes moment?

An article from the National Business Review by Bryce Edwards

This afternoon Nick Smith told Parliament that he resigned all of his ministerial portfolios this morning following two errors of judgement regarding Bronwyn Pullar’s ACC case.
In delaying Smith’s resignation, did John Key risk making the same mistake with Nick Smith that Phil Goff made with Darren Hughes? Only this morning, Adam Bennett reported that Key was backing Smith, although the Prime Minister had said ‘that may change’ – see: Key backing Nick Smith – for now.
Pressure was rapidly mounting on Smith over his reference for his friend Bronwyn Pullar and Tracy Watkins argued that Key’s continued backing of Smith would come back to haunt him, particularly as there is the possibility of further revelations – see: Nick Smith's letter a step too far.
The issue had taken on all the ingredients of a classic political scandal which, as Vernon Small reports, Winston Peters was taking full advantage of. In parliament yesterday Peters described it as ‘a shabby little case, involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest’ – see: Calls for Nick Smith's head over ACC. That prompted media to further question Smith on the exact nature of his relationship with Bronwyn Pullar, which he has so far refused to elaborate on.
Smith’s mistakes are bad enough, but the involvement of Pullar – a former National party official – and high-profile ex-party president Michelle Boag, add to the perception that the National Party is involved in cronyism or even corruption. This is the word that John Armstrong uses when he suggests that Smith should have at least offered to resign yesterday – see: Nats left wide open on ACC fiasco.
The chorus calling for Smith to resign, or at least be stood down pending an investigation, extended beyond the usual suspects on the Opposition benches. The Herald editorial (see: Apology not enough for Smith's folly) points out that a minister was suspended during the first term for charging two bottles of wine to a ministerial credit card.
Duncan Garner argues the 20-year veteran minister should have known better and advised Key to Sack Smith Now. Right-wing blogger Cathy Odgers knows Pullar personally and has a very sympathetic analysis of the situation but is nevertheless adamant that Smith had to go. She said that with Winston Peters having so much ammunition ‘something has to give’ – see: Another Reason To Privatise ACC.
The task of defending Smith and Key seems to fall solely on David Farrar (see: The ACC saga), who also praised David Shearer for not immediately demanding Smith’s resignation. Patrick Gower, however, has a different take, saying that Shearer mistakenly allowed other Opposition spokespeople, including other Labour MPs, to make the running in the twelve hours after the Herald broke the story. Gower argues that, despite Shearer trying to cultivate an anti-politician image, sometimes being Opposition leader ‘means putting a bullet in the gun. And firing it. Or someone else – one of the other Opposition leaders – will do the job’ – see: Shearer's shocker on Nick Smith scandal.
Scandals like this not only impact on those directly involved, but can tarnish a party’s image and, as Phil Goff found last year, dent a leader’s credibility if they are seen as indecisive and only responding to political fallout, rather than doing the right thing in the first place.

Copyright 2012 National Business Review

Read the rest of this article here.

Nick Smith under mounting pressure over ACC letter

A news report from TVNZ

Government Minister Nick Smith's response in the ACC privacy scandal is finding short shrift with his political opponents.
Smith has admitted writing a letter supporting the ACC claim of former National Party official, Bronwyn Pullar, while he was the minister for the agency, on his ministerial letterhead. He said he regretted doing so and it was an error of judgement, and has apologised to Prime Minister John Key.
A spokesman for Smith said the minister was friends with Pullar, who was injured in a cycling accident in 2002. Smith had written a reference for Pullar last July in a personal capacity. The letter was to be used for medical assessment but Smith was unaware whether it had been used to support Pullar's case for ACC compensation.
But Labour's ACC Spokesman Andrew Little said Smith knew what he was doing and he should not be allowed to continue in his current role as minister for Climate Change, Environment and Local Government. "It was an artful letter from a minister that knew exactly what he was doing," he told TV ONE's Breakfast.
"He was trying to use his ministerial influence to get a decision in favour of someone who was a friend of his - you just don't do that as a a minister and he knows that."
Little said Smith should not be trusted with the huge responsibility of managing reforms of local government as he has shown his decision making is not reliable. "I think Nick Smith has acted in a way that shows he's not fit to be in cabinet, he is a long standing MP, a seasoned cabinet minister," he said.
"He knows where the boundaries are and he has tried to curry favour for a close personal friend and the department for which he is responsible and that is not acceptable for a minister".

Shabby case
NZ First leader Winston Peters used Parliamentary privilege yesterday to claim it was "a shabby case involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest".
Responding to the claim Smith became emotional when telling media he was happy to answer questions about his public life, but not his personal life. He said he has a wonderful wife who he has been loyal to during the entire period of his marriage, and will be loyal to until the day he dies. The couple married in 2009.
Pullar was also inadvertently emailed the names and details of thousands of ACC clients, including about 250 sensitive sexual abuse cases.
ACC has laid a complaint over Pullar, who it has accused of threatening to go public about being sent the confidential information unless ACC promised to pay her a benefit for two years.
Yesterday Peters along with Labour's David Shearer and Grant Robertson called on Smith to resign over the issue.

© 2012 Television New Zealand Ltd

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/nick-smith-under-mounting-pressure-over-acc-letter-4788009

'Sex' claim, calls mount for inquiry on Nick Smith

An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett

Pressure is mounting on Prime Minister John Key to authorise a formal inquiry into former ACC Minister Nick Smith's involvement in his friend Bronwyn Pullar's case amid speculation about the past nature of their friendship.
During a snap debate in Parliament, NZ First leader Winston Peters called for Dr Smith to resign or be removed from Cabinet, describing the furore as "a shabby little case involving blackmail, sex, a minister with a conflict of interest".
And Opposition leader David Shearer last night called for Dr Smith to resign or be sacked for trying to influence ACC's treatment of Ms Pullar.
The Greens called for Auditor General Lyn Provost to investigate the matter, and said Dr Smith should be stood down until that is completed.
Ms Pullar is the former National Party activist who was accidentally sent information about 6700 other ACC claimants, including data which identified some as making "sensitive claims" for injuries resulting from rape or other forms of sexual assault. It has emerged that following an approach she made to an ACC board member, she had a December meeting with two senior managers at which, ACC alleges, she threatened to go public about the breach of privacy unless she received a guaranteed two year benefit. Her support person at that meeting was former National Party president Michelle Boag.
Ms Pullar has denied ACC's allegations and the matter is now being investigated by the police.
Following Mr Peters' statement in Parliament, Dr Smith refused to comment on speculation about his past relationship with Ms Pullar. "I'm just not commenting on my private life," he said. He initially indicated to the Herald that the letter he wrote in July last year in which he vouched for Ms Pullar's capabilities before a 2002 bicycle accident which left her with head injuries was on plain paper suggesting it was written in a personal capacity. But yesterday he said he'd obtained a copy of the letter and it was written on ministerial letterhead.
Dr Smith said he did not seek to influence any ACC staff member in relation to the case but accepted that anyone reading the letter would be mindful of his role as ACC Minister and may have been influenced by it for that reason.
Mr Key has accepted Dr Smith's apology for his behaviour and continues to back him.
Meanwhile, Mr Shearer, who initially said he wanted to know the full facts about Dr Smith's letter before passing judgment, late yesterday said he had now reviewed what was known about the incident. "I believe the only appropriate course of action is for him to resign. If he does not do so, John Key should remove him."

© 2012 APN Holdings NZ Ltd

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10793479

Smith’s letter means he needs to go

A press release from the Labour Party by David Shearer

Labour Leader David Shearer says Government minister Nick Smith has acted inappropriately in trying to influence the case of a long-term ACC complainant, and should resign.
“The extent of Mr Smith’s wrongdoing has become clearer over the course of the day. First thing this morning he was saying he had done nothing wrong. Three hours later he was apologising for a lapse of judgement.
“A reading of the letter he wrote on behalf of former National Party official, Bronwyn Pullar, shows it was much more than a lapse of judgement. He was trying to influence her case,” David Shearer said.
“He discussed in the letter her ability to work prior to her accident and said he was providing the information ‘for comparative assessment’ of her medical condition.
“This was done on Ministerial letterhead that drew attention to Nick Smith’s role as the then Minister for ACC.
“This is a breach of the Cabinet manual and had the potential to compromise the work of ACC.
“Earlier today I said a Minister behaving like Nick Smith would not serve in a Cabinet I run. Having now reviewed the text of Nick Smith’s letter, I believe the only appropriate course of action is for him to resign.
“If he does not do so, John Key should remove him,” David Shearer said.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1203/S00261/smiths-letter-means-he-needs-to-go.htm

David Shearer calls for full inquiry

An article from Scoop by Mark P Williams

David Shearer today called for an inquiry into the matter of former ACC Minister Nick Smith writing a personal refrerence for the ACC on his ministerial letterhead. He called Nick Smith's actions a clear conflict of interest and said that he expected that the Prime Minister would provide a full inquiry.
He stated that he had not yet heard the full background facts of the case and added that he would like an inquiry into how the initial leak happened.
He went on to question the new Local Government Bill, calling the definitions of social provision 'ad hoc' and called the proposals 'contradictory'. He also suggested that the proposed measures would impose 'inappropriate' amalgamations on some local government authorities.
The Press Gallery asked:
- What he thought the appropriate response to Nick Smith's actions
- Whether he felt there was more to the events surrounding the ACC leak than had yet emerged
- What activities he felt local government ought not to be involved in
- Whether councils should bail out broke rugby unions
- His view on state asset sales and the new Mixed Ownership Model

© 2012 Scoop Media

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1203/S00182/david-shearer-calls-for-full-inquiry.htm

Minister's ACC letter 'stupid' - Shearer

An article from the New Zealand Herald by Adam Bennett

Labour leader David Shearer says he would expect any minister in a Government he led to step down if they made the same error of judgement former ACC Minister Nick Smith did in writing a reference to a friend who was pursuing a claim with the corporation. However, he stopped short of calling for Dr Smith's resignation this afternoon, saying an independent inquiry was now required to establish the facts of the matter.
Dr Smith this morning said a reference he'd written for his friend and National Party insider Bronwyn Pullar in July last year while he was ACC Minister and as she was trying to secure entitlements from the agency, was on his ministerial letterhead. Dr Smith says it was an "error of judgement" which he regretted and for which he'd apologised to Prime Minister John Key.
Mr Shearer said Dr Smith's actions were "incredibly unwise, incredibly stupid" and "highly inappropriate".
"He's clearly stepped over the line in terms of a conflict of interest."
If the facts as they appeared with regard to Dr Smith applied to a minister in a Government led by Mr Shearer, "he would step down", Mr Shearer said. At this point the full facts were not available, "but what I do know is that he made a statement on radio this morning saying he'd done nothing wrong. Now he's apologising to the Prime Minister. Clearly there was something wrong there."
Mr Shearer said the public deserved a full inquiry into the matter including how Ms Pullar was accidentally sent information about 6700 other ACC claimants, including data which identified some as making "sensitive claims" for injuries resulting from rape or other forms of sexual assault.
The letter followed a long string of emails from Ms Pullar to Dr Smith seeking his help with claim, including one in late 2010 where she warned him she intended exposing corruption and policies at ACC intended to reduce costs at the expense of claimant's entitlements.
ACC alleges Ms Pullar tried at a meeting with senior managers in December to secure benefit entitlements for two years as a trade-off for returning the information. Her friend, former National Party president Michelle Boag, was her support person at the meeting.
The Herald was told of the reference from Dr Smith by a woman who said she was an ACC claimant, and who said she was resentful at what appeared to be preferential treatment.
"Why did Dr Nick Smith ever write her a letter in his capacity as ACC Minister on Parliamentary letterhead?
"Us claimants who do have problems and issues over a long period of time, we don't get to use high powered people, we don't get to have meetings with senior managers or the board."
Dr Smith said he did not seek to influence any ACC staff member in relation to her case but this morning accepted that anyone reading the letter would be mindful of his role as ACC Minister and may have been influenced by it for that reason.
"In hindsight, even providing that was inappropriate and if I had my time again I would have not have sent that letter."
He said Ms Pullar was a friend and the only information he provided in the letter was in relation to her condition prior to her cycling accident.

APOLOGY TO PM
Dr Smith has apologised to Prime Minister John Key.
Mr Key said he agreed it was an error of judgment but he had accepted Dr Smith's apology. "It's important ministers act in a way that can't be construed as a conflict of interest."
He said Dr Smith had otherwise dealt with his potential conflict of interest well. He had consistently disclosed his friendship with Ms Pullar in all ACC dealings and otherwise distanced himself from her case.
Asked if Ms Pullar had used her National Party connections to boost her case with ACC, Mr Key said if she had it clearly hadn't worked given Ms Pullar was unhappy with the level of support ACC provided her.

LETTER WRITTEN AS A 'FRIEND'
Dr Smith said the letter was written last July in his capacity as Ms Pullar's friend.
"Ministers still have friends and providing there is no inappropriate influence, it is quite appropriate for them to provide information or evidence for medical assessments and other legal processes."
Last night he'd told the Herald his "best recollection" was that the letter was written on plain paper.
Dr Smith said Ms Pullar had emailed him many times seeking his intervention in her case after he became minister in 2008 but he had declined saying it would be inappropriate.

'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' - LABOUR
Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson said that as Dr Smith was ACC Minister at the time he wrote the letter, he was was "hopelessly conflicted".
"It would seem to me to be highly inappropriate for the minister to be providing a reference such as this."
Earlier yesterday Mr Key confirmed he, too, knew Ms Pullar and met her when he entered politics, shortly after the bicycle accident in which she suffered head injuries. "For a number of years she had mentioned to me, when I was at events, her frustration with ACC, so it was well known."
Mr Key did not believe it was inappropriate for Ms Boag to act as Ms Pullar's support person during the December meeting with ACC officials Philip Murch and Hans Verberne.
ACC's account of the affair has been disputed by Ms Pullar and Ms Boag.

MATTER REFERRED TO POLICE
ACC has now given its files on the matter to the police. A spokesman confirmed the matter was now under investigation, but could give no timeline on when any assessment would be completed.
Ms Pullar yesterday denied ACC's allegations. "I made no threats and no demands of ACC," she said. "I made no threats and no demands for return of the information. I did not threaten ACC that I would inform the media of the alleged privacy issue. I did not threaten ACC to get my own way in any way.
"ACC were advised the file had been sent by one of their staff.
"The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how ACC could most effectively support my rehabilitation and return to work."

© 2012 APN Holdings NZ Ltd

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10793260